Discuss.
I hope this tweet doesn’t age like milk…
1 Like
For me, it’s difficult to not read too far into this after “we might not be around in a few months”.
I think the game will be a steal for 40US, but most of the people I’ve recommended the game to just put it on their wishlist because they don’t want to bother with games in EA.
A sentiment that worries me when the final product of Wicked seems very contingent on the success of what basically amounts to an extended demo that grows from month to month.
I think the crucible and additional game modes discussed surrounding crucible offer a lot of replay value and gives us something to chew on.
If I get a vote it’s for the “epic experience”… I can fathom a consumer just wanting to get it over with for a sense of accomplishment. But I know they exist. Looking at you DS community 
That said I think the story should feel like a story. If Wicked before expansions is little more than a great prelude to an even more expensive story I could live with that too. Having the remaining come from DLC, etc. I don’t in any way mid supporting beyond 40US for the kind of playtime and expansive world
i understand the implied worries about the 300-400h thing, since i myself quit lots of games when i was burned out after hundreds of hours without even finishing the main story (looking at u fallout 4).
but i also think thats not a real issue here. most games that suffer from this are huge open world games with a quintillion of map markers people first feel pushed to explore, and later they feel like they just can’t handle it anymore.
i doubt that will happen with wicked. and even if it does: yeah sure, sad people might not play the story all the way to DLC nr. 69, but so what? if main game provides 100h for single playthrough (without optional stuff like crucible or endgame grind), then that’s a good thing in my book.
only “issue” i might see, or i have actually heard people say is, that some people feel like EA “drip feeding” causes people to not really want to play anymore when its 1.0 because they feel they have seen it all. or they already grinded it so much they get burned out.
But thats not a wicked specific or unique problem, that is just a risk every EA game has to some degree.
The drip feed group always sends me. It’s the same group that has the most unhinged comments about a game being unfinished when they purchased a game in EA.
If drop feeding is a problem for any consumer they have every opportunity to put the game down and come back later, no?
It’s like force feeding yourself at the dinner table and complaining your stomach hurts after when storing it for later was always an option.
1 Like
no doubt not everyone will relate to that, but i understand the psychology behind it. u want to check out the game, its great, so u grind. u get more content in smaller doses, u enjoy it again and grind. and then suddenly it feels like u have seen it all and are burned out.
i would not quickly dismiss this for being unreasonable. thats just how humans are, they want more and more up to a point where they suddenly loose interest and chase after the next thing.
I’m fine playing as long as the game has a story that slaps.
2 Likes
100 hours for 1.0, considering that in early access most have 40-70 hours, this makes me think that in 1.0 there will be less new content than in early access. This is sad for me because I don’t have enough of it, there will be little plot and cutscenes that I really liked in this game and few locations to explore.
Heard. Less dismissive, rather I find it difficult to comprehend based on my perspective alone.
I picked up the game in EA about a month after release based on footage thinking they could have something here, Statements from Moon on how expansion the word is to be, and thinking it would be an enjoyable experience to be along for the journey with a small studio as someone who’s pretty feed up with the kinda shit being made. A studio that doesn’t want to put ads in games and wants the full game to be great without nickel and dining consumers for simple QoL that should have been in the base game? Sign me up.
But like I said, I also don’t mind paying three times the games currently price for even more areas, weapons, story, etc..
I’ve always played the current game in Eaa with the intent to give feedback but didn’t think my feedback would be relevant unless I really got to know what’s what, which explains why my playtime is so over the top.
It’s all been testing things. If the game is good I’d be interested in playing it over and over. Not that it’ll be the only game I play again for the rest of time or anything.
Which is to say, the world isn’t reflective of my playtime. IMO the games probably closer to 20-40.
Whatever Moon decides on I hope our playable GoFundMe isn’t cut drastically short.
there is no doubt that the game is worth the money once completed..for now the players are paying beta testers.
the longevity of the content is relative to what you do, to the knowledge of the game you have and to what the game has to offer you in the end.
at the moment I would absolutely not recommend anyone to play this game..you can have beautiful graphics, a beautiful story, an exceptional verticality of the world never seen before, a fun combat system but everything else is really very bad.
the game is not even remotely optimized and is totally unbalanced both in combat and in objects.
if this is the direction it will certainly not be a game that will last for years but at most a game for a run and a shelf