Microtransactions in an early access game... That also had a kick-starter campaign. Keep criticizing dude. These devs pushed this as an evolution of the RTS genre, and it's just not. The polish isnt there. Where did the money go??
They though when they take SC2 or Craft Games as a foundation and improve the 1-2 big disadvantages of SC2 and add some smaller improvements it will be enough to create a successful rts. The problem is that the foundation of Craft Games is overrated. Besides the standard stuff like good sound, graphic, controls, comfort features, pathing etc... ... what was cool about SC? --> Story, universe, 3 totally different factions ... what was cool about WC --> Story, universe, 4 totally different factions and the many funmaps So the gameplay of SC2 and WC3 1v1 match making etc. was always cool for a little group of good players. SC2 is played by causals just in the CooP, singleplayer and funmaps. So for the majority of players the 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4 multiplayer were never interesting. But they want the majority of players and that are the casual players. In Age Games more causal players play 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 match making, because it is more fun. There are almost no modded funmaps in Age and the ones who exist are not played a lot. Why its more fun? Because the diversity is much bigger because of several mechanics that are not existing in Craft games like: - more complex resource system (more different resources and more different ways to get them) - different win conditions, - walls (flexible map manipulation. Destructible rocks and trees are not flexible) + too many cliffs reduce the ways how a map can be played, - map variety through (procedural generated maps, not always cliffs, water maps (island maps, team island maps,), nomad maps etc. - more factions with more different win strategies and mechanics Why funmaps are so important? --> Because of the bigger diversity. The funmaps brought the players to the Craft games, because the Craft-Games standard competetive multiplayer experience can't! Why SC2 CooP Commander was successful? --> Because of the bigger diversity. More different Heroes, units, abilities, challenges etc. Stormgate needs besides all the other stuff like story, bugs, performance, factions and unit design etc. more diversity through procedural generated maps, more complex economy and more map manipulation tools like walls to close and open paths flexible on the whole map. Because of the same reason they need at least one resource that can be build flexible on the map and not only on fixed locations. The Craft resource system is boring. The Craft map design (structure wise) is very limited and boring. (Always cliffs around almost each base and sometimes 1 or 2 entries.) If the unit design, lore and atmosphere of SC and WC wouldn't be good there would be almost nothing left to like. People don't like SC or WC for the big variation of maps (structure wise) or the resource system or the ways how they can manipulate the maps that leads to diverse experiences on the same map. To give your one example why all of this is true. Imagine there will be a map where is everything filled with trees in Stormgate, except of a few ways to the opponent and some resources and a little space around your base. This map many people will like because you can build your own paths through the trees and every match will feel more different as the current maps because the paths, created by the players, will be different. The same is true for walls instead of using indestructable cliffs. They added trees because destructable cliffs are more interesting than indestructable cliffs. They not really recognized that this is the real reason why they added this. What they though were "Would be cool to open up paths to resources and or the opponent during one match." That is the reason they have seen to add destructable trees. But they haven’t thought far enough what the real reason is behind it. The real reason is they want the map can change during a match so maps feel more different and the experience is more unique and more different things can happen in matches and even on the same map. So to build walls will be a much better solution for this than trees and cliffs. Because players can wall paths where they want and can not only be destroyed like trees to open up paths, but also be build to close paths so the situation on the map can be changed even more and even more often. Because the same trees can just be cutted ones. One another idea would be to have powerplants oder something similiar that can just deliver power for a limited amount of structures nearby or in a bit further away. So you can really have a strategy game where you can plan your attacks. For example there are some powerplants that give energy to some defensive structures. So you can try to destroy the powerplants so the defensive structures will not work anymore or until the defensive player has manually switched the energy supply from one structure to another. So energy feels more like a resource you have to care about and opponents can stress you out by destroy or manipulate your energy supply. Or you have a radar structure that show you just a circle around the radar on the minimap and the rest of the minimap is black. Doesn't matter if you have units in the dark. You can't see them on the minimap until you have a radar structure nearby or a radar vehicle etc. So there would be a lot ideas how you can make it more diverse. For examples one faction can have a general ability to put a flying drone on the map like USA in C&C Generals and there you have vision on the minimap like there would be a radar structure. So there are a lot of cool ideas you can play around with to make it more diverse and more like a real time strategy game. So to think a Craft-like game or how Frost Giant call it a Blizzard like rts will be the next big rts will fail. It will never be the next big rts that is played by 100.000 and more players in the competetive multiplayer, because it never wasn't. The funmaps, the story (singleplayer) and the atmosphere through sound and graphic design were the factors of the success. And all is missing in Stormgate too, so it is no suprise that nobody likes this game. Almost no causal player play SC1, SC2 or WC3 competetive. And especially not in 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4 games for fun. Even in C&C Generals they do that more often for fun. And also there they added with the addon 3 additional generals per faction to have more diversity. The same they did in SC2 Coop.
Really interesting breakdown of why Blizzard RTS games were successful vs competitors and a new take I haven't seen on why Stormgate isn't having that large competitive multiplayer scene that it desperately wants.
They can do a 180. (but they won't bother spending the time or the resources) - Redesign the races from the ground up (choose what you want to be , Starcraft or Warcraft) (god if they need ideas the community can give them plenty - or just go with bannal Terrain against some type of Zerg against some type of alien tech race - that doesn't look like a race of random shapes) - Redesign the art from the ground up - make it more dark-grim-bloody..etc - Redesign all the sounds - Redesign the UI - Remove all the monetization until the full release of the game. (there are barely any players - focusing on monetization is wrong af) - Make a solid, long free campaign. - Make a solid set of Co-Op settings, with at least 1 free commander for each race. - add new commanders based on campaign characters after.
This is the path I thought they'd originally take and it's a shame they've gone all in on the live-service model in a genre that doesn't really work for it.
Nail on the head. I debated getting early access, but just waiting for it's early access free release. If I had payed to get in early I would absolutely demand a refund and I would be so damn pissed. Luckily I waited and am only marginally pissed. Paying for a hero were sc2 had more depth and hours of play for less is absurd. Paying for mission should be punishable by jail time.
Again, we'll see how it ends up. Right now if they continue pushing what should be free updates out for $9 a pop then this game might never come back from the spiral it's in.
you have a good speaking tone and voice, and express your thoughts clearly. I don't know why you video was suggested to me but I enjoyed hearing your thoughts here. subbed
Nothing more disappointing than wasted potential. And that's what it seems like here. I think a lack of focus did stormgate in. They initially talked a lot about campaign and the importance of 3v3 for casual players etc.. but then all the focus in EA seems to be 1v1 competitive.
I am but since I don't make shit from the channel my money is limited. I do my research and check reviews for possible RTS games I can play. When I already own and love the campaign for Starcraft 2 I'll probably be back on that.
All good points. Media of all kinds evolves and changes. Movies are changing. People’s attentions are in VR and mobile and it’s so much harder to find an audience for anything because everyone is into specific things for how they spend their time. I don’t envy devs.
It has to be hard and the hope I have for Stormgate is that the response from people in what they love and want improved goes into making a game designed for the community rather than for a potential audience. Which it what it is right now.
The graphics are completely night and day compared to what they were before. The whole lighting direction has changed and the terrains got an update. When you say things like the only place you can see it is Amaras face, I just can't take you seriously because your either being disingenuous or you're blind, it could be either so it's not a big deal, you're just wrong. There's a lot of balance changes this update too, dogs got nerfed hugely, infernals play different needing more shroud, spriggans got updated, bigger units can push things better. Did you even bother to read the patch notes or did you just ignore them or are you new and don't know how to play RTS? The monetisation is the basic way to make money, it's literally the fairest way they can do it while keeping the core multiplayer vs mode free while also keeping it fairly surface level, buy some skins, buy some pets, buy some HUD graphics, map filters, campaign stories. It's such a fair way to do it in a free to play game. For battle pass they will have warchests which is kind of the same thing, different tiers with unlocks full of stuff for the races. If you want the game to be free they need to monetise on that stuff, campaign, skins, pets, fog of war, , warchests, HUDs because it's fair. You don't have to buy it but atleast you will get to play the core game modes for free 100% 3v3 for the heroes is also really important because they've said thats going to be a main mode. Whether you need to buy all the heroes for that we will have to see first. We can call it a gimmick, but we don't know what it's going to be about. They want to solve the issue that multiplayer team games in RTS are usually shit, if they can make a good objective mode that feels good for everyone then that's surely a good thing? Anyway, the first update was huge, we got a new hero, custom game modes, loads and loads of balance changes, updates to the art, changes to creeps, map removals and updates. You can't expect the developers to fix the whole game within a month. If you think that they you're probably in the wrong space to be talking about the games concerns because that shows how clueless you are. The game has a long way to go and yes at this current point, there's a real good chance the game will fail if the community keep rejecting it or talking baseless nonsense like you were because it just feeds down into people and they'll ignore it. If it's not in a state for you yet then fair enough come back later, give your feedback and move on, but honestly the game will die at this rate and it won't be developers fault it will be the players in the community and we'll have to go back to playing a dead game like starcraft 2, but that's just the way it is I suppose, if it's not meant to work out then we'll just have to go somewhere else and we'll eventually run out of chances.
Firstly, I never said I expected them to fix it all in a month that's insane and disingenuous. You treat the game both in a way where it's still in development and we should give it the benefit of the doubt whilst also saying that despite their incredibly lucrative kickstarter round they should be removed from criticism of their current model of microtransactions because there is a perception they need the money. I would prefer at this point the game not have any microtransactions but only playable for those who buy it and want to be part of the development. I've said the game itself is fun but that means nothing if the overall direction is led towards milking as much money as possible. No game is free of criticism not even ones I want to succeed like this. If you watched the entire video then you'll know that I want this game to work and I'm not milking the drama for the sake of it. I will give the developers time to make fixes, add polish and return to see what happens. If I return in a few months and there are only minor changes, gamemodes that aren't fleshed out and a tonne more microtransactions then everything I fear for this game will have come to pass.
@@just-a-simple-mirage No but still you said you're underwhelmed with their first monthly update, though I've stated it was actually quite huge for what they've done in the time given, all while shifting priorities because people are complaining. Isn't it obvious that they need money? All development studios do, especially when the game is a live service one, so that doesn't make much sense does it. It would be even worse limiting the playerbase at this stage when they want the community to help iterate on the game through rapid feedback to help it get to a good state as fast as possible. They have to start somewhere and that's their monetisation model, sc2 does it now, many other free games are doing it because it's best practice for them to get money, you may not like it but it's been proven for them and isn't without it's flaws for the players. I addressed all your points so yeah I did watch the entire thing. You're right no game should be free of criticism, but what value are you actually adding when your criticism is either wrong or baseless? This isn't a buy to play game, it's a free game, don't expect to be given unlocks and hidden things like games of past, they will add random things for people to spend on, whether that's heroes, skins, campaign updates, you name it, you will have to pay for solo play experiences, warchests and all cosmetics. This is how they work. Like I've said the update was actually so huge, the dogs got nerfed, the balance got better, the visuals got better, we got a new game mode, push priority for bigger units, creep changes, so what's the point in being negative when your criticism is wrong? I personally don't think this game will survive anymore the way the community has turned it's back on it and that's not the developers fault. I like it because it's like starcraft 2 but actually getting updated and has loads of potential, but even though it's an early access game the game is still technically out so they can use their model now. Come back in a few months and see if it's better for you, but you know in october the 3v3 mode will not be finished, aand you know there will be more microtransactions so it's really up to you at the end of the day. Just be honest and if it's not for you because of those things then fair enough, it doesn't mean it's the wrong approach, others will see the same thing and the game will die.
@@DrawAndErase It's clear you're an avid supporter of the game and I'm truly glad you enjoy it. I don't appreciate the insults though, especially when I made it clear that I'm not looking to hate on the game because I dislike it, in fact as I've stated several times I enjoy the core loop itself. I don't think this game will die because of the community reaction, if anything the way people are making their voices heard about the actual game itself has already seen positive changes you've pointed out with changes to the graphics and lighting. Changes I couldn't see when I was playing which led to most of the update being to me underwhelming and mostly a dud. Their model of egregious microtransactions and their pricing I will call out though, especially since their model doesn't seem to be on the good faith Warchests they floated in the subreddit before the Kickstarter but rather mobile game level shenanigans. If the message of this Early Access is to show what they plan to do upon full release then it is currently one of incremental changes mixed in with over-priced cosmetic and pay-to-win features. That is a direction I cannot support, especially not in Early Access where balance changes happen so frequently a player's monetary purchase could be invalidated in one patch to promote the next purchasable hero. I do encourage you to continue speaking out against hate for hate's sake as I think the game should have a future. But don't mistake me for disliking the game because I'm criticising their exploitative business model.
@@just-a-simple-mirage I'm actually not really an avid supporter of the game, I just understand how their iterative process works and I think being honest, actually talking and telling the truth is better than lying. It's hard to know when something is bad faith or not and I didn't mean to insult, it was just either a couple of possibilities because it's quite obvious the work they've put into the game, including the huge balance changes. For example people were really shocked how different the game looks now and to not see it, well yeah it could be a number of things such as blindness or something else, so sorry. I understand about the microtransactions, it's pretty similar to how starcraft f2p works now and other multiplayer games, and yes this is their monetisation model straight up. You will have to buy everything. I also understand if that's not what you want then you're never going to like that model because it's the easiest way for them to make money on a live service game and if you're into co-op and single player then those are the ways they will try to make players part with their cash the quickest. I don't agree that balance changes targetting new heroes is a bad thing for people who buy them. That's part of balancing a live service game and there will be times when your hero is strong or weak in the meta, that's just the nature of it which can sometimes be necessary to change a stale meta or to give agency to previous weaker heroes among the rest. I don't know what will happen with 3v3 but if you have to buy heroes then that will be a problem. Live service games do it, it's just part of these type of free 2 play games which have their flaws. I know you don't dislike the game, I was just trying to say your takes were wrong which I stand by and hopefully you get why, but you have every right to criticise the monetisation model plauging free 2 play games. It's designed to make people spend over time or quickly, if you can't get down with it then it's always going to be an issue. I personally can't see much of a way forward anymore for this game. People are using their voices in a way that breeds negativity and drives people away because of bad comms and not expecting an in development game to be in development. Visuals come last in the development process and now they're changing their roadmaps and shifting things in the wrong order to try and keep players who are rejecting the game. It's a lose lose situation really.
Microtransactions in an early access game... That also had a kick-starter campaign.
Keep criticizing dude. These devs pushed this as an evolution of the RTS genre, and it's just not. The polish isnt there. Where did the money go??
I hate being the negative person but it's incredibly egregious and very manipulative of them. I hope to see the money show up in the updates to come.
They meant next-gen monetization.
Free 2 Play RTS is not the way! Just give ppl a good campaign with epic cut scenes like Dawn Of War 2!
They though when they take SC2 or Craft Games as a foundation and improve the 1-2 big disadvantages of SC2 and add some smaller improvements it will be enough to create a successful rts. The problem is that the foundation of Craft Games is overrated.
Besides the standard stuff like good sound, graphic, controls, comfort features, pathing etc...
... what was cool about SC? --> Story, universe, 3 totally different factions
... what was cool about WC --> Story, universe, 4 totally different factions and the many funmaps
So the gameplay of SC2 and WC3 1v1 match making etc. was always cool for a little group of good players. SC2 is played by causals just in the CooP, singleplayer and funmaps. So for the majority of players the 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4 multiplayer were never interesting. But they want the majority of players and that are the casual players. In Age Games more causal players play 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 match making, because it is more fun. There are almost no modded funmaps in Age and the ones who exist are not played a lot.
Why its more fun?
Because the diversity is much bigger because of several mechanics that are not existing in Craft games like:
- more complex resource system (more different resources and more different ways to get them)
- different win conditions,
- walls (flexible map manipulation. Destructible rocks and trees are not flexible) + too many cliffs reduce the ways how a map can be played,
- map variety through (procedural generated maps, not always cliffs, water maps (island maps, team island maps,), nomad maps etc.
- more factions with more different win strategies and mechanics
Why funmaps are so important? --> Because of the bigger diversity.
The funmaps brought the players to the Craft games, because the Craft-Games standard competetive multiplayer experience can't!
Why SC2 CooP Commander was successful? --> Because of the bigger diversity.
More different Heroes, units, abilities, challenges etc.
Stormgate needs besides all the other stuff like story, bugs, performance, factions and unit design etc. more diversity through procedural generated maps, more complex economy and more map manipulation tools like walls to close and open paths flexible on the whole map. Because of the same reason they need at least one resource that can be build flexible on the map and not only on fixed locations.
The Craft resource system is boring.
The Craft map design (structure wise) is very limited and boring. (Always cliffs around almost each base and sometimes 1 or 2 entries.)
If the unit design, lore and atmosphere of SC and WC wouldn't be good there would be almost nothing left to like. People don't like SC or WC for the big variation of maps (structure wise) or the resource system or the ways how they can manipulate the maps that leads to diverse experiences on the same map.
To give your one example why all of this is true. Imagine there will be a map where is everything filled with trees in Stormgate, except of a few ways to the opponent and some resources and a little space around your base. This map many people will like because you can build your own paths through the trees and every match will feel more different as the current maps because the paths, created by the players, will be different. The same is true for walls instead of using indestructable cliffs.
They added trees because destructable cliffs are more interesting than indestructable cliffs. They not really recognized that this is the real reason why they added this. What they though were "Would be cool to open up paths to resources and or the opponent during one match." That is the reason they have seen to add destructable trees. But they haven’t thought far enough what the real reason is behind it. The real reason is they want the map can change during a match so maps feel more different and the experience is more unique and more different things can happen in matches and even on the same map. So to build walls will be a much better solution for this than trees and cliffs. Because players can wall paths where they want and can not only be destroyed like trees to open up paths, but also be build to close paths so the situation on the map can be changed even more and even more often. Because the same trees can just be cutted ones.
One another idea would be to have powerplants oder something similiar that can just deliver power for a limited amount of structures nearby or in a bit further away. So you can really have a strategy game where you can plan your attacks. For example there are some powerplants that give energy to some defensive structures. So you can try to destroy the powerplants so the defensive structures will not work anymore or until the defensive player has manually switched the energy supply from one structure to another. So energy feels more like a resource you have to care about and opponents can stress you out by destroy or manipulate your energy supply.
Or you have a radar structure that show you just a circle around the radar on the minimap and the rest of the minimap is black. Doesn't matter if you have units in the dark. You can't see them on the minimap until you have a radar structure nearby or a radar vehicle etc. So there would be a lot ideas how you can make it more diverse. For examples one faction can have a general ability to put a flying drone on the map like USA in C&C Generals and there you have vision on the minimap like there would be a radar structure. So there are a lot of cool ideas you can play around with to make it more diverse and more like a real time strategy game.
So to think a Craft-like game or how Frost Giant call it a Blizzard like rts will be the next big rts will fail. It will never be the next big rts that is played by 100.000 and more players in the competetive multiplayer, because it never wasn't. The funmaps, the story (singleplayer) and the atmosphere through sound and graphic design were the factors of the success. And all is missing in Stormgate too, so it is no suprise that nobody likes this game.
Almost no causal player play SC1, SC2 or WC3 competetive. And especially not in 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4 games for fun. Even in C&C Generals they do that more often for fun. And also there they added with the addon 3 additional generals per faction to have more diversity. The same they did in SC2 Coop.
Really interesting breakdown of why Blizzard RTS games were successful vs competitors and a new take I haven't seen on why Stormgate isn't having that large competitive multiplayer scene that it desperately wants.
Seems like the player numbers are racing to zero.
It'll probably go back up again when 0.2 comes out but right now it'll need that "Stormgate is fixed" social media push to recover numbers I think.
They can do a 180. (but they won't bother spending the time or the resources)
- Redesign the races from the ground up (choose what you want to be , Starcraft or Warcraft) (god if they need ideas the community can give them plenty - or just go with bannal Terrain against some type of Zerg against some type of alien tech race - that doesn't look like a race of random shapes)
- Redesign the art from the ground up - make it more dark-grim-bloody..etc
- Redesign all the sounds
- Redesign the UI
- Remove all the monetization until the full release of the game. (there are barely any players - focusing on monetization is wrong af)
- Make a solid, long free campaign.
- Make a solid set of Co-Op settings, with at least 1 free commander for each race. - add new commanders based on campaign characters after.
This is the path I thought they'd originally take and it's a shame they've gone all in on the live-service model in a genre that doesn't really work for it.
Nail on the head. I debated getting early access, but just waiting for it's early access free release. If I had payed to get in early I would absolutely demand a refund and I would be so damn pissed. Luckily I waited and am only marginally pissed.
Paying for a hero were sc2 had more depth and hours of play for less is absurd.
Paying for mission should be punishable by jail time.
Again, we'll see how it ends up. Right now if they continue pushing what should be free updates out for $9 a pop then this game might never come back from the spiral it's in.
Game just feels too much like StarCraft 2.5. I’ll be playing BAR for the time being
Isn't that good? SC2 was/is nice. Don't we want a better SC2?
I would have taken a StarCraft 2.5 but this isn’t even close.
@clusternate he didn't explain it well it feels like sc2 but all the bad things about it
you have a good speaking tone and voice, and express your thoughts clearly. I don't know why you video was suggested to me but I enjoyed hearing your thoughts here. subbed
Game is likely DOA unfortunately
There is still a glimmer of hope, it's just getting smaller as time goes on.
Nothing more disappointing than wasted potential. And that's what it seems like here. I think a lack of focus did stormgate in. They initially talked a lot about campaign and the importance of 3v3 for casual players etc.. but then all the focus in EA seems to be 1v1 competitive.
are you interested in the other rts coming out? Like Sanctuary, battle ace or zero space
I am but since I don't make shit from the channel my money is limited. I do my research and check reviews for possible RTS games I can play. When I already own and love the campaign for Starcraft 2 I'll probably be back on that.
Came across this scrolling the front page. Nice update on a sad saga, thanks. Seriously disappointing game. I'll just replay SC2 again I guess
All good points. Media of all kinds evolves and changes. Movies are changing. People’s attentions are in VR and mobile and it’s so much harder to find an audience for anything because everyone is into specific things for how they spend their time. I don’t envy devs.
It has to be hard and the hope I have for Stormgate is that the response from people in what they love and want improved goes into making a game designed for the community rather than for a potential audience. Which it what it is right now.
This game looks like a mobile version of sc2.
Honestly, if it was a mobile game I would have far less complaints because my expectations would've been lower
The graphics are completely night and day compared to what they were before. The whole lighting direction has changed and the terrains got an update. When you say things like the only place you can see it is Amaras face, I just can't take you seriously because your either being disingenuous or you're blind, it could be either so it's not a big deal, you're just wrong. There's a lot of balance changes this update too, dogs got nerfed hugely, infernals play different needing more shroud, spriggans got updated, bigger units can push things better. Did you even bother to read the patch notes or did you just ignore them or are you new and don't know how to play RTS? The monetisation is the basic way to make money, it's literally the fairest way they can do it while keeping the core multiplayer vs mode free while also keeping it fairly surface level, buy some skins, buy some pets, buy some HUD graphics, map filters, campaign stories. It's such a fair way to do it in a free to play game.
For battle pass they will have warchests which is kind of the same thing, different tiers with unlocks full of stuff for the races. If you want the game to be free they need to monetise on that stuff, campaign, skins, pets, fog of war, , warchests, HUDs because it's fair. You don't have to buy it but atleast you will get to play the core game modes for free 100% 3v3 for the heroes is also really important because they've said thats going to be a main mode. Whether you need to buy all the heroes for that we will have to see first. We can call it a gimmick, but we don't know what it's going to be about. They want to solve the issue that multiplayer team games in RTS are usually shit, if they can make a good objective mode that feels good for everyone then that's surely a good thing?
Anyway, the first update was huge, we got a new hero, custom game modes, loads and loads of balance changes, updates to the art, changes to creeps, map removals and updates. You can't expect the developers to fix the whole game within a month. If you think that they you're probably in the wrong space to be talking about the games concerns because that shows how clueless you are. The game has a long way to go and yes at this current point, there's a real good chance the game will fail if the community keep rejecting it or talking baseless nonsense like you were because it just feeds down into people and they'll ignore it. If it's not in a state for you yet then fair enough come back later, give your feedback and move on, but honestly the game will die at this rate and it won't be developers fault it will be the players in the community and we'll have to go back to playing a dead game like starcraft 2, but that's just the way it is I suppose, if it's not meant to work out then we'll just have to go somewhere else and we'll eventually run out of chances.
XDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Firstly, I never said I expected them to fix it all in a month that's insane and disingenuous. You treat the game both in a way where it's still in development and we should give it the benefit of the doubt whilst also saying that despite their incredibly lucrative kickstarter round they should be removed from criticism of their current model of microtransactions because there is a perception they need the money.
I would prefer at this point the game not have any microtransactions but only playable for those who buy it and want to be part of the development. I've said the game itself is fun but that means nothing if the overall direction is led towards milking as much money as possible.
No game is free of criticism not even ones I want to succeed like this. If you watched the entire video then you'll know that I want this game to work and I'm not milking the drama for the sake of it. I will give the developers time to make fixes, add polish and return to see what happens. If I return in a few months and there are only minor changes, gamemodes that aren't fleshed out and a tonne more microtransactions then everything I fear for this game will have come to pass.
@@just-a-simple-mirage No but still you said you're underwhelmed with their first monthly update, though I've stated it was actually quite huge for what they've done in the time given, all while shifting priorities because people are complaining.
Isn't it obvious that they need money? All development studios do, especially when the game is a live service one, so that doesn't make much sense does it. It would be even worse limiting the playerbase at this stage when they want the community to help iterate on the game through rapid feedback to help it get to a good state as fast as possible.
They have to start somewhere and that's their monetisation model, sc2 does it now, many other free games are doing it because it's best practice for them to get money, you may not like it but it's been proven for them and isn't without it's flaws for the players.
I addressed all your points so yeah I did watch the entire thing. You're right no game should be free of criticism, but what value are you actually adding when your criticism is either wrong or baseless? This isn't a buy to play game, it's a free game, don't expect to be given unlocks and hidden things like games of past, they will add random things for people to spend on, whether that's heroes, skins, campaign updates, you name it, you will have to pay for solo play experiences, warchests and all cosmetics. This is how they work.
Like I've said the update was actually so huge, the dogs got nerfed, the balance got better, the visuals got better, we got a new game mode, push priority for bigger units, creep changes, so what's the point in being negative when your criticism is wrong?
I personally don't think this game will survive anymore the way the community has turned it's back on it and that's not the developers fault. I like it because it's like starcraft 2 but actually getting updated and has loads of potential, but even though it's an early access game the game is still technically out so they can use their model now. Come back in a few months and see if it's better for you, but you know in october the 3v3 mode will not be finished, aand you know there will be more microtransactions so it's really up to you at the end of the day. Just be honest and if it's not for you because of those things then fair enough, it doesn't mean it's the wrong approach, others will see the same thing and the game will die.
@@DrawAndErase It's clear you're an avid supporter of the game and I'm truly glad you enjoy it. I don't appreciate the insults though, especially when I made it clear that I'm not looking to hate on the game because I dislike it, in fact as I've stated several times I enjoy the core loop itself.
I don't think this game will die because of the community reaction, if anything the way people are making their voices heard about the actual game itself has already seen positive changes you've pointed out with changes to the graphics and lighting. Changes I couldn't see when I was playing which led to most of the update being to me underwhelming and mostly a dud.
Their model of egregious microtransactions and their pricing I will call out though, especially since their model doesn't seem to be on the good faith Warchests they floated in the subreddit before the Kickstarter but rather mobile game level shenanigans. If the message of this Early Access is to show what they plan to do upon full release then it is currently one of incremental changes mixed in with over-priced cosmetic and pay-to-win features. That is a direction I cannot support, especially not in Early Access where balance changes happen so frequently a player's monetary purchase could be invalidated in one patch to promote the next purchasable hero.
I do encourage you to continue speaking out against hate for hate's sake as I think the game should have a future. But don't mistake me for disliking the game because I'm criticising their exploitative business model.
@@just-a-simple-mirage I'm actually not really an avid supporter of the game, I just understand how their iterative process works and I think being honest, actually talking and telling the truth is better than lying. It's hard to know when something is bad faith or not and I didn't mean to insult, it was just either a couple of possibilities because it's quite obvious the work they've put into the game, including the huge balance changes. For example people were really shocked how different the game looks now and to not see it, well yeah it could be a number of things such as blindness or something else, so sorry.
I understand about the microtransactions, it's pretty similar to how starcraft f2p works now and other multiplayer games, and yes this is their monetisation model straight up. You will have to buy everything. I also understand if that's not what you want then you're never going to like that model because it's the easiest way for them to make money on a live service game and if you're into co-op and single player then those are the ways they will try to make players part with their cash the quickest.
I don't agree that balance changes targetting new heroes is a bad thing for people who buy them. That's part of balancing a live service game and there will be times when your hero is strong or weak in the meta, that's just the nature of it which can sometimes be necessary to change a stale meta or to give agency to previous weaker heroes among the rest. I don't know what will happen with 3v3 but if you have to buy heroes then that will be a problem. Live service games do it, it's just part of these type of free 2 play games which have their flaws.
I know you don't dislike the game, I was just trying to say your takes were wrong which I stand by and hopefully you get why, but you have every right to criticise the monetisation model plauging free 2 play games. It's designed to make people spend over time or quickly, if you can't get down with it then it's always going to be an issue.
I personally can't see much of a way forward anymore for this game. People are using their voices in a way that breeds negativity and drives people away because of bad comms and not expecting an in development game to be in development. Visuals come last in the development process and now they're changing their roadmaps and shifting things in the wrong order to try and keep players who are rejecting the game. It's a lose lose situation really.