Make it special

Everything regarding The Flock that doesn't belong in the other forums.

Make it special

Postby caesar239 » 22 Aug 2015, 16:55

So after the release; the game is getting much hate from people who haven't bought it and doesn't understand it. So now I'd like to suggest that The Flock shouldn't be on sale and must not be sold in any bundle . Please Voglesap Do not let the haters get your game for cheap just so that they negatively review it on steam. You have the chance to make The Flock one of the rarest and the most special games on Steam. I'm sure the fans will be proud if that was done. Imagine a couple hundreds playing the finally alone and feeling overwhelmed :twisted:
caesar239
 
Posts: 4
Joined: 01 Nov 2014, 22:00

Re: Make it special

Postby Hydre » 22 Aug 2015, 20:01

Image

Nuff said
This game was a plain old moneygrab
Hydre
 
Posts: 5
Joined: 21 Aug 2015, 15:52

Re: Make it special

Postby tokyo121 » 23 Aug 2015, 20:01

Many people hate the game because of how the concept was applied. Few people want to purchase a game only to have it rendered unplayable after X goal is met. This is really not a new concept, just applied in a new way. Permadeath games are very popular and have a good following as other games have proven. However, applying permadeath to the ENTIRE game makes it so people decide not to buy and play at all.

There are many games that still have a multiplayer following years after it's initial release. The devs used Titanfall as an example. This was a bad decision and a poor role model. Titanfall is generally considered a Call of Duty clone with some improvements. The reason games like this die out after a year or so is because new versions come out just about every year.

On the other side of the coin, we have games such as Left 4 Dead, Left 4 Dead 2, and Killing Floor. In fact, Killing Floor may have been the best role model for this game. It was, more or less, an indie project that hit the floor running and is still played today. These games are still active, granted not quite as when they were first released.

Devs, when you tell people "We're killing the game after X goal has been met because we don't feel multiplayer games are sustainable for years" expect hate and expect people to not buy your product. You could've gotten the same tension by applying the concept to mini-worlds instead of the game itself. By launching the game and applying the death goal but allowing the game to start anew after the game ended allows players to keep the same tension filled hours of gameplay and enjoyment without having to worry about "Why did I spend money on a game I won't be able to play in the future".

With the reasoning you gave, you've shot yourselves in the foot. You've crippled your potential market and ruined the game because people now view this as a straight up cash grab with no backing behind it. It could've been so much more. I do applaud you for taking a risk, even if it ended in failure. We need more developers to take risks and break the gaming molds. However, if you create games in the future, ensure you know your audience and don't alienate them because you feel multiplayer games aren't sustainable after a year or so. Many other games have proven you wrong.

Best of luck to you.
tokyo121
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 23 Aug 2015, 19:48


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron