I have experience with MTG but only a passing knowledge of Pokemon. My understanding is that it would depend entirely on what your deck does. Are you using pokemon that are expensive to use? Do you have any means of getting energy besides just drawing it? Do you have ways to draw more cards? All these things will come into play to determine the ratio you need. With experience you can guesstimate these things, but to be sure, the only way is to play the deck a bunch and adjust depending on what you feel you need to add.
So those cards have been around forever, and no one complained about them.
There have definitely been complaints about gambling in relation to collectible cards. I don’t think anything has come of them in legal terms, but many complaints have been voiced.
Many would say so. Wizards of the Coast, the makers of Magic the Gathering, have worked very hard at balancing the two sides of the coin. On one side, they design cards such that power levels determine the demand (and thus price) for rarer cards on the resale market, and on the other they argue that the cards have no intrinsic value so that buying packs can’t count as gambling since there’s technically no expected profit for the buyers.
The game has been fun for me, since I’ve been an Ark player for some time, and it feels like Ark with Pokemon instead of dinos.
So far, it does lack some of the depth, but it’s also much less grindy and feels less “serious,” and also more straightforward. It seems like the game has a path that you’re expected to follow, unlike Ark which just throws you into the world and expects you to die a thousand times while you’re learning.
I wouldn’t pay $100 for an entire game. It grosses me out that someone is expected to spend $100 on cosmetics. Like obviously not everyone, but that it’s even possible is rather horrifying. Especially since it doesn’t stop there. You can buy multiple packs, and it’s fully expected that some people will.
Roblox is well-known for predatory practices aimed at children, and predatory behavior from other users who may or may not be looking for children to abuse.
Banning Roblox entirely seems like a very reasonable thing to do IMO.
Those were the days when paid Xbox Live service was way better than the free PS network. If you wanted to play online, the experience was much better on Xbox. Sony’s online experience has vastly improved since then, and their first-party games are generally considered much higher quality than Microsoft’s alternatives.
there’s absolutely nothing wrong with allowing the engine to run with settings current hardware can’t handle
Sure, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but if you want your product to sell and be successful, the period shortly after release date is where most of your sales will happen. If nobody can run your game at that time, you could lose 90% of the lifetime sales you’re likely to make. It would make more sense to release a slightly pared-down version of the game that actually runs well now and improve it in the short-to-medium term with updates. Or, alternatively, release it when it can actually run well on commonly-used hardware.