Or councelers guarenteed to escape with OP stats. Or new OP Jasons after release that were guarenteed to win games. What part of, "it was a gift for backing the game" does your ignorant ass not understand? You want to know what bad practice would be? Offering new perks that cost actual money to buy. But you're being a child arguing that consumers telling companies what they want is bad. Sometimes I decide the value proposition is still worth it. Sometimes it means I don't buy games I'd probably otherwise like. No matter the game or risks I dislike locking mechanics behind a pay wall if it's multiplayer. Sounds like you're the main entitled person here. It's being a smart consumer to let the developers know. It's consumer activism to rail against something you don't like. It's not entitlement to hate a business practice. Those complaining about it need to lose their freaking sense of entitlement. Would I love to play that Jason? Hell yeah. I never backed them from the start, got burned with No Man's Sky, so I didn't want to chance it. The only people complaining about it are spoiled, jealous, whiny little brats who want a free handout.Īnd this is coming from someone who will never have said Jason. It would be a slap in the backers faces to release this Jason to everyone later. These people took a chance and backed the game as much as 2 years in advance. It is not available to anyone else, and according to the devs it never will be.Īnd this is a good decision. The way I understand it, it was a way for them to raise money (they are a small Indi company after all) to help with game development, and was their way to incentivise and thank their backers. Originally posted by alonesilverwolf:That Jason is exclusive to people that actually paid extra money to help back the game in it's infancy.
0 kommentar(er)
