Hacker News Reader

Comment by dcw303 | Hacker News Reader

I played through the first couple of levels and was instantly hit by how much better the level design, gameplay and characters were than the usual mobile game. I happily plonked down my ten bucks.

I cleared the game in a single lunch hour, but I'm not disappointed. The game design easily surpasses anything I've ever played on my phone, and there's a bucket of replayability. Pink/purple/black coins to get, speed runs on rally to try, etc.

Giving the first 3 levels for free was a good move - the install is essentially a demo that is enough to let a customer decide if they want to front for the whole game.

I didn't have a problem paying, but I've read a lot of whining on twitter and other places. Younger gamers have an expectation that everything on mobile should be free, but kudos to Nintendo on having the balls to stay away from cheap pay2win tricks and stick to an old school pricing model.

I don't know if it's going to turn a profit, but I really hope so. This race to the bottom amongst mobile game devs is madness and has to stop.

View on HN

I'm surprised by how much your experience differs from mine. For me this is like every other auto running side scrollers with a Nintendo skin and nothing more. It's the same mechanics as almost everything else with a lower amount of difficulty with the auto running and jumping (I mean he even automatically jumps over enemies!!).

It seems so...tangential to what Mario games are and so much like every other side scrolling running game out there.

I also find hitting the exact buttons incredibly frustrating. They claim one handed play but on a 9.7" iPad when you have to hit a button in a specific place on the screen it's not one handed play. At least not for my hands and I thought they were decent size.

> It's the same mechanics as almost everything else with a lower amount of difficulty with the auto running and jumping

We'll have to agree to disagree, but this is essence of Nintendo's acclaimed level design. Yes, the basic run through is easy, which makes it accessible to anyone. But I'll be damned if getting all the black coins isn't excruciatingly tough. The beauty is that the same game can be played on many levels.

Just collected the black coins in 1-1, and some in 1-2. The black coins seem to be what this game really is about, and damn does it a good job with it. Actually amazed at what it does with just a 1-button input method.

Sad to see so many people critize the $10 price tag. Obviously that was expected, but as an iOS dev myself, it always saddens me too see the rejection of people to basically pay for anything on the AppStore.

10 USD for 1 hour of play is a lot of money in general. That's not akin to:

> "it always saddens me too see the rejection of people to basically pay for anything on the AppStore."

Because the point is that the value one gets out of it, is too little for the amount of time it is fun. That is, of course, assuming there's no replay value.

There is replay value however I, for one, prefer a difficult game, and prefer one difficulty only. I know, game designers want to make everyone feel 'awesome' these days. All kind of ladders, including for single player! I don't like that. Give an immersive first time experience where the player has to overcome difficult hurdles. Getting stuck? Tough cookie, practice and get better, and you'll feel awesome once you progress further. Compare WoW TBC with how WoW has every difficulty for raiding these days. By the time you get to the highest difficulty it isn't epic anymore.

On a different note, 10 USD is a lot of money for poor people. Then again, those people are unlikely to have an expensive iOS device.

Sometimes I pay $10 for a cup of coffee and a croissant, which are finished in half an hour. I feel that I get $10 of value out of it, and on a similar scale, I would probably get $10 of value out of this game (if I could get it on Android...). I think a big difference is something another commenter said: I don't know that I'm going to get more value out of paying for this game than I would have if I played a different game for free, whereas I know I'm going to enjoy my coffee and croissant.

You _know_ Nintendo is going to publish a high-quality game, because they've been doing that for a hundred years.

Not to mention the calories in the croissant probably last you more like 2 hours and the coffee buzz probably lasts about 4.

Are we playing the same game? There's not a specific button to hit on screen that I've seen, it's basically the lower 1/3 of the screen that is a giant button that can be tapped anywhere.

Oh maybe you're thinking I was talking about game play. No, all the different menus and screens especially the ones where it's just a single button for progressing to the next screen. Those buttons must be hit directly. On a 9.7" iPad I have to use two hands to do that when I see no reason tapping the screen in a large area couldn't progress to the next area.

I was only referring to buttons.

Did you ever think of your 9.7" iPad as a one hand device to begin with?

Of course but two things. First, Nintendo markets it as a one-handed game and other than pressing the tiny buttons I can actually play it just fine one handed and second, there is no reason to require this tiny, little button area to be pressed when you could more easily press a larger area (as is common in most mobile games).

It's all about using existing UX mechanics versus Nintendo bringing over awkward console mechanics to a touch screen device.

The UI really turned me off the game. The gameplay itself was reasonably fun, but actually starting the game required going through ages and ages of tutorial and story nonsense. Then going from one level to the next is a lot more cumbersome than it needs to be.

I kept thinking of the original Super Mario Bros. as a contrast. You press start, and it drops you right into the game. When you complete a level, you start the next one. Simple. Sad that Nintendo couldn't replicate that here.

> (I mean he even automatically jumps over enemies!!)

If Mario auto jumps over an enemy, you've missed a crucial chunk of coins on your quest to a top score. High scores is what this game is all about. When you really learn a level and squeeze out every coin possible, Nintendo's charm shines through.

I've been playing the first level for 50mins. There's so much depth there. One of my added friends has 230 coins on that first level , and so am still trying to beat him !

Have you dropped the $9.99 yet? I actually felt rewarded by the ramp up in difficulty. If you've only gone through the 1st 3 levels, you've only just played the demo. Have you tried collecting up to the black coins?

I absolutely agree with you about paying actual money for a full game. The problem with this though is I've been burned a few times buying a game, only to have it become free with in-app purchases later on: functionality that was previously included is removed and players must now periodically pay to get it back (usually in the form of some kind of temporary 'power boost' pack).

I guess the developers reasoning is they can get as many suckers as possible to pay for the full game after initial launch, then after a couple of months they squeeze more money out of it by changing to a pay-to-win format which hugely increases their user base.

It's a disgraceful approach and I certainly won't deal ever again with any devs who do this. Unfortunately, such devs don't really get much shaming so they probably get away with it.

Music companies were/are notorious for doing something similar.

I can't tell how many CD's I bought in the early aught's right when a band I loved came out with a new album - only to see it in Target a few months later with several "previously unreleased" tracks on it as a bonus.

It drove me crazy since it happened so frequently.

That's different, the re-release has new content which wasn't in the original that you bought? And the original continues to work?

Instead imagine that half the disc you originally bought turned out to be self-destructing ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3064327.stm ) but you can buy a re-release without the issue for a discount if you trade in the old disc.

Ya you're right, this is cross-industry. Lord of the Rings did the same thing with its franchise. They released all the "Theater Version"s first knowing the hardcore fans wouldn't be able to wait the many months after for the extended edition. It's an annoying tactic to say the least.

Are you describing a situation where you initially pay for the full experience only to later have some of those features you specifically paid for become in-app purchases again which you have to re-purchase? If so, surely that's not legal? I've seen apps where something similar to this happens before but people who bought the original full price purchase are grandfathered in.

Yes, exactly. New Star Soccer is one game that did this; original purchasers lost features they'd paid for.

I also thought it wouldn't be allowed, but apparently it is. If they just released a separate free version there'd be no problem.

There's also the scenario where a previously-purchased game becomes ad-filled.

One example: I purchased Rovio's Bad Piggies outright for a couple bucks way back when when there was the ad-supported version and the fully unlocked ad-free purchased alternative. Sure, my current version has all the features I originally paid for, but the experience has gone to shit.

The purchased version was a complete and ad-free game at the time. Now my version of it is filled with ads for their other games and "consumable" IAP options at damn near every pause screen, every menu and the loading screens because they made the game "free", which essentially downgraded my experience back to the free-to-play version they started with. I didn't lose any game mechanics, but I lost the ad-free experience I paid for.

I had this same experience with the original Angry Birds, also from Rovio.

It certainly should not be legal...

  If you do not have a backup available to restore to, we regret that we have no
  alternate method for preventing the ads from being displayed. However, we will
  be happy to make it up to you with in-game currency for Bejeweled Blitz,
  Plants vs. Zombies 2, Solitaire Blitz, or Zuma Blitz. Please contact support
  and provide the receipt from your original purchase of Bejeweled or Bejeweled
  HD.

https://help.ea.com/en-us/help/bejeweled/bejeweled-classic/s...

Like all App Store purchases, you didn't pay for the full game, you paid for access to an app id which points at mutable bits of data that you can't stop from mutating.

shareware has always been an effective method but has been thrown to the wayside thanks to the 'freemium' model and games bloated with ads.

Check out the mobile Rayman game if you liked this one. Same concept, same level of polish. I haven't played all of Mario yet but Rayman has a surprising amount of depth in the later levels, as they slowly add concepts and mechanics while keeping the controls simple.

Rayman Jungle Run was startlingly excellent for a mobile game. I actually 100%ed it, collecting all 3000+ Lums, which I hardly ever do even with PC/console games.

So I saw Rayman Jungle Run on sale awhile back but it has "In app purchases." I bought one or two paid apps with in app purchases and never again. You can nickel and dime me if you're a free app but not if I spend money on it. How is Rayman?

IIRC Rayman Jungle Run and Rayman Fiesta Run are not at all annoying about in-app purchases. I paid once for the game and that's it, I don't even remember what was available to buy, cosmetic stuff probably. They're great fun and I highly recommend them.

The latest iteration, Rayman Adventures, is free-to-play and so suffers from the usual mobile free-to-play tropes. It also suffered performance issues on my (good) phone.

Rayman Fiesta Run (Google Play Store) got obnoxiously annoying to the point they included forced video ads of Rayman Adventures.

Rayman Fiesta Run (Amazon App Store) has some UI issues (like buttons reacting at press rather than at release potentially purchasing pay2win stuff unintendedly), but at least it doesn't have the forced ads.

When I purchased the game at launch date, it didn't have the pay2win stuff, and it was really enjoyable, but eventually the updates degraded the game experience.

If I ever purchase a mobile game again I'll certainly backup and cherry pick the update which gets the best balance between less bugs and less mis-improvements.

buttons reacting at press rather than at release potentially purchasing pay2win stuff unintendedly

If that's intentional it's quite an insidious dark pattern.

It's worth checking reviews. There are good and evil uses of in-app purchases and to reject anything on this basis means missing out on some good stuff.

In-app purchases are not inherently problematic, it's when they are used as a core mechanism to play the game that they become a problem. I have no problem with in-app purchases to make things easier, or let people skip levels when it's not a direct competition between players. That might even induce some developers to actually put some challenge into the game. The problem is when it's not just challenging, but nearly (or actually!) impossible without the in-app purchases. Then we're talking about a bait-and-switch, and that infuriates me as well.

I'm not trying to be pedantic here or unnecessarily argumentative when I disagree and say indeed, in-app purchases are inherently problematic.

They open up pandora's box and allow game devs to focus on superficialities to increase revenue (such as a bonus level, ways to skip level, etc..). Were the playing field completely even -- no in-app purchases -- gameplay would necessarily have to win out and people might spend more time reading mobile game reviews.

When you can be angry bird and get on the top grossing list for a long, long time because you got in-app purchases, I believe it skews the data and as a result, many are poorly informed as to which game truly is the best.

> allow game devs to focus on superficialities to increase revenue

But you've defeated your own point by using the word "allow", which while it it accurate, illustrates why it's not inherent. It's not inherent because they aren't forced to. Is it likely? Sure. Are the incentives all screwed up? Sure. But it's possible to use in-app purchases in responsible ways (such as purchasing future "episodes" of more story driven content, extra level packs, etc as long as the core game provided "enough"[1] content).

1: Which is entirely subjective, and I submit that some people that would have been completely happy with content delivered as is without the ability to download more for cost interpret the situation differently when they see extra content available.

Mobile Strike is awful about this. I have strong feelings about that game in particular because I rarely play games, but this particular one got me to try it (probably due to a massive marketing campaign) and then I ended up spending far more money and time on it than probably all other mobile games I've ever played combined. After all that I realized I didn't even enjoy it, and soon they came out with new upgrades, which was enough to make me realize I should never play it again and consider the time and money already spent as a learning experience.

Now I stick to puzzle games that provide a large amount of enjoyment relative to the cost. The Room series is phenomenal.

IIRC, it's completely cosmetic--you can purchase other characters from the console game to play as, but they're mechanically identical. There may also be something to unlock later levels without playing through earlier levels first, but I 100%ed the game without buying a thing and it never felt unsatisfying or grindy.

"I don't know if it's going to turn a profit, but I really hope so."

Speaking of profit, what I find almost as fascinating as the game itself is the process and culture shift that occurred at Nintendo in order to make it a reality. For example, Satoru Iwata had previously said:

"What I believe is that Nintendo is a very unique company, because it does its business by designing and introducing people to hardware and software - by integrating them, we can be unique. And because we have hardware and software developers in the same building, they stimulate each other." [1]

Also...

"If I was to take responsibility for the company for just the next one or two years, and if I was not concerned about the long-term future of Nintendo at all, it might make sense for us to provide our important franchises for other platforms, and then we might be able to gain some short-term profit. However, I'm really responsible for the long-term future of Nintendo as well, so I would never think about providing our precious resources for other platforms at all." [2]

Iwata died in 2015, and was succeeded by Tatsumi Kimishima, who has stated:

"We want to grow smart device gaming as one of the pillars of Nintendo's revenue stream." [3]

[1] http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/08/09/nintemdo

[2] http://www.idownloadblog.com/2013/08/10/nintendo-pres-on-mar...

[3] http://zeldauniverse.net/2016/05/09/kimishima-says-nintendo-...

Very interesting. Kind of how Apple was all about skeumorphism and went flat a week after Steve Jobs died.

Iwata was right until video game hardware became deeply commodified. "AI" toys are getting big (as annoying as that is), that's where Iwata's vision has potential.

I don't think the whole point of the game could have been to "clear" the levels. I mean, Mario auto runs and auto hops enemies. Save from having to manually jump pits its not really that hard to get to the end of a level.

I think the whole point is to get a coin highscore and/or collect the purple coins in every level.

I may not have expressed it well, but I agree with you 100% - clearing the levels for the first time is only one part of the fun.

The point is definitely collecting the special coins. The pink coins seem to get harder to obtain as the game goes on. The purple coins afterwards are even harder, and the onyx coins are really challenging.

The levels also have different obstacle and coin layouts depending on the special coins you are going for.

As a long time mario player, I was unimpressed. Nintendo clearly doesn't have experience building F2P vortexes and it shows with the surprising introduction of "hey, your castle leveled up!"

EDIT - I didn't realize that the first 3 levels were only what's available. I didn't make it past the 3rd level.

-- this game has dozens of context switches in the first 10 minutes, not even counting the uninteractable tutorial (Even other endless runner games let you run and figure out how to jump by tapping without 4 text boxes).

I will agree that the levels are better designed than the average mobile game.

Maybe my tastes are just changing? I feel that Nintendo has historically innovated in gameplay with their Mario games but I just wasn't sucked in this time.

EDIT

context switches in the beginning about "connecting a Nintendo account" and later, for push notifications - "Push Notifications are important" > User presses OK > Allow Super Mario Run to send you Push Notifications?

What is a Nintendo account & why would I care? What on earth would a push notification for a Mario game tell me? It doesn't feel polished to me.

What's the appeal?

You say you spent $10 on a game that you beat in an hour. I get that there's replayability but there's only so much in a game like that.

If I really wanted to play Mario I could go home and play it on dozens of different devices on a nice TV while resting comfortably instead of on a limited form factor in public where there's dozens of other things to do.

Much respect to Nintendo for making a good game, but it seems like a game that just exists because it can. No depth. What value do we get as consumers if we encourage the game industry to move further in this direction?

No depth? Most games played on smartphones are designed for playing in short increments, many of them for playing with a single hand. That's what Super Mario Run is. It's designed so you can play in just a couple of minutes, and you can play with one hand while commuting, or like I did today, play with one hand while eating lunch.

As for clearing it in an hour, clearing each of the levels once isn't a challenge, nor is it the point of the game. If you want to complete the whole thing you must play each of the levels 4 times, and that's assuming you play perfectly each time (and you won't). And that's just for Tour mode. For Toad Rally mode you're competing against other people (not live, but against their time trial ghosts) and doing tricks to try and impress toads, where winning gives you a bunch of coins and a bunch of toads. And then you use those toads in the kingdom builder mode to unlock new items to put in your kingdom and to upgrade your castle, etc.

So yeah, you can play through all of the levels once pretty quickly if you want. But that's not really experiencing the game.

Rally is really fun! Changed my outlook on the game entirely.

> No depth? Most games played on smartphones are designed for playing in short increments, many of them for playing with a single hand.

Short play sessions have nothing to do with depth or lack of it.

This is a good description. I think people need to think of Super Mario Run more like Super Mario Kart. You can drive through all of that game's tracks in less than an hour too, but that doesn't mean the game is over.

Doesn't it require an internet connection/cell service? not ideal for subway commuters.

It does. With my commute I have intermittent connectivity in the stations and none in the tunnels. I can usually start a level while at the station, play it while underground, and then finish at the next station. It doesn't require internet in the middle of the level, just at the start and at the end. And if you finish a level with no internet, you'll get a "Connectivity Error" dialog with a Retry button, so you can wait until the train pulls into the station and hit Retry. I haven't tested yet what happens if the app is terminated while in this state.

the anti-piracy crippleware garbage is the worst part.

The appeal is what Mario has always been to me - gameplay mechanics and level design. I'll concede that this may not be interesting to a majority of people, but Nintendo games have always immersed me due to the consistency of their in game universes. Once you get the controls down, you can apply the lessons to any level, and things just work the way you expect them to. It's a level of intuitiveness that I have not seen anywhere else. Yes, that's replays after the first hour, but that's not an order of magnitude different to game length in the 8/16 bit era.

You are right that there are many ways to play Mario on many different devices, and I'm not arguing that focused gameplay in front of a big tv isn't the best way to play for extended hours, but for ten minutes waiting in a queue or on the subway (when there is an internet connection available - don't get me started on that because I'm not a big enough fanboi to be happy with that situation), it's much more convenient than carrying along a 3DS. I think Nintendo did their homework on how people will play this game. It's accessible enough to play in short bursts, which suits mobile gamers.

I do respect that you don't see any depth in this. That's fine. I know that enjoyment of games is very subjective. I'm biased in that I grew up in the golden era of 8 and 16-bit 2D games, so I'm aware that this type of game has more appeal to me than others. (Nintendo probably knows that my demographic is more likely to convert to a purchase as well, but I digress) I've tried to stay engaged with recent stuff on Playstation, but triple A titles require large time commitments and have lots of grind, and hence don't appeal to me. This does.

Thanks for the response. Even if it's not my thing, it's good to hear your perspective.

I downloaded the demo today (have yet to buy the full game, but will likely give it a shot) and was very impressed. I didn't realize the internet connectivity was a requirement, which is a minor bummer, but I was gratified to find a small, focused game whose first three levels hinted at the challenges that may (or may not, again just a demo player) be hidden within.

I'm curious to find out how conversion from Pokemon Go -> Pokemon Sun/Moon games and Mario Run -> Mario Switch plays out, because both mobile games have succeeded at getting me more interested in investing time and money into their big-brother console relatives.

>Once you get the controls down, you can apply the lessons to any level, and things just work the way you expect them to. It's a level of intuitiveness that I have not seen anywhere else.

Huh. That's how I feel about Megaman. I suppose you disagree?

Anyways, since you're talking about new games, and seem to have an enjoyment of the 8-bits, have you tried Shovel Knight? It's incredibly well designed, and absolutely packed with content (with a third campaign coming next year. for free).

Have you tried Mega Run? /shameless plug.

>Younger gamers have an expectation that everything on mobile should be free, but kudos to Nintendo on having the balls to stay away from cheap pay2win tricks and stick to an old school pricing model.

nintendo is sticking to an old school pricing model by making a f2play game?

damn im old, like older than 5 years old old

I guess you're not old enough to remember the original Quake, released with a shareware license where the first episode was free. Someone will probably come along and shake their fist at me, but if Quake isn't old-school, I don't know what is.

I'll shake my fist :D

Id software pioneered the shareware model in 1990 with Commander Keen, six years before they used it in Quake.

In fact, Keen, Keen 4, Wolfenstein 3D, and Doom all used a three-episode shareware structure where the first episode was free and the rest were considered the "full version."

Doom 2 did not use this structure because Doom itself was a good enough advertisement for it. id then used it again in Quake, but fully broke from it with Quake 2, which just had a demo with a few levels.

This is the oldest I can think of, 1989 - Hugos House of Horrors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo's_House_of_Horrors

ID most certainly did not pioneer the shareware model. Shareware as a model is nearly as old as the personal computer.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware

Technically correct, but the specific Apogee model of shareware (one free episode, two or more commercial episodes) was much more successful than the original model of distributing everything for free and politely asking people to pay for it; it was pioneered by Id's publisher Apogee.

Ah, good point. I stand semi-corrected :)

Commander Keen games were a staple of my early video game experience.

No reason to stop now: http://store.steampowered.com/app/9180/

They are available through steam.

Wow! I have to go back and play through these games. I really do wonder how hard the games will feel now that I'm a grown adult..

As a new player who tried these games... they don't hold up. I'm sorry, but without the nostalgia, it just isn't fun. Technically impressive? Yes. But not fun.

Personally, I don't think any of id's pre-DOOM games hold up well. But that could just be me...

Not Id, but Apogee, pioneered "the Apogee model" of shareware with the Kroz trilogy in 1987. Apogee published Id's Commander Keen and Wolfenstein games.

Which is playable on the internet archive at

https://archive.org/details/1990SuperKrozTrilogy

I thought of Kroz immediately when I saw yesterday's Unscii submission:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13185932

http://pelulamu.net/unscii/

Ah, yes, I forgot about this! Thanks for the correction!

Quake is referred to as 'old' now? But it came out only - oh darn, two decades ago. Man there are young adults there for whom real time 3D graphics on the PC have existed through their whole life. Ok, I feel older now :)

Whenever and wherever someone mentions Quake 1, there will be fists being shaken and bumped!

frantic, fluid gameplay, even on lousy hardware (heck, I started quaking on a 486 dx2 66 and it ran quite okay at 320x240), insane difficulty, clever map design and lots of secrets to be found... seriously, that game was soo frigging amazing.

Don't even get me started on multiplayer... although we old folks have played our share of deathmatches on Doom/Doom2 (Dwango, anyone?) or Duke Nukem 3D, it was really Quake 1 (together with the booming Internet) that started this whole frenzy. And oh boy, then QuakeWorld came and made it really playable at 300ms+ pings (28800 bauds dial-up!), then we got mods like Team Fortress, and from there it escalated.

o/ fistbump and thank you for the trip down the memory lane.

Can I just say hell yeah! Original Quake was awesome, then Quake World made dial up tolerable when playing online. Quake was also one of the very early high rez OpenGl games. I remember getting my first 3dfx Voodoo card and realizing at that moment that it was a turning point in gaming.

Dude, I got my 3dfx Monster 3D card, which could do glorious bilinear filtered 640x480@16bpp Quake 1, using a wrapper called Glide, remember that?

The funniest thing about that card was that it only could do 3D graphics, so you still needed a 2D video card for normal video output. Monster 3D came with a short vga-vga cable which you used to connect your 2D card's video output to the Monster 3D, and then its own video output to your actual monitor. When you ran something using 3D, it simply took over your monitor and shut down the previous card's signal eheheh

Good times!

It's not free-to-play. It's a $10 game with a free demo. Pay attention.

I have an Android phone, so I'll have to wait, but I'll likely buy it regardless if it's good, just to vote with my wallet on the payment model.

I despise anything that's not pay-for-cosmetics or buy-the-damn-game-once. I can pay for my entertainment, but I'm not playing a game that's designed around microtransactions, eschewing the game mechanics.

You despise Pay 2 Win (P2W) and prefer Buy 2 Play (B2P)

Same here. I would rather just spend money on the game one time rather than being prompted for microtransactions.

Just paying for cosmetics is something acceptable for me. In CS:GO, you can pay for the skins but you don't have to. Yet, I'd still prefer the CS:Source model where you just pay the game once and then download any cosmetics you want for free. But well, that model won't come back any time soon.. :-)

Yeah, I remember fondly the custom servers, surfmaps, gungame (no, it's not a Call Of Duty-thing) mod, etc, etc. I miss those days, but I'm not sure I'd want to go back from other advancements we've made. Everything is much easier to get working and get into now. But the microtransactions for gameplay impacts is not an advancement I want.

We can only hope the gaming market keeps growing enough that indie developers can fill the shoes of AAA-games of yesteryear where we can have large enough playerbase and mod community and self-hosted servers.

...I wouldn't be too sure that the old model. QuakeWorld is still going, and I've had more fun with Cube 2 and Xonotic than most games.

I played 1v1 CoDBlOps once. It was really boring.

I'm sooooo sick of micropayment games. I play plants vs zombies 2 on my phone while in lines. I had a quick look at the cost for all the optional plants. Its almost $90. Even AAA games aren't that bad or at least have a reason for $90 like 3d graphics.

And then there is the pay money for currencies shenanigans.

> I have an Android phone

The majority of us do. Disappointing they launched exclusively on iOS.

It is coming to Android early next year though.

So you aren't old enough to remember demo disks?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com