The footage from other YouTubers like Vaati was only a few selected missions from Chapter 1 and this shows the same missions so spoilers should be extremely minimal. Your AC will probably be very different too depending on what you build so in my opinion it'll be pretty safe if you're okay with a few missions in Chapter 1 being spoiled. The end of the video has the final boss of Chapter 1 so you could stop at 11 minutes in to avoid that but even then AC isn't like Souls at all so spoilery stuff is way less damaging to the experience in my opinion.
Looks very much like what I remember from Armored Core games back on PS1, just with much better visuals and polish. I’m sure I’ll have fun with it, but I think this game will see a lot of scrutiny from the usual FromSoft fans. I’ve seen “mechasouls” tossed around a lot and I think a lot of people are expecting an experience more in line with the Soulsborne format.
This game gets universal praise and I’d love to play it but as a PC gamer I refuse to as I wouldn’t want to support a dev who not only never does sales but raises the price because of “inflation”
Does the value you get of the game change depending on which time of the year you buy it?
Actually, the only change is up, as the game was improving and expanding pretty much constantly from the first early release to version 1.1. And it value is going up, when you buy in early access you’re only getting the current (unfinished but playable) state and a “promise” that it will get better in the future. When you buy the finished product you’re already certainly getting that better state, so it makes sense that it’s more expensive.
A game going up in price is fair from early access to release. This is a typical concept and an expected one for the reason you stated, the company makes a promise that it will be fully released.
To me the issue is the inflation price increase that most recently happened. Typically when a digital good releases in a finished state, it tends to stay at a max price. 30 USD is what Factorio decided on. Then it’s up to 35. Sure its had updates since the full release but why should I have to pay more then the full release price because I waited?
Typically sales are the reward for those who wait. Factorio seems to be the opposite, those who wait pay more. Inflation is real I understand, but this is also a digital good that has infinite supply. I as a consumer want to buy a game, and I can’t tell what the content changed from this 1.0 to the 1.1 since I haven’t played it. It probably is justifiable for the 5 bucks increase, but the consumer doesn’t know that. I just know this game I want, was 30 bucks and now it’s 35 and still hasn’t been on sale.
The reward for getting a full release game before a sale is to play it early. You aren’t losing the value of your purchase because I got it for 30% off. You got to play it early, and I waited for a price that I felt willing to pay. (The you is referring to people in general, not you specifically)
To me the issue is the inflation price increase that most recently happened. Typically when a digital good releases in a finished state, it tends to stay at a max price. 30 USD is what Factorio decided on. Then it’s up to 35. Sure its had updates since the full release but why should I have to pay more then the full release price because I waited?
Because when you buy it now for $35 right now, you get more for your money than what I got years ago for $25. Even ignoring the additional content and polishing, you’re also getting the benefit of all the testing and bug reporting by early adopters, as well as the bug fixing by the developers.
Typically sales are the reward for those who wait.
This is just the wrong mindset. Why would the developer, publisher, valve, or anyone else want to reward you for not buying their product?
(yes, I know software pricing is a clusterfuck. But the common theme is that the seller wants to extract as much value from every customer as possible, so ideally they would set the price individually for each customer based on the highest amount that customer is willing to pay. Sales after a while are a mechanism for this.)
Because when you buy it now for $35 right now, you get more for your money than what I got years ago for $25. Even ignoring the additional content and polishing, you’re also getting the benefit of all the testing and bug reporting by early adopters, as well as the bug fixing by the developers.
Is that not the opposite? Sure I get less buggy version, but you also have how many years to play compared to me. And you are getting the same game I am when I buy it. You eventually get that content, which one could say is added value to the 25 bucks vs the 35 I spend. You got 10 bucks of content from free essentially.
This is just the wrong mindset. Why would the developer, publisher, valve, or anyone else want to reward you for not buying their product?
It’s not the publisher rewarding me. The reward comes from me waiting and getting a cheaper game then those who bought it earlier. As you state
so ideally they would set the price individually for each customer based on the highest amount that customer is willing to pay. Sales after a while are a mechanism for this.
If a game isn’t worth X amount of dollars to me then I will wait till the game is Y amount of dollars. If the game never does then I never buy it, meaning the publishers lose, not me.
Is that not the opposite? Sure I get less buggy version, but you also have how many years to play compared to me. And you are getting the same game I am when I buy it. You eventually get that content, which one could say is added value to the 25 bucks vs the 35 I spend. You got 10 bucks of content from free essentially.
No, you’re forgetting the fact that when I bought it, I didn’t know what I’ll be getting in the future. I lucked out with Factorio, but it could happen that the devs just stopped working on it, I didn’t know at the time.
It’s not the publisher rewarding me. The reward comes from me waiting and getting a cheaper game then those who bought it earlier. As you state
Who do you think sets the price, if not the publisher?
the publishers lose, not me.
And yet, it’s not the publishers complaining about it online.
No, you’re forgetting the fact that when I bought it, I didn’t know what I’ll be getting in the future. I lucked out with Factorio, but it could happen that the devs just stopped working on it, I didn’t know at the time.
That’s the risk you paid for. My criticism is price increase after full launch. If early access game goes up in price when it fully releases that is a different thing.
Who do you think sets the price, if not the publisher?
The publisher sets the price. They put a game on sale to make more money. I buy the game on sale. I get the game as the reward. The publisher gets money they wouldn’t have otherwise.
And yet, it’s not the publishers complaining about it online.
I’m a random person who has no reputation to defend. I could just as easily start over online and nothing would hurt me. The publisher has a reputation to keep. They need to keep making money. Other then that, complaining is the way to for the consumer to get thoughts out about practices. I don’t like a game going up in price due to “inflation” and a game never going on sale therefor I will communicate that.
youtu.be
Ważne