Support NeoGAF

[Bedlam]

http://www.eventhubs.com/news/2016/apr/07/dead-or-alive-5-last-round-core-fighters-hits-6-million-downloads/

[/I]

After fighting games not doing well financially aside form MK and Smash I think this is their best option for this genre. SFV failed miserably financially lets not kid around. I think this is the model they should pursue ASAP. GGXrd recently accepted something like this with their "demo" that's out now. I really hope all fighters embrace this model.

Fighting games are best played as a multiplayer IMO but as a niche genre relying solely on MP they can't sell copies like Battlefront or CSGO. which despite being light on content managed to sell millions upon millions of copies. What you guys think? I think most fighters including MK or smash should release a f2p version. Heck who knows maybe a f2p version can bring a second wind for SFV.

I get FGs are very daunting for casual players. It requires very high skill ceiling to do good. I would argue more than any other genre. There is no one to carry you if you are bad like a team game. You are on your own. And only way to win is for you to get better. A f2p version will allow more casuals who are curious about the genre but not sure if they want to pay 60 bucks an access to the world of FGs. If they like what they see/play they can invest time to get better. Afterall if you haven't tried something how can your say you will not like it.

Anyways what you guys think?

credit to: Gamecity, Gematsu, and eventhubs.

Close if mods feel this discussion is too negative or too many SFV threads. But I think this thread is more than just SFV.

Has it occurred to you and some other narrow-minded FGC enthusiasts that many casuals simply DO NOT WANT to play these games competitively? At all. Ever. Doesn't seem so.

Instead I see new versions of the same "you're playing the game wrong"-comments.

I buy and play these games to play them in SP - almost exclusively except for the odd couch vs against a friend. No MMO-approach is going to change this. If your game has no content, then yeah by all means, go F2P. But that doesn't mean I'm going to download your game either. I'm going to find a different game with good SP content and spend my time and money on that.

Some of you will just have to come to terms with the fact that there's a pretty large number of gamers out there that is enjoying fighting games differently than you.

 

[Fraeon]

The basic gameplay of beating characters up using punches and kicks (or whatever) from a side view, isn't intrinsically suitable only for multiplayer.

Sure it isn't but a 1v1 format makes for a very boring single player experience from a gameplay standpoint. At least from my experience you either have 2 types of AI in fighting games: the type that barely fights back and the type that reacts to your actions before they've even started up.

I find brawlers far more interesting to play single player but we haven't had too many of those as of late.

 

[yurinka]

http://www.eventhubs.com/news/2016/apr/07/dead-or-alive-5-last-round-core-fighters-hits-6-million-downloads/

[/I]

After fighting games not doing well financially aside form MK and Smash I think this is their best option for this genre. SFV failed miserably financially lets not kid around. I think this is the model they should pursue ASAP. GGXrd recently accepted something like this with their "demo" that's out now. I really hope all fighters embrace this model.

Fighting games are best played as a multiplayer IMO but as a niche genre relying solely on MP they can't sell copies like Battlefront or CSGO. which despite being light on content managed to sell millions upon millions of copies. What you guys think? I think most fighters including MK or smash should release a f2p version. Heck who knows maybe a f2p version can bring a second wind for SFV.

I get FGs are very daunting for casual players. It requires very high skill ceiling to do good. I would argue more than any other genre. There is no one to carry you if you are bad like a team game. You are on your own. And only way to win is for you to get better. A f2p version will allow more casuals who are curious about the genre but not sure if they want to pay 60 bucks an access to the world of FGs. If they like what they see/play they can invest time to get better. Afterall if you haven't tried something how can your say you will not like it.

Anyways what you guys think?

credit to: Gamecity, Gematsu, and eventhubs.

Close if mods feel this discussion is too negative or too many SFV threads. But I think this thread is more than just SFV.

Awful SFV sales proved that MP focus is a huge mistake because only the most hardcore niche of the players of this games focus on MP. The lack of single player contend highly damaged SFV.

6 million copies of a F2P game is a too low number. The different SFIV paid iterations sold 8+ Millions combined, which means Capcom made a ton of money and DOA not, because only a tiny part of F2P players pay something.

Fighting games must be paid and to focus on single player content, because it's what its market demands and they players pay for.

Great MK sales also prove that, being a single player focused paid game with great sales.

 

[Dangansona]

Is SF V doing that poorly? I do think 60 is too much, especially with the content issues it has... Maybe release it at 20 with their current system for buying characters.

This is the worst thing I've ever heard. You're seriously asking for that?

Lol it really is a terrible idea, no offense.

 

[Mr.Marston]

SFV failed because they shipped an incomplete product.

 

[Renekton]

SFV failed because they shipped an incomplete product.

Wrong topic?

This is debating the merits of F2P for improving SFV's current situation plus fighters not MK/Smash.

 

[King_Moc]

I'd rather have good games, than ones that just exist to exploit people that can't help themselves.

 

[Pompadour]

Has it occurred to you and some other narrow-minded FGC enthusiasts that many casuals simply DO NOT WANT to play these games competitively? At all. Ever. Doesn't seem so.

Instead I see new versions of the same "you're playing the game wrong"-comments.

I buy and play these games to play them in SP - almost exclusively except for the odd couch vs against a friend. No MMO-approach is going to change this. If your game has no content, then yeah by all means, go F2P. But that doesn't mean I'm going to download your game either. I'm going to find a different game with good SP content and spend my time and money on that.

Some of you will just have to come to terms with the fact that there's a pretty large number of gamers out there that is enjoying fighting games differently than you.

There's a sizeable portion of players that only want to play fighting games by themselves, sure, but I think for Capcom to chase after that demographic would be just as foolish as when Nintendo tried to recapture the casual Wii audience. They could spend a ton of money trying to match Mortal Kombat in content and do like half their sales or they could try and capture the waifu loving market by replacing half their roster with high-pitched, scantily clad women like GG, BB, or DoA and only end up shrinking their player base further.

The one thing Capcom has as a strength is that Street Fighter is known universally as the competitive fighting game. What they should do (and what I predict was always their plan) is to go F2P. Fighting games have a huge skill barrier to entry, much like MOBAs, so expecting people to lay down money just to find out they don't want to put in the time to become good is foolhardy. And as much as people trash Capcom's strategy with the CPT as being misguided and elitist those tournaments are essentially Capcom advertising what is strong about Street Fighter all the while making money of their stream's advertising and subscriptions.

If Capcom didn't outright project 2 million sales by the end of March I wouldn't have even considered their current sales "bad", it's about what I expected for a fighting game that isn't MK or Smash this generation. I look at Killer Instinct and see if something like that can be considered successful and continually supported than Street Fighter is probably fine.

Frankly, if this works, I think SFV launching at $60 was probably a smart decision. Launching SFV as F2P with just Ryu would have only made the game worse for the people playing it because it's already a sea of Ryus out there.

Awful SFV sales proved that MP focus is a huge mistake because only the most hardcore niche of the players of this games focus on MP. The lack of single player contend highly damaged SFV.

6 million copies of a F2P game is a too low number. The different SFIV paid iterations sold 8+ Millions combined, which means Capcom made a ton of money and DOA not, because only a tiny part of F2P players pay something.

Fighting games must be paid and to focus on single player content, because it's what its market demands and they players pay for.

Great MK sales also prove that, being a single player focused paid game with great sales.

You have any proof that single player = success? Or that SF4 made Capcom a lot of profits and DoA's F2P model didn't? Like is there a single source for anything you're saying?

 

[Synth]

I look at Killer Instinct and see if something like that can be considered successful and continually supported than Street Fighter is probably fine.

Well, you shouldn't because Killer Instinct isn't in Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat's league and never has been, and is evidently being made on the cheap. Street Fighter is one of Capcom's most defining IPs (if not the most defining IP), with a combined 8 million sold of the previous iteration. This would be like Sega being happy with the overall sales of Phantasy Star Nova, and reasoning that has some bearing on how Square Enix would feel about a Final Fantasy slumming with it.

 

[Pompadour]

Well, you shouldn't because Killer Instinct isn't in Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat's league and never has been, and is evidently being made on the cheap. Street Fighter is one of Capcom's most defining IPs (if not the most defining IP), with a combined 8 million sold of the previous iteration. This would be like Sega being happy with the overall sales of Skies of Arcadia, and reasoning that has some bearing on how SquareEnix would feel about a Final Fantasy slumming with it.

Does Street Fighter V look like a game with a huge budget to you? The situation seems similar to me if not more favorable for SF because of 1) name recognition and 2) being a console exclusive on the system that's sold way more. So if Killer Instinct can churn out 8 characters a year with stages and alternate costumes I feel like SFV can manage 6 just fine. I think the only thing SFV stands to lose from poor initial sales is further single player support after the story mode drops in June (and the casuals wouldn't be around for that regardless of how well SFV sold so who cares?).

Killer Instinct barely looks cheaper than Street Fighter V and the difference I chalk up to Killer Instinct being a launch title.

 

[Nuu]

Does Street Fighter V look like a game with a huge budget to you?

You'd be surprised. The reason why Street Fighter V took so long was because it was going to be so expensive to make. Part of the reason why Street Fighter V even got made when it did is likely due to Sony bankrolling a share of the project. As I said before it is highly speculated it cost Capcom at least $1,000,000 just to make a single character in Street Fighter IV. This ignoring the matter of new and redone stages, voice acting, soundtrack, etc. Ramping that up towards models for the next (current) generation would increase that cost substantially.

 

[DryEyeRelief]

.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

You'd be surprised. The reason why Street Fighter V took so long was because it was going to be so expensive to make. Part of the reason why Street Fighter V even got made when it did is likely due to Sony bankrolling a share of the project. As I said before it is highly speculated it cost Capcom at least $1,000,000 just to make a single character in Street Fighter IV. This ignoring the matter of new and redone stages, voice acting, soundtrack, etc. Ramping that up towards models for the next (current) generation would increase that cost substantially.

Was that even a million dollars well spent? We're talking about Capcom, after all. King of budgetary waste aside from SquareEnix.

 

[Synth]

Does Street Fighter V look like a game with a huge budget to you? The situation seems similar to me if not more favorable for SF because of 1) name recognition and 2) being a console exclusive on the system that's sold way more. So if Killer Instinct can churn out 8 characters a year with stages and alternate costumes I feel like SFV can manage 6 just fine. I think the only thing SFV stands to lose from poor initial sales is further single player support after the story mode drops in June (and the casuals wouldn't be around for that regardless of how well SFV sold so who cares?).

Killer Instinct barely looks cheaper than Street Fighter V and the difference I chalk up to Killer Instinct being a launch title.

Compared to KI2013? Yes... yes it does. Promotional material alone sets the two worlds apart. One of the most consistent lamentations of the KI community has been how the game appears to have basically no money at all behind it (which is understandable considering its place in the market, and its 17 year absence). Season 1 characters will likely never have the simple alterations made to their retro outfits that would solve all the complaints about them, the story mode added stuff added in season 2 will never apply to the season 1 cast (who retain their more standard intro/ending text format). The new season has dropped giving each character their own unique stage in order to obtain resources for the relighting of the old stages, and addition of shadowlords. You can legitimately feel the compromises Killer Instinct has had to make in order work with the potential reach it has. Compared to fucking Street Fighter it may as well have been a Kickstarter project. Yet, these compromises are understandable (excluding the lack of stages for season 3... that sucks massively) because it's quite clear that the IP can't reach the sort of audience that Street Fighter can, and has... and so the alternative, much like games like Skullgirls or King of Fighters, would be for it to simply not exist.

And despite all the limitations that KI2013 has to take into account, they still didn't fail the solo player anywhere near as hard as SFV has so far.

 

[DryEyeRelief]

My favorite thing about King Awesome's posts is that in his attempts to save SFV he indirectly shits on it.

Does it look like SFV had a high budget?

 

[AudioTechnica]

I think if they combined all of the ideas in this thread it could work real well plus add in a season pass(i.e subscription). Basically

- $20 for base game with single player modes.
- paid dlc for costumes, characters, levels etc.
- $0.50 to per play for online

and then $40 for a season pass and you get everything above with unlimited online play for a year. Also throw in some promotions for free online play weekends every so often to try and sell some season passes.


I'm in the age group that grew up with SF and I always had fun playing arcade vs. cpu. I loved learning how to beat the game with 1 credit with each character and could play arcade mode over and over. I wont touch SFV right now but I think alot of people like me would go for this model.

 

[Renekton]

We're talking about Capcom, after all. King of budgetary waste aside from SquareEnix.

They pretty much shut off all the taps for non-mobile, only doing partnered stuff like with Tencent or Sony. So yeah, long gone are the days of expensive projects like Dogma and RE6. SFV may be as big as it gets for awhile.

 

[Nuu]

Was that even a million dollars well spent? We're talking about Capcom, after all. King of budgetary waste aside from SquareEnix.

It is very common for 3D models in big budget games to cost that much. For example I have confirmation that Pandemic Studios was spending almost that much making a single 3D model for their games back in the Playstation 2 era.

I think if they combined all of the ideas in this thread it could work real well plus add in a season pass(i.e subscription). Basically

- $20 for base game with single player modes.
- paid dlc for costumes, characters, levels etc.
- $0.50 to per play for online

and then $40 for a season pass and you get everything above with unlimited online play for a year. Also throw in some promotions for free online play weekends every so often to try and sell some season passes.

Stop it! For the love of God STOP IT!

 

[CadetMahoney]

Nah, they just need $60 worth of guaranteed enjoyable content included that isn't reliant on a gamble of will the netcode be good or will the playerbase be large enough to find people at the player's level online or will the player even desire to get better and put in work for an entertainment product.

I think the netcode gamble in conjunction with "will the playerbase be big enough 2 months down the road" is a big turnoff for me. Not necessarily for streetfighter but for smaller games like KOF.

Got burned once already with the 13 console playerbase being dead in 2 months when it released (and it was initially much larger than PC), shitty netcode and so on. Everyones forum fanservice talk and hype about "characters this, that, is X chatracter reveal next?" didn't translate into any longevity. I don't blame them either and it will be the exact same thing with the next KOF.

 

[Pompadour]

You'd be surprised. The reason why Street Fighter V took so long was because it was going to be so expensive to make. Part of the reason why Street Fighter V even got made when it did is likely due to Sony bankrolling a share of the project. As I said before it is highly speculated it cost Capcom at least $1,000,000 just to make a single character in Street Fighter IV. This ignoring the matter of new and redone stages, voice acting, soundtrack, etc. Ramping that up towards models for the next (current) generation would increase that cost substantially.

I don't believe that $1 million figure. That figure came up when Skullgirls was trying to kickstart more characters and people were trying to accuse them of scamming money because their characters cost in the 6 figures. Someone from Capcom (Killian?) said that wouldn't be enough to animate a character's hand or something. I believe that making characters is a very expensive process and surely it's even more expensive now but I don't believe it cost $16 million just to create this core roster. The $1 million figure was to emphasize how incorrect people's perceptions of game development costs really are. If that figure were true then something like MvC3 would have been $36 million in dev costs before anything else and that came also had to pay for the Marvel license.

Compared to KI2013? Yes... yes it does. Promotional material alone sets the two worlds apart. One of the most consistent lamentations of the KI community has been how the game appears to have basically no money at all behind it (which is understandable considering its place in the market, and its 17 year absence). Season 1 characters will likely never have the simple alterations made to their retro outfits that would solve all the complaints about them, the story mode added stuff added in season 2 will never apply to the season 1 cast (who retain their more standard intro/ending text format). The new season has dropped giving each character their own unique stage in order to obtain resources for the relighting of the old stages, and addition of shadowlords. You can legitimately feel the compromises Killer Instinct has had to make in order work with the potential reach it has. Compared to fucking Street Fighter it may as well have been a Kickstarter project. Yet, these compromises are understandable (excluding the lack of stages for season 3... that sucks massively) because it's quite clear that the IP can't reach the sort of audience that Street Fighter can, and has... and so the alternative, much like games like Skullgirls or King of Fighters, would be for it to simply not exist.

And despite all the limitations that KI2013 has to take into account, they still didn't fail the solo player anywhere near as hard as SFV has so far.

I believe the biggest difference between SFV and KI is SFV has a lot of money dumped in the tourney scene. Marketing is often a big chunk of the budget in any big release but Capcom seemingly spent that mostly on the tourney scene hoping people would pick up the game continually as opposed to an all-at-once marketing deluge we got with SFxT or SF4. Look at all the advertising SFxT had (and the quality of it) versus what SFV had.

My favorite thing about King Awesome's posts is that in his attempts to save SFV he indirectly shits on it.

Does it look like SFV had a high budget?

I'm not trying to save Street Fighter V (I have a lot of problems with it), I just have an issue with the sort of asspull arguments it's created. A lot of these topics (games as a service, what $60 entitles a consumer to in a game, etc) are all things I've had interest in long before SFV was announced. My big problem is people on gaming forums have this impotence where they're angry that big companies can do anti-consumer things and get away with it so when a company does something they view as anti-consumer and their product fails they revel in it. Capcom has been an easy target for these people because 1) they do a lot of stuff people on gaming forums don't like and 2) they're games aren't EA or Activision blockbusters so they can experience the schadenfreude of watching them bomb.

So with Street Fighter V people point to it's lackluster sales and go "See? We were right. Single player is what makes fighting games successful. They didn't listen to us and catered to those elitist competitive players and now they're paying for it." The truth of the matter is SFV wasn't going to sell great regardless of what they did. SFxT was fully stocked content wise featuring much, much more than your average $60 fighting game offered and that still failed.

I believe there is a group of people who love single player content in fighting games and get those games just to play Arcade or Story mode. However, just like they accuse the competitive community of thinking they're much larger than they are, they themselves think they're a much bigger part of the pie when it comes to people who buy fighting games.

Logically, it makes sense that a single player gamer would rather spend their hard-earned gaming dollar on a game designed around single player rather than on a traditionally multiplayer genre that has shoehorned in single player content. At least it makes sense to me as I live in a world where I can only purchase one game so I better get one that does a little bit of everything. I'm allowed to buy multiple games so I can choose to focus on the ones that play to their strengths and execute their genre the best. This smacks of the idea that the big summer blockbuster movie has to have a romance subplot in it because a percentage of the audience might like that.

 

[DryEyeRelief]

I'm not trying to save Street Fighter V (I have a lot of problems with it), I just have an issue with the sort of asspull arguments it's created

....

Logically, it makes sense that a single player gamer would rather spend their hard-earned gaming dollar on a game designed around single player rather than on a traditionally multiplayer genre that has shoehorned in single player content. At least it makes sense to me as I live in a world where I can only purchase one game so I better get one that does a little bit of everything. I'm allowed to buy multiple games so I can choose to focus on the ones that play to their strengths and execute their genre the best. This smacks of the idea that the big summer blockbuster movie has to have a romance subplot in it because a percentage of the audience might like that.

And you don't think this is an asspull of your own?

 

[Vice]

I don't think it's so much being single player focused as it is about a game appearing to have a lot of content. Ablot of huge franchises are multiplayer oriented. They just usually have more than three modes to get people in or some type of multiplayer quest structure.

 

[Nuu]

I don't believe that $1 million figure. That figure came up when Skullgirls was trying to kickstart more characters and people were trying to accuse them of scamming money because their characters cost in the 6 figures. Someone from Capcom (Killian?) said that wouldn't be enough to animate a character's hand or something. I believe that making characters is a very expensive process and surely it's even more expensive now but I don't believe it cost $16 million just to create this core roster. The $1 million figure was to emphasize how incorrect people's perceptions of game development costs really are. If that figure were true then something like MvC3 would have been $36 million in dev costs before anything else and that came also had to pay for the Marvel license.

Believe what you want to believe, but it doesn't change the facts that is how much 3D models for these types of games typically cost. I already gave the example of what I've been told by people who worked in Pandemic for example. And really that comment from Killian is extremely telling as the modeling, texturing, and rigging all take longer than animating a character for 3D models. So that pretty much confirms the $1,000,000+ statement.

Sure if you get a bunch of amateurs to do the job the cost goes significantly down, hence why independent developers can create similar games for a fraction of the cost. But when getting professional work for a big budget title the cost skyrockets.

 

[Tripon]

I do eventually think SFV will go f2p, but hopefully not before Feb. 18th, 2017. It's not like I have an avatar bet with Zissou that SFV won't go F2P for a full year....

 

[DryEyeRelief]

I don't think it's so much being single player focused as it is about a game appearing to have a lot of content. Ablot of huge franchises are multiplayer oriented. They just usually have more than three modes to get people in or some type of multiplayer quest structure.

I think the games that can afford to do that have larger amount of people that desire to play multiplayer in the first place. Street Fighter V, if SF4 is the precedent, maybe 2000 people online concurrently? That's nothing.

 

[AlteredBeast]

SFV should have been on more platforms. Taking a series previously available to everyone, and narrowing that platform is a great way to reduce consumption of said game. See Rise of the Tomb Raider vs the previous entry.

I know Sony helped fund development, but Capcom should have said, "thanks, but no thanks."

Making it F2P is a great idea, but I am willing to believe that the game would have been much more popular with a compelling single player mode and access on X1, PS3, 360.

 

[Megatron]

A real novel idea would be if they made it free to download and just used the arcade revenue model. Pay a dollar every time you want to play online, if you win you get to keep playing, can't control or stop the queue or matchmaking.

That's a fantastic idea. It shouldn't be the whole game, but rather a mode. Only problem is what happens if the game can't find a match? I think it probably needs to give you a credit after you win that gets spent on your next fight. Meaning if you back out you could use it for your next one, but that's better than losing your credit due to a match making error.

SFV should have been on more platforms. Taking a series previously available to everyone, and narrowing that platform is a great way to reduce consumption of said game. See Rise of the Tomb Raider vs the previous entry.

I know Sony helped fund development, but Capcom should have said, "thanks, but no thanks."

Making it F2P is a great idea, but I am willing to believe that the game would have been much more popular with a compelling single player mode and access on X1, PS3, 360.

Yup. Incredibly stupid of them, especially when they say they want to get another 5+ years out of it like they did SF4. That many years with far fewer customers? Ok..... I still believe they will release an ultimate version on NX/XB1 at some point, but we'll see.

 

[Pompadour]

And you don't think this is an asspull of your own?

I think that catering to everyone does work for the absolutely massive franchises like Call of Duty. When you sell gangbusters it's feasible to effectively sell three games in one package to demographics who are only buying for one single aspect of that package. That's not feasible for every single game, however, or every single game would do that.

Street Fighter, in my opinion, has the level of popularity where they should be cutting their budget and focus on what Street Fighter is particularly good at. There's business models that can support this type of game that didn't exist when Street Fighter IV came out. And now that SF can't count on those nostalgia sales like they did with SFIV it's probably smart to reduce the scope of their game.

Making it F2P is a great idea, but I am willing to believe that the game would have been much more popular with a compelling single player mode and access on X1, PS3, 360.

Wait, we really want another last gen Street Fighter? I also doubt the benefit of what being on the X1 would do for this game. This isn't like last gen where the 360 was king in the US and England. The Xbox One sells just as abysmally in the East as it's predecessor and the PS4 is beating it everywhere else.

As a fighting game fan I picked the PS4 without any titles announced for it as I knew fighting games are a mostly Japanese genre so it was likely going to have more console exclusives by default.

 

[Nimby]

I like the way SMITE F2P works, don't know if it's the same for other MOBAs, but I can see that working with fighting games. 4 standard free characters, with a free rotation every month or so. I think Core Fighters does that too. You can purchase in-game currency to buy characters, or you can rent them with standard earned-in-game money. Lots of cosmetic DLC that can't be earned without paying and some sort of lottery with rare items where very rarely you might get something that you could have paid for.

I can see F2P being a huge problem for Arcsys fighters though. Even with Guilty Gear Xrd the prospect of seeing anything beyond color changes is slim, making DLC pretty limited.

 

[TheActtionFigure]

Stating that there needs to be a fee each time you play online is some of the dumbest shit I've seen come outta these SFV hate orgies. And why should SFV and other fighters go f2p when a good portion of the FGC are satisfied and willing to pay for the bevy of fighters on the market? I played thousands of hours of SFIV online through it's various iterations up until I downloaded SFV, and I probably spent all but 2 hours in arcade mode. Maybe just maybe SFV was aimed at guys like me? Not every game is gonna be for everyone.

By the way, there's no way for me to prove it but the Mortal Kombat series sells way better than most fighters due to it's brand name and not because your average consumer (10mil+ units) is checking off feature bullet points on game sites. MK would sell well being just as feature lite as SFV because it's MK.

 

[Pompadour]

I like the way SMITE F2P works, don't know if it's the same for other MOBAs, but I can see that working with fighting games. 4 standard free characters, with a free rotation every month or so. I think Core Fighters does that too. You can purchase in-game currency to buy characters, or you can rent them with standard earned-in-game money. Lots of cosmetic DLC that can't be earned without paying and some sort of lottery with rare items where very rarely you might get something that you could have paid for.

I can see F2P being a huge problem for Arcsys fighters though. Even with Guilty Gear Xrd the prospect of seeing anything beyond color changes is slim, making DLC pretty limited.

ASW sadly won't be changing their model anytime soon. The SFV model of one disc forever would hurt it's arcade sales and the sales it gets releasing a dozen updates per title.

 

[DryEyeRelief]

I think that catering to everyone does work for the absolutely massive franchises like Call of Duty. When you sell gangbusters it's feasible to effectively sell three games in one package to demographics who are only buying for one single aspect of that package. That's not feasible for every single game, however, or every single game would do that.

Street Fighter, in my opinion, has the level of popularity where they should be cutting their budget and focus on what Street Fighter is particularly good at. There's business models that can support this type of game that didn't exist when Street Fighter IV came out. And now that SF can't count on those nostalgia sales like they did with SFIV it's probably smart to reduce the scope of their game.

Oh, so you're saying everything that doesn't align with your opinion is an asspull. That's even worse.

SFIV was an outlier because of frivolous nostalgia, and then deny the appeal of modes that appeal to said nostalgia (arcade mode). Denial in the greatest sense of the word.

 

[Pompadour]

Oh, so you're saying everything that doesn't align with your opinion is an asspull. That's even worse.

SFIV was an outlier because of frivolous nostalgia, and then deny the appeal of modes that appeal to said nostalgia (arcade mode). Denial in the greatest sense of the word.

The reviews for SFV were mostly good and the backlash to the lack of modes didn't really hit hard until the end of launch week. If the vast majority of sales of a non-Nintendo console game occur at launch then I'd argue most people didn't know the game had issues and it still sold under expectations. There's also tons of games that have a huge internet backlashes and they do just fine.

I just don't understand the logic that "Street Fighter V received a huge backlash on gaming forums" + "Street Fighter V sold poorly" = "Street Fighter V sold poorly because of the huge backlash on gaming forums." If that's true, then why are there so many games with huge backlashes that continue to sell perfectly well regardless? Why in this one instance is everyone absolutely sure it's because of the complaints?

 

[PSqueak]

When and if Riot puts the Rising Thunder developers to work on what we're all assuming is gonna by League of Legends fighting edition, you bet your ass other franchises will adopt the F2P model.

Frankly i think the LoL model really would fit fighting games, especially if they keep getting characters eternally like LoL currently does.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Wait, we really want another last gen Street Fighter? I also doubt the benefit of what being on the X1 would do for this game. This isn't like last gen where the 360 was king in the US and England. The Xbox One sells just as abysmally in the East as it's predecessor and the PS4 is beating it everywhere else.

As a fighting game fan I picked the PS4 without any titles announced for it as I knew fighting games are a mostly Japanese genre so it was likely going to have more console exclusives by default.

Nothing about SFV's gameplay makes it next gen. The graphics are great, but nothing that couldn't be scaled back for X1, and last gen consoles.

 

[Tripon]

Nothing about SFV's gameplay makes it next gen. The graphics are great, but nothing that couldn't be scaled back for X1, and last gen consoles.

You try getting Unreal 4 working on 360/ps3 and see how that goes.

 

[Warxard]

Nothing about SFV's gameplay makes it next gen. The graphics are great, but nothing that couldn't be scaled back for X1, and last gen consoles.

lol

 

[Sponge]

It's crazy that KI got so much hate back in 2013 for having this model and now most people seem to be okay with it.

 

[DryEyeRelief]

I just don't understand the logic that "Street Fighter V received a huge backlash on gaming forums" + "Street Fighter V sold poorly" = "Street Fighter V sold poorly because of the huge backlash on gaming forums."

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=200551922&postcount=156

by the way, I think this "only on gaming forums" stuff is funny coming from the guy who seriously thinks the ~20 regulars in the SFV thread represents the majority of the audience. Not even the majority on this forum.

 

[Warxard]

It's crazy that KI got so much hate back in 2013 for having this model and now most people seem to be okay with it.

Its a good model! More devs should use it!

 

[Justinh]

It's crazy that KI got so much hate back in 2013 for having this model and now most people seem to be okay with it.

I think most people had a problem with KI's distribution model because they did a poor job explaining it. I'm not sure if everyone knew you could just buy all the characters from Season 1 for 20 GWs, since I remember people complaining about buying all the character separately.

If they did know and hated on, then yeah I think that is crazy. I've always thought the way KI was released was more than fair.

 

[DryEyeRelief]

It's crazy that KI got so much hate back in 2013 for having this model and now most people seem to be okay with it.

Eh that was 2013. That year anything that wasn't Marvel vs Capcom 3 got shit on for not being Marvel vs Capcom 3.

 

[Duelist]

The suggestions for an arcade-style pay per play online model are actually ridiculous.

Maybe the people suggesting this don't actually like Street Fighter.

 

[Pompadour]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=200551922&postcount=156

by the way, I think this "only on gaming forums" stuff is funny coming from the guy who seriously thinks the ~20 regulars in the SFV thread represents the majority of the audience. Not even the majority on this forum.

You're going to have to be more specific when you say "SFV thread" considering there's probably been close to a 100 threads about SFV on GAF. If you're talking about the OT I don't really know what your point is. A lot of people have a problem with SFV in the OT, just maybe not for the same reasons.

The point I'm trying to make here is that just like fighting game fans on one forum's OT about the game don't represent the majority of the audience, people on gaming forums in general don't represent the majority of the audience.A bunch of people complaining here on GAF about specific issues with the game doesn't automatically translate to a meaningful impact on the game's success. It just feels that way to you if you're in an echo chamber.

I'd love to see a study done on whales. I would bet they're compulsive in other aspects of their lives, too.

I defend F2P to an extent, when it's all extras for games you can play 100% without going into the money rabbit hole. But event those games manage to hook in whales that make them hugely profitable. It's a creepy concept, basically building business models on the premise that some people can't control themselves.

But isn't that a lot of businesses? Aren't 90% of McDonald's sales from a small minority that eat there almost every day? There's a lot of products out there that don't enrich and sometimes actively damage people's lives.

Personally, although this may sound callous, I kind of like the idea that I can get all this extra content for free as long as there's a percentage of people out there who spend 100x more than the average person. If the grind isn't too excessive, F2P is a great model for a game.

 

[Endo Punk]

If capcom wants to release a f2p version with just Ryu and Ken then more power to them but as it stands I feel SFV is a great value for money. Already put in 5 hours just playing Bison.

 

[CrispyBoar]

I think the netcode gamble in conjunction with "will the playerbase be big enough 2 months down the road" is a big turnoff for me. Not necessarily for streetfighter but for smaller games like KOF.

Got burned once already with the 13 console playerbase being dead in 2 months when it released (and it was initially much larger than PC), shitty netcode and so on. Everyones forum fanservice talk and hype about "characters this, that, is X chatracter reveal next?" didn't translate into any longevity. I don't blame them either and it will be the exact same thing with the next KOF.

Thing is, is that the SNK of today isn't the same SNK from back then.

Also, KOF was always bigger in other countries/regions such as Mexico, South America, Japan, & China more so than in the U.S. That's why it is so important to have great netcode (as well as being cross platform with the PC version when KOF XIV is released on Steam as well), in which we can easily play against everyone that's not in the U.S.

 

[danmaku]

When and if Riot puts the Rising Thunder developers to work on what we're all assuming is gonna by League of Legends fighting edition, you bet your ass other franchises will adopt the F2P model.

Frankly i think the LoL model really would fit fighting games, especially if they keep getting characters eternally like LoL currently does.

This. If other devs keep ther heads stuck up their asses, Riot will gladly exploit the lack of competition and release another money printer. They already have a gigantic audience and popular characters, if the game doesn't suck awfully it will be a big hit.

As for SFV, they need to drop the price. Maybe it's too early for F2P, but the value just isn't there for most people and they need to lower the entrance fee if they want to build an esport game.

 

[Eidan]

SFV received intense negative backlash. That's why it sold poorly. Why are we acting like SF is some maligned niche title that has no realistic chance of being successful?

 

[Pompadour]

This. If other devs keep ther heads stuck up their asses, Riot will gladly exploit the lack of competition and release another money printer. They already have a gigantic audience and popular characters, if the game doesn't suck awfully it will be a big hit.

As for SFV, they need to drop the price. Maybe it's too early for F2P, but the value just isn't there for most people and they need to lower the entrance fee if they want to build an esport game.

It's already $45 on Amazon so I think the market is effectively repricing the game for Capcom. I'm sure it'll be like $20 or $30 bucks come Christmas while a SFV + Season 1 package will be sold at $60.

Yeah, I find it fair for me personally too, because I spend very little money on games like that. With a game like CS:GO, I'm literally a couple hundred bucks up on the whole deal from selling off things over the years.

I don't think this type of business model should be stopped or something, I'm just curious about how far it goes, and what types of people actually spend the most money.

If Capcom were to go bankrupt and sell off it's assets, Street Fighter should go to Valve. They should just monetize all those player mods people do for SFIV and V for free like Valve does with Team Fortress 2. Maybe not include tacky, flaming hats but they should definitely take that approach to character cosmetic customization.

 

[CrispyBoar]

Nothing about SFV's gameplay makes it next gen. The graphics are great, but nothing that couldn't be scaled back for X1, and last gen consoles.

You honestly think that Unreal Engine 4 would run very well on Xbox 360 & PS3? LOL!

Heck, the PS3 struggled with most UE3 games as it is.