You’re also paying for the 26th character, you’re buying the game so you buy whatever content is released with it. However yes, that is what I originally meant!
My interpretation of pay to win is that a purchased item of character confers some in-game advantage relative to that available to everyone. I.e. A high powered sniper rifle that is not available anywhere for free.
I don’t see any evidence of that kind of thing here.
My interpretation of pay to win is that a purchased item or character confers some in-game advantage relative to that available to everyone. I.e. A character with different abilities and stats that is not available anywhere for free.
I see all of the evidence of that kind of thing here being supported.
Yup but if I started to play smite it would take sometime to get all the gods for free. And if I don’t have the full roaster at the competitive scene I am at a dissadvantage. With Battleborn you have almost the complete set instead of having 50% of all the gods and having a dissadvantage by missing one of them. As long there is a counter within the normal selection I’m okey
Did my original comment not show that I was trying to reply to @faveveid? This forum seems to do that to me a lot…
To the point of the thread, DLC is always a sticky issue, but companies can do whatever they want and the players are entitled to voice their own opinions. And tbh, I kinda made the same assumption that @reincarN8ed did about you implying the 26th character would be OP at first. Then you explained your reasoning, so I can see both sides. Again, it all comes down to what 2k & Gearbox want to do, but I don’t think these type of business model questions are something they’ll come out and address directly.
But I didn’t reference SMITE, I referenced Dota 2 and CSGO. THE DIVERSION! lol
Okey I see but I don’t have any experince with those games. So thats why I used Smite as an example.
All I’m trying to do is see this amazing game be fair to everyone and be hugely financially successful. It’s so unique, it really has a place to become it’s own, but marketing decisions tend to make or break games not the actual content. Plus i may or may not have been considering GB as an employer when I graduate and I think it did, I just like to clarify on comments if it seems like I didn’t come across the way i meant
So that’s not really a solid argument. I don’t mean offense I respect and understand what you’re saying, but that’s been like every counter reply to this. It’s like the blind leading the blind in this forum. If you ever want to get into Dota 2, you could always add me on steam
I’m really just here coz I’m bored at my desk and trying to follow the chatter since this seems like a lively and civil discussion (which to me is unusual on public forums). Not a competitive player at all really, but this game is the one game that has the potential to get me into the scene. And yeah, did I mention, the forum here is a much better community than I’m used to?
Okey Csgo and Dota has a very good model
They haven’t actually confirmed how this extra character will be implemented. It may be available to beta players first but not cost anything for anyone else when it is available. This is a topic that should be clarified by gbx
Bruh (or if that’s not PC enough for you, /guuuuuurllll) same here!
Definitely so, and you might be right. I doubt it, but i’ll accept it’s in the realm of possibility. My doubts are still based on the quote: “Pitchford also revealed that PlayStation players who partake in the open beta in 2016 will receive a 26th hero as a free gift after the game launches on May 3, 2016.”
All people are purchasing is a very slightly wider choice of character. How does that imply that they win? And this only temporarily an exclusive, it will be available to others later.
What if other users receive 26th character as a free gift at a later date?
But why include the words “free” and “gift” instead of just saying “early access to an additional character”? It’s the wording.
To encourage PS4 sales because they know PC and potentially XB1 will have larger player base? Or they could be doing it just to have this discussion on the forums to see how people react to it so they can change their strategy as they go along. Purely playing devil’s advocate here.
If we were playing a strategy game, we’ll say like old school chess. I receive an additional piece on the board for free AND receive it before you could access it yourself because I’m the club favorite (or whatever favorites are called in chess). It wouldn’t matter what that piece could do, what matters is now I have a different factor into winning the game, or potentially losing it. A variable you can’t use until a later date and have to pay for when you finally can. It doesn’t imply they win, what it does do is give them an edge, however small. That’s called imbalance.
But you still only get a maximum of 5 players per side. Different abilities doesn’t mean ‘better’ abilities, which is what you seem to be assuming.