Always online, eh? Pray tell, what happens when Gameloft's servers are down, or in a few years I want to play my game and they drop support/are out of business? I get the antipiracy spiel. Truly. I get the leaderboard cheater thing. Really. Easy, quick updates are pretty cool, too. But not worth it to anyone, including Gameloft. It's been shown, time and time again, that consumers do not want always online DRM. The disastrous launches of SimCity & Diablo 3 did huge damage to their respective publishers' and dev's PR and pissed off legitimate, paying customers. The best part? Pirates were able to quickly circumvent it anyway, playing the game while buyers had to wait for server 'kinks' to be worked out. You'll always lose some copies to piracy. Whether you actually lost a sale is debatable. The point is, we as paying customers hate always-on DRM. Regardless of whether the market trend is headed in that direction, it's just a pain in the ass for your paying customers and doesn't even work well against your real enemies, pirates. Who will always be around and will always discover a new way to duck under the latest antipiracy technique. Microsoft backpedalled with Xbox 180 after public outcry. They're still reaping the consequences in lackluster sales and poor image. Granted, it's just one mobile game that costs a fiver. No biggie. But I'd hate to see all new single-player mobile games start to include this always online DRM. Because at that point, it's not a mobile game anymore.
Each to his own I guess,I found the game to be an unpolished and boring mess with outdated graphics,poor combat,lame animations and worthless story.It maybe 5$ but it's not worth even that when you can probably pick many other great games on appstore for that price.The always online thing is a huge negative point and the 30$ suit iap just tells you how much GL care about their product or the community.The casuals will eat it up no doubt(not aimed at you) and the trend of always online will continue and the standards will continue to hit rock bottom and gl will continue making more money until better competition comes along and pushes them away like how firemonkeys and Mf and EA have to such a large extent.Either GL or mobile gaming should start counting their days now cause only one of them is going to survive.
At this point, with all the developers planing to go DRM, I think we're done. I'm gonna buy a psvita soon.
Well, its worldwide chart position doesn't reflect any of this anti online debate. No 1 paid app in 13 markets. Top 10 paid apps in 67 markets. Top 100 paid apps in 84 markets. And the important numbers. Top 10 grossing in 10 markets. Top 100 grossing in 81 markets. All of which are in the main key international stores. United States reached number 7 in paid downloads and reached top 50 in grossing. United Kingdom reached number 2 in paid downloads and reached top 20 in grossing. Canada reached number 6 in paid downloads and reached top 40 in grossing. Australia reached number 4 in paid downloads and reached top 40 in grossing. Japan reached number 5 in paid downloads and reached top 100 in grossing. (Note. Numbers are for iPhone charts. There is variances for iPad charts but they are equally as high chart positions and better in some cases.) So really, there's no backlash there now is there as those results are not exactly lacklustre for a paid app. And that doesn't even include the biggest purchasing day on the App Store internationally yet so those numbers can be expected to improve over the next couple of days for a brief period of time. So online or not, it has done very well so far and doesn't really make a case that anybody other than a very small percentage of the marketplace is opposed to online only. Other than that, it has been said numerous times by others with far more knowledge that developers on mobile are moving towards online only as a part of their strategy. Whatever the reasons they give and whatever the reasons others give to oppose it, doesn't really matter, this will be the cost of premium games in the future, no amount of opposition on a gaming forum will affect that. This isn't even the only game where that acceptance has been demonstrated as there are numerous other examples of very successful games out there that are online only, so its time to accept that it will become as prominent as expected because it is part of the plans for a lot of games that will come out over this and next year. And the market positions speak for themselves. On the game, I have found some lag in Central Park with the trees, I've sent in some info on it so I'm sure will look in to it. Haven't experienced lag anywhere else than there. Have yet to experience a connection issue and have tried it on an Edge (2g) connection where I would have expected it to drop off and yet it didn't. Yongkykun's post above has more or less summed up my experience with it since it came out and beyond the early impressions. It is proving to be a lot of fun.
I bought this game on my iPad Air as soon as it was released, as I had loved this first one; with its' open environment and random missions. I was really looking forward to the second one, hoping for the same as the first, just improved. Well, I really don't see much improvement, and I actually find myself wondering "is this any better than the first? Or is it actually worse?" Because, I honestly do not know. It's lags a good amount, which is crazy, as my iPad Air is the strongest iOS device available; so, I fail to see how it could run so well on other devices... Overall, I'm disappointed as of this moment. It's not an amazing improvement, and it runs worse than the last one did on my old iphone 4 (I now have the 5S). Just upsetting. :/
Gameloft Ryan please please please ask if we can get a update for a zoomed out camera option. It is way to close I am surprised this hasnt been brought up before.
I don't think anyone was disputing the fact that this game was going to be extremely successful: as a norm, Gameloft's games usually do very well, and this one features what is perhaps the most popular superhero ever. It'd be surprising if it DIDN'T make a profit! That's part of the reason why the decision to make this online-only is so baffling, since it was pretty much guaranteed that this game would be profitable enough even if it did end up being pirated (which, surprise, there's already an illegal copy available...). It's not like Online-only is a selling point that all of a sudden made people interested in a Spider-Man game, or that allowing for offline play would keep people from buying it. There's such a thing as catering to various segments of the market, and that's what those complaining would like to see from Gameloft here. From what I read here, the people who were complaining/claiming that they wouldn't support this game are people who, by virtue of their lifestyles or due to the limitations of their device of choice, felt like their inability to play this game with a constant internet connection wouldn't justify the expense, and that seems to be a fair enough argument (after all, why would a person who only stops at home for a couple hours a day bother to buy a home console if he wasn't going to put it to use? Same principle here.). Anyway, it's late (and I'm worried this will end up not making much sense) and I don't want to keep the debate going. Long story short, we who've been complaining (or me at least) don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, we'd just like to be included in it! According to Ryan, the devs are considering the possibility of removing the internet limitation, which would be the best case scenario for me
I think I figured out why GL chose online only. I think they chose this because it would cause uproar, which then creates more exposure and talk amongst people about the game. More people become aware of the game and this equals more sales for casual players who don't care about that requirement. If GL allowed offline game playability... Then everyone would be quiet and the thread would die shortly; getting less exposure. Personally I think they pulled a marketing stunt to gain more sales, reverse psychology. They may even drop internet only feature once they're happy with the outcome.
Forget this, I'm buying the amazing spiderman 3 it's way better than this one. In fact, it has a better story than this one with console like graphics and gameplay. All I had to do is use my super secret ultra time machine and purchase it using an iPhone from the future!
I like how Gameloft can make a whole bunch of brand new games but can't fix all their old ones (insert "BACKSTAB IOS 7 CRASH"). With all this hate on the internet requirement I don't know why the Devs are "considering" to remove it.
I think the charts can be misleading. Most people didn't know the game required constant online connection and rushed to purchase the game. For example, CAWS came out strong when it was released here. No.1 paid game but go to the reviews and ratings section, it got 1 star, and most reviews hated the online connection and wanted a refund. I'm know I did, and I got it because the online requirement was not in the game description originally when I bought it. Are refunds taken into account for the charts, or only "buy" clicks are counted. Gameloft has proven to be very sneaky in "hiding" the online requirement. The online requirement is "buried" at the very bottom of the description. How many people actually read through the whole thing before purchasing a game, especially "big-name" games like Spidey? Think I read somewhere that future Marvel games won't be done by Gameloft. I really hope it's true.
Don't really know whether they are dabbling with Speedtree or not but those trees in central park certainly cause considerable framerate drop. Problem is, in September, in all likelihood a new iPad is going to be announced which may or may not solve the issue what with the new processor and what not. My point is if they do lose out some of them trees, chances are good that in order to make the game run at 30-60fps then central park would look like it had a problem with illegal loggers and that would really kill the virtual NY experience. Anyway, it is an issue and we'll probably see an update coming soon to address it.
I noticed some of the very funny trends around in mobile space and things that didn't.make any sense to me at all: 1.I find it funny as to how people are suddenly alright with 30$ iap in a 5$ premium game. 2.I find it amusing as to how everyone including the big corps like apple and Samsung boast about graphical prowess of their devices and how they are eventually going to surpass ps3,How GL were excited to utilise the power of these devices and yet all we get are high resolution early ps2 graphics.I also love how they are still using 2 year old engine. 3.I love how people are suddenly alright with always online,Casuals don't care I get it but some people on this forum too advocate that yet when a premium game like oceanhorn comes along praise as to how every dev should be doing the same thing,Hell look at the FM thread. 4.I find it funny as to how people still picked up this terrible game considering always online and stuff and missed out on other more worthy games out there.
So you think ios devices can't handle trees?And that the A7 chip is incapable of rendering low res trees?Are you going to buy a new ipad for this game then?Ever played battle supremacy?I suggest you do. And I can go out on a limb that they will not update the game to fix the framerate,just wait and see.
If it's just trees then it's a non issue, but those trees are climbable and that amount of climbable trees being rendered simultaneously certainly takes a huge toll on your device's processor. Take away the collision geometries and the framerate is going to be heaps better but you'll end up with ghost trees. Plus the polygon count in this game is way way higher than Battle Supremacy so the two can't be used as comparison since BS is much more focused on physics whereas this game is more on heavy poly count and eye candy. My point is that GL may want to future-proof this game. Not saying anything other than that. So don't put words in my mouth, kay?
Actually Bs has far more trees all of them can be blown away,If you think Tasm is pushing more polygons then you are a bit misleaded,BS blows it out of water in every category and that lag we are talking about was also there in the first game.That's what happens when you use the same 2 year old engine without any optimisations,If they could not fix this in 2 years forget about them fixing it in an update. Relax I'm not putting any words jn your mouth I was kidding there.
