Guilty Gear and Tekken are making me wish SFV's release model caught on


#1

Well, I suppose it’s too soon for any impact SFV had to have affected these particular games. But I worry that these games are gonna hit the mainstream well and entrench fighting games in old models that are way worse for players. For all that SFV was rough at launch I put my money down and I continue to have the fully updated game to this day with no more money put in. I’ve played about twice a week over that time and I’ve been able to reliably get new characters with the in-game currency without going much out of my way. On the other hand Guilty Gear is in it’s third paid revision now, and while the price is relatively reasonable it still stings to buy what honestly amounts to a patch and a couple hours of anime cutscenes I’ll never watch.

Then on the other hand there’s Tekken 7 finally coming out after the versus play mode being fully complete and playable in japanese arcades for what, two years now? As someone interested in playing these games competitively the idea of jumping on a game the instant it’s available to me and being more than a year behind the curve really sucks. I find it easy to imagine the idea of SFV coming out around now instead of last year, being basically the same game it is now and getting a much more favorable critical response. But that scares me because that’s a way worse model for serving me as a player.


#2

I mean, you say you put your money down, but in addition to the launch price (which was $60), we’re in the second season of DLC of a game that didn’t catch on because it was (and still is) missing vital modes. I know a lot of people that dropped off SFV quickly or never jumped on simply because the game doesn’t have the most basic of basic single-player modes in an arcade ladder.

Guilty Gear, while it’s now on Xrd Rev 2, has actually provided decent content for the money. New characters, a full host of modes, including a story mode (the likes of which SFV didn’t receive until months after launch), an excellent tutorial, and various improvements that have come with each release.

And Tekken 7, while it has been in the arcades for a couple of years, is launching on consoles with a full host of content and modes, as well.

Street Fighter V had the most ill-conceived launch of any fighting game I can think of in recent memory. No one had any reason to buy it unless they were purely interested in online competition because, well, there was almost nothing else to do at launch other than a series of paltry story modes (some of which are two fights long) and a bare-bones practice mode. Did it even have challenges at launch? I can’t remember. Anyway, my point is that Street Fighter V didn’t have the content that people expect modern fighting games to have for their home releases. It simply shipped far too early, and to this day still doesn’t have vital modes of play.


#3

To me the only vital parts of a fighting game are versus mode for playing other people and a training mode. And if I like the game enough I don’t even need the training mode. Arcade mode or any other version of playing against AI holds no attraction at all since these games are designed to be psychological and computers don’t think. SFV had everything I ever wanted from it in terms of game modes the minute it launched.

Whatever extra modes and story content Tekken launches with will probably be neat, but are of very little value to me at all. But the value of having been able to play the game as much as a year ago is almost incalculable to me.

I understand I’m very much a niche perspective here. But it just really frustrates me to see the mainstream wind blowing to encourage these games I’m so invested in down a path that gives me less that I value for more money.


#4

I’m on the complete opposite side. I would rather pay $60 every couple of years for a game like Xrd than $60 once for a game like Street Fighter 5. The seams of SFV’s budget show the whole way through; lackluster network, modes, visuals, and soundtrack, on top of game play that, frankly, doesn’t live up to the series standard. Arc probably took a financial loss on Sign, but splurging on a foundation worth iterating on resulted in a better game from day one.

Seeing Street Fighter bomb only made me wonder if maybe they’d have been better off with the tried-and-true release structure. Maybe Capcom was just particularly inept at dealing with a new format, but the fighting games coming out that are supplemented by Japanese arcade revenues and subsequent iterative release schedules all seem to be turning out better.

We live in an age where tons of people buy Madden every year. I’m not entirely sure what Capcom was afraid of.


#5

Capcom’s arcade releases of stuff were fine but in the US their home ports timing made their stuff feel like a rip off. Like we got MvC3 and then Ultimate MvC3 came out not even eight months later. Then BlazBlue REALLY burnt people with lots of revisions that had differing amounts/type of content on them instead of each one being a pure step up.

With Guilty Gear though, there’s new stuff there and if you don’t play online/at a competitive level it’s easy to just wait a year until a revised version of the game is out and pick that up.

I know the graphics turned people away but King of Fighters XIV is basically the best fighting game available on PS4 to me with the new iterations of GGX close behind.

I have to say I was kind of glad Street Fighter V didn’t do well. Regular support or not fifteen characters at launch is a joke unless your game is literally Mark of the Wolves or 2nd Impact caliber and, well, SF5 is neither of those games. Like others have said it just looks cheap, and no one would have batted an eye if they released a new version of it each year for $40. But they went to the opposite extreme of where they were at with MvC3.

They seem to be going in the same direction with MvC Infinite though that they did with SF5.

I’m not a huge Tekken fan but I’m glad we’re getting it so late, it sucks to be on the opposite end. Namco gave us a super broken game with Soul Calibur 3, and then Japan got a significantly better arcade release of it a year or two later.

I don’t know I basically went back in time this generation, the only new fighters I play regularly is King of Fighters XIV (I’m patient so I’ll be getting Guilty Gear when it’s more final) and the rest is stuff from the 90s.


#6

Guilty Gear, hit mainstream? Ha, haha, hahaha… As much as I’d like for it to be more popular, Arc System Works is probably never gonna be mainstream.
Anyway, the more likely reason SFV’s release model might not catch on would be the lackluster reception it got when it came out; even if another fighting game tried it, people would probably be more skeptical. Hell, that may be true even of attempts at something different that aren’t all that similar to what Capcom tried.


#7

Well, sure. That single-player content has no value to you. But there are a LOT of folks that buy fighting games to play the arcade or story mode and then maybe play some online or local multiplayer. If the content isn’t there (and it wasn’t for SFV), then people aren’t going to buy it.

And that was really what did SFV in from a sales perspective. Capcom went all-in on the competitive online scene to the detriment of anyone else that might have had interest in it.


#8

It’s some good points but visuals and soundtrack ?

SF5 is brand new animations for each character and they are all REALLY GOOD. I can never go back to SF4 after the fluidity and responsiveness of SF5’s model animations. Also the soundtrack is worlds above SF4 electronica fest with very few downsides.

SF5 has legit issues but is visually and musically sound unless you were expecting a hip-hop comeback of 3.3.

15 characters that were mostly balanced is worth more than a plethora of characters that aren’t. Aren’t ArcSys games around these numbers at launch ?

I don’t know what people were expecting, we’re talking 1M$ per character creation. SF5 ostensibly solved the issue of fragmenting a fighting game in many iterations by offering a service model that allows the playerbase to be united throughout the life cycle while allowing the game to be supported.

SF5 failed but the idea behind the service is not a failure. It’s a very legitimate and interesting way of adding value and keeping the community together. Capcom just didn’t know how to hold all of this together and offer a decent service with a decent currency and decent goalpost to achieve.

Considering the volatile playerbase of FG, the early reputation ruined SF5 more than it expected. I don’t think every aspect of SF5 is messed up in every way, though.


#9

While I like the idea of Street Fighter V’s model Capcom have really failed on all fronts to justify it to me. The single player is empty, leaving few ways to get acquainted with it in a safe practice space.

The training mode is fine, but feels archaic at this point since it lacks things like explanations for character V Skills and V Triggers and requires you to constantly seek out external sources.

The character model could work out fine, hell LoL and DOTA make a similar thing work already, but they give you rotating trials of characters you don’t have so you can try them and buy em if you like em. instead you have to grind for fight money which will only come at a consistent rate if you’re doing well just so you can buy a new character and see if you’ll get along with em.

as much as lovers of competition say the fighting is all that matters, the reasons people want these ancillary modes is because they give you a break from getting beat down and let you find your footing. street fighter v obviously doesn’t care to do any of that and ends up as a worse package overall for it.


#10

having just jumped into tekken 7 i am starting to realize how barren sfv’s singleplayer stuff is. and like yeah 90% players for 90% of their playtime will only care about the competitive mp part of the game but for someone like me who’s still in the fighting game kiddie pool, having fun modes like treasure battle adds a lot in terms of a chill & fun way to get accustomed to the game’s controls. sfv’s constant addition of new characters is a cool idea but as @siegarettes said there’s not really a good way to try them out to see if you’d like them before committing to the purchase.

the one thing about sfv’s whole model that i do enjoy though is the capcom pro tour system. publisher support of a pro competitive scene is nothing new, but i feel like they’ve done a solid job of collaborating with existing fgc events to create a solid league system.


#11

yeah. there’s like zero single player ways to earn currency and you’ll only get a decent amount for competitive if you’re already good.

plus the training stuff is really bare? they added demonstrations of character moves that they warn you might even be out of date. plus they don’t even tell you what all the moves are?

Tekken 7 at least has treasure battle or whatever in it


#12

The “out of date” stuff has always been weird to me. Street Fighter 4 did the same thing; like, “hey, this mode of the game loads up in an older version so that everything will still work.” If ASW releases a balance patch that invalidates the tutorial stuff that they have, they go in and replace the invalid stuff with new stuff and denote it as “new.”

I mean, yea, whatever, if I’m playing Guilty Gear and I want to learn optimal Baiken stuff I’m opening a Sharon video on YouTube, but it’s still helpful to be able to go through a challenge mode and get a feel for a character and know that the concepts therein aren’t potentially going to be stuff that got patched out.


#13

Trials are literally just that : a collection of trials to test your execution. Their effectiveness on battle is irrelevant, they’re very often not optimal at all. SF5 just released a new batch of trials that are more up-to-date but they should never be used to learn combos, nor to get a feel of a character, it’s just too restrictive.

The way SF5 is though, I think >90% of the moves in trials can still be used reliably if you ever wanted to do so, basically not all is lost there if you ever wanted something out of it.


#14

It’s not a question of whether or not the content of the trials are actually useful in live play. It’s that the trials are out of date and that Capcom didn’t bother to update them when they were invalidated by balance patches.


#15

Weirdly enough I think the lack of singleplayer in SFV wound up making me like the game more. When I got the game I was solidly in the fighting game kiddie pool, but because there was no meaningful singleplayer and I had just moved away from all my friends who play fighting games there was nothing to do but start playing online.

Online initially stressed me out a lot and I probably wouldn’t have stuck with it if I had an alternative way to play Street Fighter, but once I got over the hump I started really liking it. Now SFV is by far the fighting game I’ve gotten the deepest into.

I’m feeling pretty tempted to pick up Tekken 7, I watched some of a tournament a week or two ago and it seemed really cool. I think most of the appeal just is because I want something to fill the void left by Soul Calibur though.


#16

I think it’s hard to separate the failings of SFV and its model from the failings of Capcom.

I think there’s interesting arguments to be made about a hypothetical model that’s League of Legends like (pay per character, vanity costumes, steady stream of small balance patches) and whether such a model would fit within a fighting game; I think SFV isn’t a good example of that because it was a hard failure in many other visible ways.


#17

yeah. Capcom had a chance to make the argument for the model the same way Hitman did for its episodic content, and had some predecessors it could have modeled itself after. but it dropped the ball so majorly they’ve probably made it even harder for anyone to even try it again.