Monetizing in Fighting Games

prototypetom

Active Member
Hey all

Jim Stirling's just done a Jimquistion (critical review) piece on fighting game publishers practises and motivations.

I don't agree with everything in the video (and it's pretty basic) - I don't have a problem with characters being dropped (as long as it's not Lisa :p ) in a proper development cycle. Games need to evolve and not everything can suit everyone. I just have problem when that content is created as part of the initial development and designed to be sectioned off to exploit the more dedicated players who won't want to do without something as crucial as a mainstay character. You can put as much fluff like costumes up for DLC as you like too - as long as there's a fair chunk in the basic release.

EG, if they hadn't made Tira now, and did it after the game was released, in a manner i would describe as honest, I'd have paid extra.

So I wondered about peoples thoughts about the models they are happy with, the ones they don't like. maybe their experiences with franchises I have no experience of. So when are you happy to pay and when are you not?


Jim's vid - I'm not usually a fan of negativity as there's usually a more balanced truth, but always feel you need a counterbalance to the financial bias of business.
BTW, I think the chess piece analogy is pretty much terrible unfortunatly - I love a good analogy and this wasn't one!

I went back a little over a year and didn't see this as a general topic, hope i didn't miss it.
 

WAZAAAAA

Well-Known Member
what is ths bias, why does Smash get a pass (a BAMCO game) with its DLC characters while Kekken (BAMCO) and SC (STILL BAMCO) don't? It's the same shit, fucking lmao
 
ALL DOA6 DOA5 DOA4 DOA3 DOA2U DOAD
Top