Nik778899 wrote: danielrh wrote: Nik778899 wrote:
There's a surprise.
As Philla correctly said in the past, based on your analogy in your signature, I don't know how you could look in a mirror and not see a pigeon.
This is what I'm talking about can't we just get along? - there's never any closure with you just back and forth back and forth till the conversation gets silly, stupid and boring
I think with you - you have to get the last word in because if you don't it's like you've lost the argument, not long back to had another tiff with another poster and it went from Sat to Sun, he tried to calm it down but you just couldn't stop, you can't help yourself.
...... com'on Nik it's the weekend chill out mate and watch the footy and talk PES on here
I'm happy to discuss PES and do regularly, I have done previously with you too. You just do not seem to take on board what anybody on here says. The whole discussion recently sums it up.
You: Master League will be a great mode in PES2019.
Me: Why will it?
You: I believe Konami can do it.
Me: Considering their track record, there is no evidence to support such a claim.
Never ever an answer or any fact at all to back up points you make, you always argue in the face of facts and Konami's track record; as I've said before it's blind faith. Look at my point yesterday too. You essentially blamed ML being stripped back on the switch to next-gen as well as the fox engine. I pointed out that PES2018 is the fourth release on next-gen and the fifth release on the Fox engine. Absolutely no answer from you.
I'll discuss a point as long as necessary. You never consider your role in the discussion and disagreements on here, Daniel.
Regarding ML there is possibly an element of truth regarding how an engine impacts on development of modes, certainly regards how change and also resource can impact on the development of certain assets. What potentially results is at the very least (the very least) a perception that development of any asset has been abandoned.
Without going into details or specifics, because I can't and whatever I do know is hardly crammed with minute detail (in other words I don't have all the information), I know that ML is not being abandoned. I just simply know that and it isn't known by reading into articles, tweets, and alike.
What comes from the refusal of the developer to abandon ML is up for continuing debate, with game itself ultimately having to do the talking come what may.
There is a period of transition happening in gaming as a whole, right down to distribution. I am of the opinion (and when I say this it is just opinion, not based on any knowledge of an ITK nature) that we might very well see a product(s) that will look to split the userbase very clearly, but if done right can be a positive thing for all types of player in the long run. It wouldn't surpise me if a PES-lite formed the base of the game, so in essence the base is free from it's release, with modes outwith myClub being assets that can be bought. Sounds scary, eh? Especially given publishers form across the whole medium, but something like that could work in my opinion if done right.
Right in that particular situation would be to make the key paid content, if all of it were to be purchased by a user, to amount to that same 40-50 quid outlay we currently have for the full game, but doesn't demand all that money up front.
Would a player like yourself, for example, be willing to pay 15-20 quid for ML (so all teams and players and Edit Mode mode thrown in) once you have downloaded and installed the free base game? Would you, after that and as an offline player be then willing to pay a couple of quid for a use in offline only play Legend player? Would you like a game that offers user-choice from the off like that? A product in which value comes from what you are only willing to pay? Remember, you would starting from a position of not having paid anything.
Now, there are risks there. I would have my own concerns (pricing model) but, and this is a potential biggie for ML players, it could reveal that those who play ML are a tiny minority, with the concern then being that they do scrap the mode as opposed to attempt to improve it.
I'm not entirely sure where I would sit with something like that, but I could see potential benefits as well as new potential issues. What wouldn't be an issue is player choice as they would no longer have to pay a lump sum up front for a game in which only one or two modes appeal.
Anyway, that is the types of questions I like to ponder over with these games when it comes to access, value, and overall health of the product. Ways in which to explore trying to keep everyone happy.
I would like other folk to offer their take on that model. Would like to hear your own thoughts, Nik.