walt133 wrote:Sabre39 wrote: I won't even get into the fact that they went back on their word "no microtransactions" in theHunter:COTW. I uninstalled that the day they introduced the first microtansaction disguised as a DLC and never looked back.
This I did not know about. Maybe Alena said that and when she went on leave, it got left out?
I believe Sabre29 reffers to official DLCs as:
ATV Saber 4x4
and
Tents & Ground Blinds.
They both cost a little - not realy big money (my perspective), but still offer rather limited content and in this way, they resemble more microtransactions, than proper DLCs.
I guess only Medved-Taiga can be considered as real DLC.
Still, sadly my PC is way to weak to handle COTW - because I suspect, that in many terms, this game could fit me better then TH:C. But untill I won't change my PC for better machine, this remains pure speculation.
Radamus wrote: All I can add is, I know I've been there and done that - it's nothing new and we've most likely all been there to some extent. Each of us have to decide - but complain because I don't like how the company runs its business?
Well, I think that while we can't really complain about EW doing business - this is natural, we can complain (or rather could complain if we would know whole background, "on place" in EW headquarters, so to speak) about how do they do it.
Don't take me wrong - I don't want do judge this, since I do not know this "background info". But I reffer to general attitude:
(1) "we do business, and by the way we provide entertainment to people" vs. (2) "We provide entertainment to people, and by the way we do business".
While first option is perfectly valid, I recognise it as... hmm... moraly less appealing, so to speak.
As I said, I don't want to be a judge here. But looking at EW engagment into the players community, how much do they contact with us via forum, and so on, "I want to believe"
that EW represents mostly option nr 2.
From other hand, looking at this whole microtransactions model, it feels more like option nr 1. I assume this model is forced by the niche character of the game. In two ways actualy - from one hand, there is small pool of players (however I saw smaller in case of some other games), hence there is probably little other options to suck as many money from an individual as possible. From other hand, there is no real competition, so one can dictate prices as one's want - customer don't really have the option to go for something less expensive anyway.
As I once stated in some other thread, I believe this system is most discouraging for new players. If one is together with the game for years, buying those new rifle, or some other stuff once for a while do not feel that bad. But if a new player wants to catch-up, so to speak (I don't say one have to, but if one want to), then this are quite big sums of money in short period of time. And this hurts.
waiora wrote:gas56 wrote:
IRL it would be quite stupid to shoot an animal in the head,... unless it was a survival situation where you needed to eat, or an animal attack.
Have you ever hunted or shot at a deer?
Yes, he have.
Not once, if I recall correctly.
waiora wrote:
Yes an animal can move its head, and it happens. But hunters also nick vegetation when shooting at lungs and miss, or they hit the stomach and spoil half the meat. There's arguments for and against for both.
You sight your rifle before every hunt based on what terrain you will be hunting in, and how far you expect to be shooting.
When you hunt something like impala or kudu and the only shot is head at 120m you take it, because the "bosveld" vegetation is so thick that you wont see the animal again. Hitting a melon sized target from 100-200m with a .300 Weatherby magnum is no harder than hitting heart or lungs. A head shot blows half the skull away.... there is no survival.
As I said before, in oposition to Gas, I'm not RL hunter. But from my standpoint this is not about effectivness, but about safety margin. About a hunter with regulary shot in a animal's head I would say that he/she is rather overconfident, than confident. I'm sure there are situations, within head-shot maybe an only option, if one want to take shot at all, as you described. But as regular way of hunting? I would not go for this. Don't take me wrong - if this is not forbidden by law or any hunting regulations, you have right to do it. But judging by Internet's "wisdom", you are rather in the niche group in worldwide scale. And it seems that most experienced hunters (at least those with are somehow active in the net) discourage head-shots as too risky, and advocate for lungs-shots. It is not like that you can't mess-up a lung-shot. This simply gives you greater safety margin. Thats it.
EDIT:
In one I would only disagree with Gas - in situation of danger, I would be even more against shooting in a head. I don't believe that any normal fellow (or even regular soldier) in stressfull situation of protecting his/her life, would have nerves strong enough to carefuly aim for head (or more precisely, a brain in this head). So I would rather aim again into the biggest target aviable. In case of charging animal, a head would be probably in the way anyway. But I would not aim for it specifficaly. But I would want to simply put as much lead as possible into chest area with hope that agressor (regardless is it a Homo sapiens, or other animal) will be stoped before it reach me.