Yeah, the main thread was getting reported left and right. This may come as a shock to some, but not everyone wants to read through literally pages of discussion on the merits of this game's IAP. Plus, it seems like all of those posts were directed towards the developer, saying how you were unhappy with the IAP and how you would like them to implement a premium unlock etc. So, how does these posts getting moved to a separate thread affect that? If anything this critique is now contained in one single spot, so the dev has a nice collection of feedback to consider. If your aim of criticizing the IAP at length is that you want others to join in and you can all pat yourselves on the back about how awful IAP is, then the main game thread is not where you should be doing that. Other people are trying to read about the game itself and not massive feedback walls meant for the developer.
Eli, in your GOTW article, you talk about how King's structure influenced the game, how it affected the way you approached it (the "meta game"), and how the game seemed unfair in certain aspects. In essence, you talked about how the game's F2P structure influenced how the game played and how you enjoyed it Yet, the same kind of impressions and discussions about Sky Force aren't allowed in the game's thread? Yes, maybe so many pages of comments were excessive but the vast majority of comments were far from "heated", but seemed rather constructive, the opinions of the game's audience (aka fans of shmups and bullet hell games). I was told by a member of the TA staff that constructive criticism of a game and how its IAP structure was intertwined with and influenced the gameplay were okay in a game's thread Looking at my post specifically, I did not go off on a tangent on how F2P sucks or is ruining gaming or whatever. I focused on what made the game enjoyable and then I talked about how I felt the structure affected the pacing and flow of progressions and gameplay. Did that not qualify as constructive criticism?
The free part of the game is free, so wouldn't playing it be an easier way to judge its merits? I enjoy these games but have horrible hand/eye coordination. I installed the game and played for a few minutes, which was more than enough to gauge controls, aesthetic, basic design philosophy, etc. I then came on the forums to see how the non-free aspects of the game would impact my ability to progress, or enjoy repeating content despite the ability to progress. This necessarily involves discussing IAP, and I found that to be the overwhelmingly most valuable part of the thread. Restricting discussions of f2p games to gameplay impressions strikes me as silly. It's a necessary and constructive part of the thread, but anyone can just download the thing and see for themselves. The same is NOT true of the paid aspects. As for discussing gameplay strategies and detailed information... That stuff is great; GameFAQs is almost a member of my family... but I suggest a 'here's a new game' thread is not the best place for that, as detailed discussions may spoil or confuse newbies, and that kind of stuff should be better organized than in a single thread, anyway. Regarding this specific game... Off my device for now, but I'm curious to see how unlocks and IAP will be tweaked in the next update.
Here's another way to look at this- It's not at all abnormal for a big thread to split in to multiple threads to optimize the discussion. No one is mad that strategy and character build discussion got split out of the Battleheart thread for its own (fantastic) thread here... But when you move IAP rants everyone involved loses their minds. If you care about giving feedback to the developer, now it's all concentrated and compacted in one place. This is a good thing. If you care about is debating the merits of this free to play implementation, now it's all concentrated and compacted in one place. Again, this is a good thing, and doesn't disturb the other people who just want to talk about playing the game.
What kind of response is that? I'm asking in a respectful manner. Can you please respond seriously to my inquiry? I'm not trying to start a fight here.
I have to agree. It's true that my main caring is that the dev will change some things about the game by reading our comments and complaints, but, to be honest, I also think it's fair that all potential new players know from the beginning that spending more than 5 Euros in IAPs for this game will not give them back a FULL game, but just an incomplete one (cos you cannot continue playing after stage 6). Is that an out-topic thing? I think it's just being honest and transparent.
I had a written a witty insightful response comparing IAPs to a Ferrari, but screw it who cares, its a freemium schmup that will be forgotten in about 3-4 weeks, so why even waste energy trying. Beer is good.
All this got discussed in beta, alternative ways to make money on the game were suggested, but they still went with the same business model, I was a tester, it was mentioned a lot. I would personally like the timers removed if you purchase to remove the adverts, if they want to make more money on the game they should remove the timers if you buy both the advert remove and the star doubler, call it a VIP package or such like. In game you play to get stars to unlock ever increasing in star cost, upgrades then have to wait longer and longer to "install" them..... The timers slow the game down to a standstill, the dev said its a time management aspect to the game, go off do something and come back when the timer is depleted. I'm sorry... Any game of this type that the devs tell you to go away and NOT play it, should make alarm bells ring. You create a game like this to be played, not left and return when a timer is done, this is not Clash of Clans, or Dungeon Keeper mobile, its a shootem up. I have already seen hacked versions of the game available to get round the issue, I on the other hand have this on iOS and Android and have purchased one or more of the iaps on both to support the devs, the fact the timers still remain I feel let down by the devs. This also gets mentioned in reviews and some reviewers are not reccomending it as a long term game because of the timers. Don't get me started on the level 7 requirement, I would love to have been in the meeting when that was OK'd.
What I've noticed: There are people with an agenda, and that agenda is to incessantly bring up F2P every chance they get. If a game has particularly egregious F2P mechanics, that is valuable information to point out to people. But there are people who think ANY F2P mechanics are unacceptable, and they want to turn the threads for every game that happens to include these mechanics into a soap box to rant about the evils of F2P. This gets extremely tiring to read. Regarding Sky Force 2014, no, I don't think it has the best F2P structure in the world. But the idea of "pay-to-play" for this type of game isn't exactly unprecedented - I've dumped way more coins into shoot-em-ups in actual arcades than I'd ever put into this one.
Why? Ok, again. Just because I have bought all IAPs hoping to enjoy the game without restrictions, but I soon discovered that restrictions are not gone. And yes, beer is good. Cheers.
Using this as an analogy, would be to buy the bear and tacos, then wait 20 min before you could consume them unless you paid - for what you have already purchased - extra to eat them... You then decide to wash it down with another beer to then be told you have to wait until everyone in the bar has ordered one... Then you will be able to carry on drinking unfortunately not everyone is thirsty tonight or can drink enough, come back later. Strangely I had a beer and tacos tonight before I wrote this.
A good taco does have a wait timer - they don't cook themselves, after all. Eat chips in the mean time That isn't an altogether unrelated metaphor for F2P developers. Just as Mexican restaurants give chips to eat while waiting for your tacos, a well balanced F2P game will give you other activities to do while waiting for the timer. ...And by this point, it should be abundantly clear why this discussion was moved to its own thread.
Rather patronizing, don't you think? Do remember that the vast majority of gamers who comment on IAP come from a background where they bought the cartridge or disk and the entire game was theirs to play without restriction. The other side of the coin, and this is somewhat reinforced by PeterID's comments, is that the developers have not yet scienced out the appropriate model to how F2P should be implemented. I certainly don't think anybody was 'patting' themselves on the back for raising their concerns about the IAP. Or is it a situation where you feel entitled to talk down to people and if they don't like it...well
