General Information
Register Time: 25 Feb 2013, 20:59 PM
Broadcast: https://www.twitch.tv/TZer0
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/Ghostzer0
Nationality: Norway
Game Name: TZer0
But ToV was released three years after vCoH and was only ONE big expansion. It's understandable that after three years you should invest a little money to actualize the game or extend its lifetime .
so then you think devs should never add anything new to games unless its free just because you dont want to buy it? its not fair that some people can have things you cant just because you dont want to pay for them? does this sound a little entitled and self centered to anyone else? as nice as your idealistic little dream sounds, we all know that will never happen. thats like saying its not fair for anyone to have a better car than you just because you dont want to buy anything more expensive than a civic.
im not even talking about balance here, because you guys have clearly said even if things are balanced its p2w. even "50% wins" is p2w in your eyes, which even an average player without dlc should be able to achieve. hell, even pre ordering is p2w by your definition because you got premium commanders for free that other people no longer get. sorry, but you guys are never going to be happy with those kinds of standards.
I'd be more than happy to pay for fairly priced skins (a texture is NOT worth 2€), faceplates (a faceplate is NOT worth 2€) and missions (these are okay I think).
Just not commander-DLCs. Stay away from pay-for items giving players variation or an edge in multi-player.
And yes, I can be happy with such standards. It is the only way I can be happy. I can fire up Command & Conquer: Generals: Zero Hour, Planetary Annihilation, Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance (forever) and whatever else. Just not Company of Heroes 2 as it stands now and I want to see that changed.
TZer0 you haven't read my first post have you? Base game, skins and faceplates simply won't fund the game even in the mid-term.
Theatre of War, a controlled release of premium content with a mixed payment model (i.e. balanced commanders with frequent promotions / sales and giveaways)*and* the stuff you subscribe is the *only* way.
What makes you so sure of this? Do you have the numbers in front of you?
Last time I checked, other RTSes are doing just fine without having to resort to DLCs like the ones Company of Heroes 2 has.
I'll name a few.
Men of War
StarCraft 2
Total War (they have something resembling commander-DLCs, but not as many)
Planetary Annihilation (even though they're officially not yet out)
Why can't we have a business model closer to these games?
well i guess you have a far more liberal definition of pay to win than most people. thats unfortunate, because i think youre going to be very disappointed with the majority of video games if thats how you feel. dlcs are increasingly more common in games and devs dont work for free.
I can´t say it´s Pay to win, since it doesnt assure you the victory, but it´s pay to have an advantage (variety on itselft it´s a strength).
The fact that you have certain commander force you to change your playstile for just in case he might or not use it.
Since i dont expect (i hope im wrong) the core of the game won´t change and still like the game, i just have to wait that they try to improve it through other aspects. Mods may come, balance will improve, new good maps will show up, etc.
BF3:
BF4: its worst than in BF3
Since it´s an FPS nobody cares on this little things. But i do care on an RTS.
I'm not sure which one of BF3 and BF4 is worst.
I think that the UCAV won't get nerfed despite being really strong because the majority of the players will fail to use it and therefore won't recognize the true potential of this weapon.
Also, before anyone tries to call me out on playing Battlefield, the developers actually never said it wouldn't be pay to win. It also feels somewhat different in a FPS.
You don't get it. I'm not commenting on Industry or Tiger Ace or whatever the latest DLC shovelware is. I'm not saying they're winning 99% of games or 80% of games or even 55% of games. I'm not talking about balance.
I'm saying that even if they won exactly 50% of their games, they would still be pay to win. You have an extra option your opponent does not because you paid for it in out-of-game currency. That's an advantage. That's pay-to-win.
If you say otherwise your argument will inevitably boil down to "it's not pay-to-win because you can beat it" which is not what competitive gaming is about.
Thanks for backing up my argument in my absence. This is exactly what this is about.
if the weapons are balanced, yes that is fair. to be honest, this reminds me of a little kid who doesnt get his way and says "but thats not fair!" if things are balanced, its not pay to win and i see no problem with a dev charging money for extra content.
going off your example, look at battlefield 4. expansion packs add extra guns that are balanced for the most part. non premium players dont have those exact guns though, even if they have similar options. premium guns have a unique combination of scatter, rate of fire, recoil, etc. is that pay to win in your mind? again, im going to have it say its not. if you want more guns, buy them. if you dont, stick with the standard guns and you will be just fine.
To a certain extent, yes. It is pay to win. Perhaps I'm a god while using an AS VAL, but utterly shit with everything else while the opposite is the case for you.
You forgot to mention that there are also some unique gadgets available to people who own the DLCs.
The point is the fact that certain weapons/generals/tactics/classes (or what have you) lend themselves to certain players. Imagine TF2 before the unlocks came pouring in. Imagine if you had to purchase classes. I'm a pretty good spy, but that doesn't mean anything if I can't actually play the class because I don't own it.
Norway
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
