Originally posted by phillv85
View Post
Honestly, I would prefer the traditional approach of a big roster, but I could accept the sort of approach they made with V if they do it better.
The problem, for me, was that SFV was the success of Overwatch; it gave Capcom (and other publishers) this impression that people would be willing to both buy a game full price, and put up with a League of Legends style drip-fed, drip-SOLD character roster. Fortunately the results of this have been a bit mixed, especially for fighting games.
I would've been fine if Street Fighter V had been free-to-play with the model they used.
League of Legends uses a system where the game is entirely free, but each week, there are a limited number of characters you can use. If you like a character, you can buy that character, and then you have it forever, but if you don't, you never know when it will "rotate" back into the free list. The other aspect to this, also, is that (last time I checked) you could buy a decent chunk of the roster for the price of a conventional videogame.
Whenever games are set up like SFV, I always feel that the publisher's trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want you to pay £40, but then also the game's structured like a freemium game, and something about that rubs me the wrong way. This isn't to say I'm against games with microtransactions or DLC altogether, but there's nuance.
Comment