Jump to content
  • Sign Up


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

119 Excellent

About wakasm

  • Rank
    (3) Conjurer

Profile Information

  • Xbox Gamertag
  • PSN Online ID
  • Steam
  1. I posted on the blog post - but realized that maybe this is the better place: Edit to my post: Since it was not clear until going through the whole process, after you register without the Steam version, you get this message: > It seems like you don't yet own the Pathfinder Adventures game on Steam. Don't worry, whenever you get the game the above-mentioned items will be available to you! So I guess, yes, it works even if you don't own the game yet. I was able to activate the 10% off without needing to use it. So is there an expiration date to do this? For those of us who decided to not buy into the Steam version at this time? it would seem that this process requires you to actually HAVE the Steam version at this time to take advantage of it. (it was posted elsewhere they would not be an expiration on this, so just clarifying, as I was also under the assumption I was getting a download key, something similar to humble bundles, etc that could be used elsewhere)
  2. So is there an expiration date to do this - for those of us who decided to not buy into the Steam version at this time? it would seem that this process requires you to actually HAVE the Steam version at this time to take advantage of it. (it was posted elsewhere they would not be an expiration on this, but I was also under the assumption I was getting a download key, something similar to humble bundles, etc.)
  3. It's not a good discount any way you slice it. It is only a little bit of good will to lesson the sting for people who supported the mobile app. The people getting the best value are the people who are new, just buying in now. They get the game, with less bugs, with more stuff, complete in a package for the same amount people who paid on day one on mobile are. This is especially considering that most of the content (alt packs, treasure cards, gold, runes, charms pack, legendary items, etc are all fluff. It's only valuable to those who really want it. The only actual decent value portion of the ambassador program is the Goblin stuff - which - we'll see how much they price that to really determine it's worth.
  4. So far I've voted with my wallet so I'm right there with you. I own 781 games on steam (I just checked) and many more on GOG and other platforms, and Pathfinder Adventures is a game that I both want to be playing (and streaming) right now, but I must resist because I have not been happy with their decisions for a lot of things for a long while. I say this to show how much other "options" i have personally, and how much in perspective I wanted to be happy with this game. I still maintain they handled this wrong. They could have given everyone who paid $25 or more an 80% off coupon, or offered the game at $3.95 or something reasonable and made everything else DLC. There were lot's of solutions, and there really isn't any excuse other than a business one of double dipping. They should have waited to have more content for the Steam version for old players to be excited and spend money on - the goblin's DLC for instance is not enough IMO. If there are issues behind the scenes as to why content is so slow... there is not enough transparency to the users as to why. And in fact - even though the math probably works out to be the same, if they gave me the game heavily discounted, without the ambassador program, I would have just bought the DLC immediately, no questions asked. But on principle they now are getting nothing from me unless i change my mind. For me, it sucks. I specifically only ever wanted a Steam version. I never wanted a mobile version. I was only influenced to support the mobile version by the implication that the Steam version would both come sooner than it did, and the fact, it would be F2P like the mobile version. These arguments (I've seen here and elsewhere) of "Remember When???" are moot. The gaming industry on a whole has matured. You can't get away with the same stuff when better tools, better pricing models, better examples and competition exist. I remember when you couldn't even download video games, but that doesn't mean in 2017 you could offer a game without a digital download option and still want to be successful, so bringing that up as an example is silly at best. Plus, if you want to play the "remember when" game, there are tons of posts and complaints about 20 other things in the past month or year, including 100's of bugs and other design issues that have been mishandled for "reasons". Do we forget the many times content were delayed? Do we forget that quests was removed despite positive feedback (and being implemented poorly). Or the changes they made from the base game, or... you get the idea. Heck, look at how this Ambassador thing is being handled - how can something as simple as that be so delayed and mishandled to result in 200 questions a day about it? It's par for the course for this game and the devs. All I know is this: The Devs had a lot of great opportunities to make a great thing, and it was marred with a lot of bad and/or short-sighted decision making which ultimately I think will hurt their bottom line - their business bottom line. The one thing that I will say to counter my own words is this: The people who created the game are human. I tell myself this every time I complain on here. I'm pretty confident that many of the issues that people have with the game were not 100% born from an evil place. Despite how illogical and stupid some of these design decisions seem to be... I don't think they were done with any ill intent. The best thing you can do for them is keep a level head and keep providing the feedback they need to make the game a better product. People who blindly defend the devs without proper criticism actively make the product worse. You can criticize and still be positive.
  5. I respectfully disagree and think that the new Salvage system is better. I do however think their choice of how many cards per type was wrong and where the problem lies. The cap for 1 Legendary is a wrong choice. You should have the same probability of finding one just like any other card. The fact it's legendary was from it's probability of dropping from a Treasure Chest, but it shouldn't be it's probability from dropping inside the Campaign... since the Campaign is still a fixed number of scenarios. That's the whole point of Pathfinder the card game. The Adventure Decks already give you your probability of finding things - stronger stuff shows up later in the game... so the probability to realistically find things late in the game unless you farm for them is lower. IE - finding something you want in AD6 should be harder than AD1, which is how the original game is designed. (I personally never farm - because I play as it was intended to be played). However, if even a single person spent real world money or time to farm 20x of a single card... (which again, is ridiculous to me personally), then yes - you probably have a case to be angry, but that still doesn't mean that the new system isn't better. The new system at least is in line with how the rest of the game works. A player should never have been able to mess with the probabilities of a card showing up in a box at all via the treasure system. IMO, the entire Treasure System already dilutes the game, which was always my issue with the Treasure System to begin with. It was never needed from a gameplay point of view. New cards should always have been introduced either through Adventure Decks or Character Classes. They could have introduced "Treasure Decks" with all these cards to purchase an toggle on/off when you start an adventure, which is closer to what this new system is like, but that is not a real thing in the physical game. They could have created optional side scenarios for these treasure cards, or created unique loot cards - but their original intention was not from a gameplay perspective, but from a finanicial one - hence why we got them. That said...I do think the new auto salvage system is better, but their values for how many cards to limit are where I think there is a problem, so I will say that I don't think salvage needs to come back. The real problem is the arbitrary numbers they chose. I don't think a player for instance should be able to Salvage ALL the treasure cards they don't want and keep only the useful overpowered cards so they have a higher probability to drop. A player should be able to find multiple copies of any card however. I forget how many copies of every other Adventure Deck 1-6 card their are, but I think at least a minimum of 2 of any card should be allowed and the Rarity shouldn't matter in it's ability to be found - only limited by it's Adventure Deck number. A single character may need two of the same card to fully enjoy it, etc. That said... it's all a moot point anyway since you can already create new characters, farm the same card by starting a new party, transfer characters, transfer cards, rinse, repeat, anyway... which is something that (IMO) never should have happened as well. Every instance of "the box" should have been it's own without cards being able to be transferred, and they unlocked Pandora's box by allowing that work around to get any number of cards. The new Stash just makes this worse. Their excuse of "multiplayer" for that is also a silly one, you know, especially since a year later and that doesn't exist either. The whole point of the game is to progress with the items you find and not to spec out exact builds. That's where the actual challenge lies. They could have just implemented a sandbox mode for people who really wanted to build crazy decks.
  6. Definitely not - the new system of just capping the cards is better IMO since we'll never get anything like the original "box" system to manually dilute cards through play anyway, at least this new system it limits everything without any extra work. The only argument I can see is for min-maxers who might want to just salvage away completely useless cards and only keep a pool of overpowered cards, but at that point, why have the Treasure Chest Card System at all?
  7. Not really directly related, but i saw a few people posting how unfair and hard the game is, and how they feel it's the type of game you are supposed to spend resources (real and fake money) to use the charms just to beat an adventure and overcome RNG and how not fun that the game was designed that way, and instead, should be balanced without the need for these things. People did chime in to explain how you don't need to use it, but it was funny. The Stash just adds to that while making people who just want the pure experience have to jump through hoops (again) to deal with it. I personally think these "features" not only are misguided, they actually really undermine the user's intellect and ability to deal with a challenge.
  8. Because they are a business. The concept of mobile games has existed for years. None of this matters as a consumer. They could have developed any game, but they chose to take an established IP, and thus, there is some responsibility that comes with that and it's fanbase. Heck, I would argue that some large percentage of the people who payed attention to this game only did so because they are familiar with the IP and/or the board game. This is the whole crux of the argument. New Steam customers don't get screwed. That's great. That should have been the business model from the beginning. People who only play on IOS don't get screwed. That's great, because they got to take advantage of a F2P system if they didn't deposit money. Only people who supported the app because it came out first, with the assumption that the F2P cross compatibility would be there get screwed., because there was no other way of knowing. If it was clear this was the path they would take - we would have had a choice to wait and only pay once on Steam. But it wasn't clear and they even shifted their strategy mid-development, and instead of doing the right thing and gifting free codes to people who spent money, or old customers, they did the wrong thing (in my opinion of course) and had everyone rebuy the game. Steam 100% supports the concept of cross platform, free to play, etc. Steam supports download codes. Steam supports discount codes. Plus they built a backend that syncs content. It could have been done - and probably easily. All of this is their business decision, not the consumer's decision. The only decision we get to make is with our wallet, and that's about it. When you take money, it's not a Prototype. They even asked for an amount that is way above average for mobile. It's not my job to see it as a prototype once they take my money. Otherwise the game should clearly say so. Besides, Board Game Apps themselves have been around for a while, and, in addition, Obsidian, as a company, has games under their belt. They had the clearest picture ever. They are only recreating a product that exists - which is a physical board game that has a subscription scheme built into it! There wasn't anything to experiment with. Make Adventure Paths. Charge $$$ for it. Make Advenure Decks. Charge $$$ for it. Make Characters class packs. Charge $$$ for it. Release the content in a timely matter. Keep customers engaged. Keep doing it until you run out of content. At this point, that's easily $100+ worth of potential stuff for a customer to buy. Create your own content from the above. Charge $$$ for it. The only way this fails if people get sick of the game. The Board Game sales for each Adventure Path drops off because of the general need to play with X amount of people and real time commitments. The app should have better conversion because a solo player, playing digitally, can consume it faster, and it's cheaper, thus, safer to commit to. Obsidian is a Business. Every decision matters, no matter how small the team. Every feature that was not needed for better or worse is time not spent making content, which would have helped their Free to Play vision come true. But instead, we now have the current situation where people are expected to pay almost double at a price that is beyond what most games in the same space would cost. With DLC that is not even core to the game.
  9. @Yewstance - you definitely aren't alone. I too so far have resisted supporting the Steam version. My frustration mostly comes from seeing all this coming from day one. There are just too many obvious decisions that could have gone differently that would have made the whole journey up until now better, including this Steam Launch. The "stash" and "pay to win" features just annoy me more as it ruins the spirit of what this is... I mean, sure, you could add a "pay 50 gold to get a second free turn in Chess" but that really only serves to undermine the spirit of that game. I can't wait for "Pay 1000 gold to skip a scenario" option that will one day come. Sure it's optional - don't use it - but that doesn't take away from what makes it bad. Overall, If the game was pay to play from the beginning, 90% of the confusion + emotion + frustration would have been removed. Plus, the reason why it does burn more is because the game was FREE to PLAY (their decision, not ours) - so people who paid were doing so to show support the game/company in a lot of aspects. We didn't have to, but we did, because we wanted to show support. THEIR hope was greedy (in my opinion), that people would overpay with treasure chests, and or because of impatience, and it didn't turn out that way. So now, it double stings when you decide to crap on that support when there were other options available to lesson the financial load - especially since this game has enough content to support $100+ per user if they supported it right. Not everyone will agree - but that is my viewpoint. Another issue is they took ONE YEAR to release it on Steam. If I had the choice of Steam vs IOS/ANDROID from day one... I would have only started on Steam and never cared about the mobile version. If I had known this was the way it would have turned out, I would never have started on IOS, and just waited for the PC version But lack of foresight, planning, speed on the devs part, I'm now out potentially double the money. As a day one person, it was clearly implied that it would be F2P on Steam... and that only changed when they didn't make enough money to support that model. So sure, I could just continue to play on IOS and skip the steam version, but for me personally, I never wanted the IOS platform to begin with. It's similar to the GOG situation. How bad could the planning be that these things were not considered so far out or clearly explained to people when taking people's money? who knows, but we know for sure lots of Rocky things have happened between release schedules and bugs, so I guess it's not that surprising anymore. In addition when you buy this game, you aren't just buying a game - you are essentially buying DLC packs. Sure the game "as a whole" is a game, but it was never packaged that way in it's physical form. The actual "base" game is just Adventure Deck 1 and the 3 scenarios before 1. There is no reason why they couldn't have priced the Steam Version at like $4.99, and all 5 Adventure Decks as DLC adding up to $24.95. This way, people who already owned the content could buy back in at a much more reasonable rate... but they gambled on everyone being super forgiving and paying 100% a second time. Then keep in mind, all of the "DLC" stuff that is in existence (dice, treasure cards, etc) were all designed SOLELY to take your money, not to enhance the actual playing experience. They were designed to keep your quarters flowing so to speak... Solutions? They also easily could have generated Steam codes for people who purchased $24.95 for 50% off, etc. The ambassador program is "ok" but it's them double dipping off the faithful playerbase. But it's better than nothing, and they do get props for that. And since they've said that in the future, all future content will be unlocked across all platforms - things will one day make sense again. I still have until the 22nd to decide if I want to completely not buy the game in protest. Which sucks because I love throwing my money at things I love, but I still feel that a bulk of things have been handled poorly over the past year. That said... I also realize people are human, team size is small, etc, so I get torn with how far I want to protest. I don't love how they handle my money, but I also want to see them succeed. They are glimmers of hope between it all and I'd love to just be like everyone else and go - "sure!". This is all ironically happening while my board game group is all finishing up The Mummy's Mask (Adventure Path 4) and none of us really want to support the Steam version at this time. Maybe I'll roll a d12 and check and see how strong my willpower is on the 22nd. Maybe in the spirit of things I'll let luck decide.
  10. If it works like this - great. It would be nice if they would explicitly confirm this without any doubt, hence the question. There is evidence and contradiction both ways depending on how you take words as written and their approach to the ambassador pack. If they confirm this, then all is slightly better in the Pathfinder World.
  11. I've been saying this since day 1, as the other F2P model vs the pace of content should never and could never have coexisted. The F2P model only works when you can get new content every month few months to outpace the free players even, which the devs never could push out that content for better or worst. That said... between conversations on reddit, here, and elsewhere, I feel like I am taking crazy pills in that I am the only person interpreting the above statements to mean that: All future content will money transactions (sure - that's fine with me) Future paid content - IE - the DLC It's not transferable, based off the first statement of This means folks that purchased content on the mobile version of the game will need to repurchase the content on Steam or GOG. That statement was the bolded one, and the followup to it didn't help clarify at all since it only focused on the F2P stuff. My main assumption for this is based on how they are offering the ambassadors pack. They are giving Steam Keys for the additional content, vs giving the mobile accounts the content, or just giving it directly through the PLAYFAB account. If everything was to really link up... why couldn't they just flag our content via the PLAYFAB or OBSIDIAN ACCOUNT that exists on mobile and have it sync up with Steam when we buy it?. Heck - even if I never download the steam version... I should still get the Ambassador stuff if I spent $25 on mobile. Something there doesn't add up unless future content is not transferable... or... they are adding it in the future. At this point I have no idea what Playfab can do and all expectations are lost because I've seen other companies allow you to access things across steam / mobile without issue. There easily could have been a buy in for Adventure Path 1 on Steam for 3.99, a Full version for $25, and let people sync their accounts however they wanted. They did mention business reasons, but that's not very forthcoming when it basically means - hey, we need your money, again, to keep this going. Meanwhile, we all would have opened our wallets x 5 for just some real content vs this F2P stuff. That said... I don't think we need to wait and speculate... as this thread is specifically for Q/A. The easiest way to test this in 24 hours would be to have someone purchase on Stream, and then link it to a fresh mobile account to see if everything transfers over, but, the wording implies that only the non-core content transfers over. I've seen multiple instances where people have tried to ask their own version of how it works, but it's not very clear. I won't do that, but maybe someone who isn't purchased in yet can. IE - if this was a rulebook for a board game, it needs another round of clarification, not clear enough! Fingers crossed they see the potential of Pathfinder as a Platform - easily $100+ worth per customer of content if they add it all in and are consistent with it. Sad that it's a $50 buy in (total) for those of us who already paid the $25+ on mobile, but I am more than happy to rebuy this game when new classes are released, new adventure packs, etc. But not if it doesn't transfer to mobile...
  12. Since I am somehow the one misinterpreting things based on the way people keep talking about these changes, i need more clarification: Question: If in the future, you offer a DLC pack - let's pretend it's a Character Class Pack (Example: Magus Class) for DLC. Or we can pretend it's Adventure Path 2 Adventure Deck 1. Something along those lines that is actual CORE GAME content. And I purchase it on Steam. Will it unlock via IOS/Android? Question: Same situation - but vice versa? I want to fully understand, because this line has thrown me off Seem to contradict this: I don't know what future content you guys will offer, but I just want to make sure that once I get past this $25 buy-in fee on Steam, that all platforms are treated equal and that it will be a Pathfinder Platform I am buying into, and not split based on where you buy it. Because i will come back one day if you release more actual content despite that I feel the only people who are paying double tax (despite your ambassador program) are those of us who were faithful and actually paid for your content. Right now there is no situation where someone could have unlocked characters or adventure decks from mobile to steam - so I want to know how the future of that part works.
  13. Does this expire? I don't think I want to be a day one supporter of the Steam version despite being a day 1 supporter of the mobile app + board game susbscriber. I still feel too burned over the last year by many of the decisions made. However, I need to understand if by waiting... will I get burned even more despite fitting into the "Ambassador" Description? I have no issue waiting until more content is added to the game or the eventual humble sale or both. I've already invested enough of my money into the economy at this point for the luxury of playing it on the platform I originally wanted to START my adventures on (steam - I never wanted mobile) and a 10% discount doesn't cut it for me personally. All the best.
  14. Day one all-in purchaser here and man, this app is going more and more in a direction i would not want it to. Best of luck, but I'm probably out with this one. I just wanted the board game in app form, and instead we are getting p2w mechanics, more p2w mechanics layered on unneeded freemium mechanics, and ultimately everything but what is actually needed - content. Literally 20+ extra classes, 3 other sets, or the custom made content to choose from and you decide on a stash and charms/runes. This update is better than playing as a Ranger, Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor or any of the other variations of unique classes that exist. Maybe one day you will get there, but it's been over a year and I don't see much light at the end of the tunnel for myself and my relationship with this game. All the best either way. I stress over and over again that my feedback is from a perspective that I want you guys to succeed mixed with my own personal preferences.
  • Create New...