I make no assumptions over how people value their own money - pocket change to you may be in fact a Very Big Deal(TM) to someone else. It's not mine or Nick's place to tell people how to think about their own money, we can only offer an opinion on how we'd value that money if it were us spending it.I have to say frankly that this is an incredibly destructive point of view. You are normalizing the attitude that it's OK to reject a game over what is, essentially, pocket change.
As gamers, we love to piss and moan about the terrible F2P games clogging the app stores, and you're going to ding this excellent gem over TWO BUCKS? Two bucks *paid one time*? That's less than the average Candy Crush player spends MONTHLY. When did our standards get so radically out of whack?
Personally, I'd rather buy ten fantastic games at premium prices than waste one iota of my time on a F2P game wondering if they are going to screw me once I'm engaged with it.
There are 20,000 new games dropped into the app store every month. If you're not going to unequivocally boost the signal of great games from small publishers like this, you're doing the community a tremendous disservice.
Just wanted to thank you specifically for flagging this up - it's worth noting that while Nick wrote the review, the blurb (in fact most of the blurbs) was written by me, so that could go some way to explaining the disconnect there. Please accept my apologies - I will make sure this is better going forward.Having the blurb on the main site say, "Read Nick's 4 star review" hides that information, though, and might turn off someone who's unwilling to read the whole review, IMO.
One more comment from me on this topic. 4 stars is hardly a punishment. I gave 4 stars to "Frost" and "Legends of Callasia" and very much enjoy those games.I hope this decision to punish that with a lower score rather than reward the approach doesn't put others off from releasing quality games at this kind of price point.
No need to apologize. I'm glad my feedback was helpful!Just wanted to thank you specifically for flagging this up - it's worth noting that while Nick wrote the review, the blurb (in fact most of the blurbs) was written by me, so that could go some way to explaining the disconnect there. Please accept my apologies - I will make sure this is better going forward.
I don't think it's clear from the review that Nick wouldn't want to pay that much, as he says, "While I wouldn't balk at that price myself, I recognize that the game lands smack in the middle of a Venn diagram of my favorite things."The creators of Mini Metro created a game and stated they would like X much for it. Nick played that game, and decided that in hindsight he wouldn't want to pay that much for it. It's a position he's well within his rights to take, just as it is your right to disagree with him.
I think a big part of this discussion is based on us not knowing what the other factors are--price is the only factor to focus on. And those of us who are anti-F2P don't particularly like seeing price mentioned as a negative in any way. You've consistently mentioned price in a lot of your reviews, whether focusing on the value of Concrete Jungle or the steep price of Legends of Callasia, so I think we just need to get used to seeing that information discussed.Also, to be clear, I probably wouldn't have given Mini Metro 5 stars even if it were, say, $3. As I stated in the review, price was the main factor but not the only factor.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests