Not sure what you mean by this. Unless my memory is completely failing, Cataclysm in Vermintide 1 was a difficulty level available since release. To the extent that I can remember, Vermintide 1’s dlcs generally followed the format of a smaller update that was free for everyone along with paid content. They released a couple of paid cosmetics, map packs together with new weapons and they also experimented with a Last Stand mode that never became popular. Vermintide 2 offers a lot more aside of maps and weapons in the form of new enemies, new heroes, new game modes. Maybe the execution isn’t perfect and that is an entirely different topic, but you can’t really improve or maintain a product unless you keep developing stuff for it and unless people actually pay for it.
I still think that the pay-to-play label makes zero sense here. Right now you have a ton of content just in the base package: 15 careers, all the weapons of Vermintide 1 + new stuff on top, two map-packs and access to all adventure maps through quick-play or someone in your lobby owning the respective dlcs, you have access to a ton of challenges and most of the offer in Lohner’s Emporium. It’s just a silly statement in my view.
5 careers cost 40 bucks in what universe? //puu.sh/Hnx0x/0562fe80a1.jpg 3,5€ x 5 = 17,5€
i mean if you don’t think the cosmetics are worth it dont buy em.
not to mention that you can cherry pick exactly what career you like, your not forced to pay for a bundle or anything.
pretending its a fixed price of 40$ is kinda dishonest dont you think
Once I again, I find I need to stress I’m not saying Vermintide 2 is a pay to play game, but that it’s beginning to look more and more like one with the passage of time. The point was about how many features a new player would find locked.
I wouldn’t go that far, but your memory is failing you in this instance. Cataclysm was added to the game at a later time, and it was a free addition.
I agree with you here (except on the new game modes, given how broken the weaves are). Vermintide 2 offers much more from a gameplay perspective. I’m not arguing against that, I’m merely comparing the DLC practices.
I’d agree with you if the base packs had the challenges in it. They haven’t, and FS repeatedly said 8$ is the marketing price for careers, they just gave people who simply don’t care about the rest the option to buy half the features at half price.
Even then (and I mantain my point about the challenges) 20$ for careers is close to the cost of the base game. I don’t really see “you are not forced to buy them all” as an argument here, as of course, you’re never forced to get a DLC. But comparing DLC practises, I believe it’s fair to consider the whole pack. (otherwise it’s easy to argue that if you don’t want to buy careers and are not interested in WoM the business model hasn’t changed. But it’s precisely in those DLCs that the change is apparent)
well i cant agree, your comparing challenges with gameplay.
by getting the the basic pack you get everything you need to play the career to its fullest extent.
if you want shiny cosmetics and challenges you pay extra, if you find the pricing of these too high (as do i) you are not forced to buy them.
in the end value of a entertainment prduct is purely subjetive.
i put 63€ in this game in total, and played 1800hours, so i paid 0.035€ per hour, i think thats fair.
for someone who did not put that many hours in or never will, i can see how the pricing would be harsh but then again i personly subjectively cant agree because i did.
I’m pretty sure you can complete challenges, even though you can’t claim them until you buy the cosmetics/challenges pack. That doesn’t change your point really from a completionist’s standpoint, but still, bear in mind that’s the point of view you’re basing your reasoning on.
Also subjectively, 4€ for nice colours and shiny weapons, I’m not going to complain about it. That’s cheaper than a beer in a bar during happy hour here, and since the careers are coming one or two a year, I can definitely afford the extra note.
Now if I were a new player, I don’t think I’d feel the need to buy everything right away. I say you can buy the base game and enjoy it as it is, and buy the rest if you want ; heck that’s what I did with Vermintide 1. Bought the game, played quite a bit, then went for the DLCs cause I liked the game and got the steam bundle with all I wanted and all I did not need for 35€. I don’t think it is unreasonable a price.
And to add another nail, the game is currently 7€ with -75% steam sale (until the 22nd of march), and it is also quite frequently on sale. If that’s not an insanely good deal, I don’t know what is. Easily 300+ hours of entertainment for the price of a sub sandwich.
I’m sorry, but do you have a source for this? I mean, Vermintide 1 was released on October 23rd, 2015, and the oldest steam thread complaining about Cataclysm is… October 28th, 2015:
Further more, Cataclysm steam guides have been posted since November 2015. I actually went through the patch notes that are still available towards the end of 2020 as I was writing a review of the game for some friends and was documenting its entire history, but I could never find that being mentioned.
vermintide 1 had other names for the difficulty lvls, cataclysm is the only name that is overlapping because people craved a mode that is more difficult than legend, cataclysm got added to vermintide 2 in homage to the supposedly higher difficulty that vermintide 1 had. sadly fatshark hid the new (reintroduced) difficulty behind the Wind of magic DLC part of why it got recieved very badly reviews
Perhaps it’s the case for the above? Last Stand was indeed released at a later date and featured one free map and one paid map. They never went further with the project because it didn’t end up being interesting for the player base. I recall these types of comparisons being made at WoM’s release regarding Cataclysm, they were mostly coming from players who had never touched Verm1 lul. I wasn’t there from the first day either, but to the best of my recollection, Cataclysm was a part of the game since the initial release.
I’m not confusing those, I played VT1 intensively but in its last year of support. I was led to believe cataclysm was in fact a later addition from the game. It looks like I was wrong in that regard. I couldn’t say what led to the mistake, only the fake accouncement for deathwish comes to mind
Even if not the main focus of this topic, I would also like to add that Fatshark belongs to the developers who actually respect currency conversion. The € prices are adapted to the $ prices and not just the same number with different signs. There are not nearly enough developers following that example.
It might appear miniscule to most but it stings me as a special type of greed.
Yes, that Deathwish announcement was a 1st of April joke. In any case, the current game’s Legend difficulty is roughly equivalent to Verm1’s cata in many regards, but it can end up feeling easier due to the number of tools for damage mitigation that are at your disposal. Verm2’s Cata is quite a step up and bears no similarity to anything ever present in the 1st game. I think a lot of it is actually inspired by the Onslaught mod that Grimalackt developed, but I never played much modded content so I couldn’t tell you how accurate that is.
Anyhow, returning to the prices of the DLCs, I still fail to see the point. Something between 7-9$ has always been the norm when it comes to map packs in either game. Careers only cost half as much if you just want the gameplay and don’t care about cosmetics, but honestly even at full price I think they are a total deal if you like the game. You get a lot of fun out of them. Only WoM is more expensive, but it’s also the expansion that offers the most (new enemies, new weapons, new map, new game-mode). Again, it’s an entirely separate discussion whether or not the content is well made or interesting, but the sheer volume justifies the price in my opinion.
Other DLCs had new weapons so we have a new difficulty (you made your point) half a new faction (I say half considering the amount of new enemies) and a new game mode (although here I have trouble not considering how that failed) in place of 1-2 maps. I’d personally prefer the maps, but I can see why this’d be worth it. I don’t think it justifies twice the price though, definitely not. Perhaps 12 instead of 8, if it was done well.
I could also agree with you on 4$ careers. I just think locking challenges is a money grab and a slap in the face of people who have 100% or close challenge completion. Actually everything in the premium packs should be the base options for a career. It’s what every other career has. Less than what other careers have actually. I would have no prob if on top of it fatshark released a real premium dlc (like for example the collector edition upgrade is), but as it is, I feel it’s an insult to players. It’s one of the main critiques to the DLCs and I think FS can use some good reviews.
Regardless, as per my original post, I think FS would benefit from having a clear monetization model. As is I’m afraid it might scare new customers. Also, considering the rate of content release I can’t see the new system as working.
Dunno, in the grand scheme of things I find ~8$ for a career that I literally play hundreds of maps on to be quite the bargain. Same goes for map packs in general. Again, regarding WoM there are two separate discussions. The sheer volume of content within it more than justifies the price. Whether or not it’s fun or well-made content is a different topic.
