I originally was not going to do this blog because I didn't want to keep going back and forth, but after reading the comments, I felt that a second blog needed to be made. So I went through all of the comments that were on that previous Siege post and I distilled them down to main points that were being said against my post. So here is my response to your response on my post.
Before I begin, I did want to say that when it came to my calculations on the matches, that I was wrong. One person in the comments pointed out that the match situation that I used in my post could not have been 30 minutes long. I apologize for this, and the timing aspect of my blog is wrong. But I will go into why I thought that the match was 30 minutes long.
The first points that I wanted to go one relates to the first and largest point that I went on with my previous post; the microtransactions. A couple have people talked about how they got their game at around $30 and on how little they spent, but I didn't consider any of those arguments on pricing. I only consider the original price of the game because that was the price that some people paid for that game. Same goes for the season pass as well. The original price of the game is $60, with each of the two season passes being $30. That is $120 for one game that doesn't have a lot of content. At least I know if I purchase a game like Call Of Duty that has now has a lot of microtransactions to it, that the base game is still a decent amount of content. Even CSGO has more content than Siege, and their microtransactions have actual value to them. But then Ubisoft, after milking me of $120 , wants me to put even more money into a secondary currency like a free-to-play mobile game?
Leading after that argument, the next point is that the game is viable just with the base characters and you are totally fine without the dlc characters. While this is true, the fact of the matter is this: This game does not have a lot of content like I said earlier, and putting those extra characters behind a pay wall is putting a considerable amount of content that should have been their day one behind a pay wall. Those characters should be released for free because I already payed for the game, I shouldn't be buying characters like a free-to-play game. Besides, aren't the dlc operators cooler? Because I think a dude with a future visor that can show footprints is pretty cool. Another argument that comes up is why worry about aesthetic items because they don't affect the gameplay? Well, my answer to that is the same as the answer to the dlc operators. When I was looking through the different bundle packs while writing my previous entry, I found a Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon skin pack. I thought that was really cool, but was also a real turn-off considering the only way I could get it was with real money. But on top of that, i think implementing a system of unlocking skins for your characters and guns by using them a bunch could actually be fun. Actually using that gun a lot and showing others that you earned that skin could be more rewarding than just buying skins. Another comment that came up multiple times was that you could unlock those dlc characters without spending money relatively fast. This can be done, but that is a lot of time and commitment that not everyone has. The people who talked about unlocking these characters for free also talk about how they have hundreds of hours on that game. And those people stated that they bought the year 2 season pass and/or bought the base game at a cheap price, which means that they got the game recently. That is a lot of free time into a game that people don't really have(including myself.) So, sorry I don't have a lot of free time and the free time I do have is spent on writing and on other games?
The next major points were on strategy and map layout. Nearly everyone talked about the map layout and strategy of the game. One point that came up was that the strategy and communication comes when playing with friends. First off, what about the times when their are no friends available? What if I want to play the game really badly, but none of my friends are online? And on the free weekend on my pc, I even did play with my friend and we never talked strategy. Actually, playing with my friend was the most fun I had with Siege, as for I spent my time with my friend saying stupid things while driving the rc car with the zapper around tazing people. The next point that came up was that the location of the objective moves around the map. I never said it didn't. I said that their is only one(or two really close together) objectives in each round and that what is the point of even communicating other than enemy location(which is never communicated) when we are all focused on the same thing. One thing that someone said and I agree with partly is that tactical games and Siege are crap on console. I totally agree that tactical games on console are worse than on pc. But remember; I played on both pc and ps4 and I found my experience to be no different on the two. It wasn't some big change where everyone started communicating with each other and whatnot. I found the silence from the players and the strategy of the way people took on their task to be the same on both. Another point that comes up is that the strategy changes for when you are trying to diffuse the bomb vs. trying to save a hostage. I completely agree with this. The one problem that comes though is that the objective doesn't matter. If the objective was completely taken out of the game, nothing would change. Because nearly all matches end with either the entire team dying or the clock running out. I even thought that it just be for me and I watched full matches of ranked on youtube and I found that every single round of every single match that I saw ended(if you think I am exaggerating, just look it up on youtube.) In the end, this game is just a single life team death match with the side option of capturing the objective. When I played CSGO, I found that the killing-the-entire-team to blowing-up/defusing-the-bomb ratio was pretty even, but Siege doesn't really have that ratio because it essentially doesn't have an objective beyond kill the other team. The big thing on strategy of the game was that to learn the map layout and that the shape of the map(a thin airplane, a large barn, etc.) made it a different strategy every time. But in my experience, I found the map to be a large building with tightly packed corridors where you don't really need to learn the way around the map because the sheer amount of ways to enter the area and the fact that their are a lot of areas where you can break the wall. Why do I need to learn the map when I could just punch a hole into the corner of the wall and shoot at dudes from their. Why do I need to learn all this when I could just blast most of the walls in the game and just go through that way? I know that not all walls and such are not like this, but their are enough to where I can say what's the point? Going back to the point of communication, I stand on my original point of why communicate when we are all going to the same place anyways. Besides, we are just going there to kill guys, because doing the actual objective is pretty impossible before killing everyone else. My proposal for communicating is to take out the rc car part of finding the bomb and instead have the attacking team sweep the building room-to-room. That, I think, will bring communication as for the players would need to talk about what room is clear vs. what is not. Also putting labels on certain areas like CSGO would help too. One last point before getting into the next part is the strategy of roaming defenders. Like I said, the games are essentially just team death match, so roaming and killing enemies is just a smarter way to kill enemies.
In my previous entry, I compared this game to CSGO, and some people in the comments stated that these games are too different to be compared to each other. The biggest reason why 'I could not compare this to CSGO' is the map structure. Yes, the maps are different between CSGO and Siege. CSGO maps are bigger while Siege is more dense and destructible. But do you want to know how I see these two games? I see these two games as first person shooter games that thrive mainly on pc, with a heavy multiplayer emphasis and its primary mode being a mode in which you either attack or defend an objective against a terrorist group or a police group in which the alternate way of winning is to kill the entire enemy team. You only spawn once per round, and you do not heal. You choose through an array of weapons, equipment, and armor before each round. Try to explain the two games to a person who doesn't know these two game or isn't really into gaming and try not to spend extra time talking about the tiny little differences between the two games. But I can say the price of the content is wildly different. I know that their are differences between the two games, but the way the comments reacted to me comparing these two was like I was trying to compare Arma to Huniepop.
One person did say that I have a problem grinding to get good at that game. I have problems grinding to get good with that game because I have many issues with the game not because I have issues with grinding in games. I have a little under 400 hours into CSGO before I dropped the game(no, I didn't write this plus the last blog because I am a CSGO fanboy.If anything, I was excited for this game back when I was playing CSGO because I thought that this was CSGO 2.0.) I know that the person who said this didn't mean I don't like grinding any game, but I just wanted to clear things up.
Going back to my mistake from my previous entry about the time, I will again say that I was wrong on that. But I still feel that it conveyed the idea of grinding gameplay for pennies' worth. When I got that 300 renown for the match, that was a lucky match where the team won 3-0, I was second place on the team leaderboard with six kills(40% of all kills), and I had a 10% renown boost from another person who bought the booster pack. But I thought that the matches were longer because the matches are slow, but not in a good way to me. I get that real situations like this isn't Call Of Duty fast,but do I need to spend 30 seconds trying to choose a character? My proposal for this is to cut that time in half and go with my other proposal of a room-to-room sweep, which would take out the 45 seconds of the preparation phase. I already know how a lack of prep sounds, but if your team plays smart and leads the attacking team away(with strategy and communication,) then you could have plenty of time to set up.
One last thing that I will add that I did not say before is this: why are their no terrorist skins in multiplayer? I already know someone is going to say that this doesn't affect gameplay, but I mean c'mon. Whenever I play I feel like it's some sort of training simulation instead of an actual situation because I'm just shooting other cops and not terrorists. I'm not saying make entire new characters just for the terrorist side, I'm just saying to put a skin on the defending side while keeping the character weapons and abilities the same to make it feel like I'm shooting bad guys.
After these two blog posts, you would think that I'm some fiery preacher with a picket sign, but I'm not. in the end, i don't really care if you play this game or not. I just wanted to share my opinions (which seems unpopular from the comments of the last post) and see what people had to say. I will not be making a third blog about this, because I don't want to keep going back and forth on this topic. I will still read your comments though, and maybe I will respond to them, but this topic is over in terms of future blog posts. Before I leave, I want to thank those who gave out intelligent comments on my previous blogs and for this blog as well. It didn't matter whether or not you agreed with me, I just enjoy looking at these comments and seeing people go beyond just saying, 'your wrong.' Thanks for listening to me rant and actually reading these posts instead of looking at the title and not giving it a chance.