Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Would it be nice to offer 3rd person separately as a free update? Sure. "Should" they give it away for free? No.
Should it have been included right from the beginning? No. It's a first person view game, created, marketed and sold as such. Additional options are great, but not mandatory.
You should also consider that making third person work and look well for a game like this which was designed around first person view requires significantly more effort than just pulling the camera back a few inches. (Assuming it does, indeed, work and look well.) This is not just something every game has by default and is being deliberately held back to sell as DLC later.
There's a lot of ripping off in gaming and especially in DLC worthy of complaints. This isn't it.
Default Village gives me motion sickness, so 3rd person is a welcome addition for people like me.
Lol if you think they made the game twice.
OP is right, they should have given the 3rd person for free with the RT update, or separately. I mean they barely put any effort into making it, just moved the camera.
That said, my guess is most of the cost of the DLC is for Shadows of Rose. And then there is the expanded mercenaries mode and lastly the 3rd person camera.
So if you think of it that way they're charging something like $3-5 for the 3rd person mode. Which isn't a ton.