Valiant Force Forum

Got the costume with 15 valianites which I collected since the valianite feature came out.  If for some reason they make faye's costume available later with gems, I'd guess I'll stop buying the next costume during the next event and wait for it to become cheaper.  If they keep the valiante pricing on faye's costume after the event and the next costume is in valiante price, I guess I'll just skip that costume since it is a luxury to own virtual aesthetics.

After going through all the comments, I am still not sure what is the issue here. The Black Swan package removes all RNG factors for a reasonable price, yet everyone is focused on the 15 Valianites. Of course the dev wants people to buy the bundle, the Valianite pricing is just a bonus for those who have that much Valianites lying around.

The package is SGD 40+, with a CONFIRMED Faye, CONFIRM costumes, and a 5* equipment SELECTOR. All without the RNG element. More value than a 10x roll hoping to get a Faye. Those with Faye can Limit Break as well.

I haven't bought the package nor costume, busy farming for my 4th sword in Legendary. Still winning those Fayes with costume in the Arena. Hmn.

Perhaps you would have had you taken your time to actually read it.

And what is wrong with being more business centric? The game after all, IS a business for the developers. They are accountable to their investors and shareholders who have pumped money and resources plus responsible for the livelihood of their staff. If this business move alienates the majority of their customers and affects their bottom line, you can be sure they will make changes to their business model and decisions. If not, it's business as usual.

They are not even a listed company, so don't embarrass yourself. There are repercussions to decisions like that, and it's not something that you can backtrack and assume things will go back to how they were before.


Look at the biggest freemium app games out there, the ones that are actually listed. They pay attention to the feedback to make changes, not to monetize off of. New players would never feel left behind, hindered by absolute advantages given to veteran players and hidden behind massive paywalls.


Honestly speaking, I feel it would be a mistake to jump the gun just because of the hype and attention it garnered in 2016, or it would turn out to be just like pokemon go, hyped up but fails to deliver.

And what is wrong with being more business centric? The game after all, IS a business for the developers. They are accountable to their investors and shareholders who have pumped money and resources plus responsible for the livelihood of their staff. If this business move alienates the majority of their customers and affects their bottom line, you can be sure they will make changes to their business model and decisions. If not, it's business as usual.

They are not even a listed company, so don't embarrass yourself. There are repercussions to decisions like that, and it's not something that you can backtrack and assume things will go back to how they were before.


Look at the biggest freemium app games out there, the ones that are actually listed. They pay attention to the feedback to make changes, not to monetize off of. New players would never feel left behind, hindered by absolute advantages given to veteran players and hidden behind massive paywalls.


Honestly speaking, I feel it would be a mistake to jump the gun just because of the hype and attention it garnered in 2016, or it would turn out to be just like pokemon go, hyped up but fails to deliver.

Please don't embarrass yourself too. Being unlisted doesn't mean they have no shareholders and investors. It just means that their investors are private instead of public. The profits from the game also determines the staff's wages.

What do you think a company is for, if not profit-making? A company HAS to make profits to continue operations, by paying for operating costs, staff's wages and dividends for their investors.

I think the dissenting voices here get your point. They just don't agree with you. It has been mentioned before the team is testing out a new payment model by the release of this package. If it proves unpopular, it will be discontinued. Simple as that.

After going through all the comments, I am still not sure what is the issue here. The Black Swan package removes all RNG factors for a reasonable price, yet everyone is focused on the 15 Valianites. Of course the dev wants people to buy the bundle, the Valianite pricing is just a bonus for those who have that much Valianites lying around.

The package is SGD 40+, with a CONFIRMED Faye, CONFIRM costumes, and a 5* equipment SELECTOR. All without the RNG element. More value than a 10x roll hoping to get a Faye. Those with Faye can Limit Break as well.

I haven't bought the package nor costume, busy farming for my 4th sword in Legendary. Still winning those Fayes with costume in the Arena. Hmn.

I second this. I actually don't mind paying that amount every month or so for stuff in VF. 40 dollars for a guaranteed very popular waifu unit + extras is really peanuts compared some other japanese mobages like Fate/Grand Order, where you can spend on average 400 dollars just to have a decent chance at rolling a 5* unit. Not saying that I want VF to be as ex as FGO. I am saying that currently VF is really one of the cheaper mobages out there and the VF gacha rates aren't as despair inducing either. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hmkr4zuTlU $150 and they didn't even get Ishtar.

VF is a Singapore game with great content and I am pretty sure it will do well overseas one they release there. Buy local, support local. 

Please don't embarrass yourself too. Being unlisted doesn't mean they have no shareholders and investors. It just means that their investors are private instead of public. The profits from the game also determines the staff's wages.

What do you think a company is for, if not profit-making? A company HAS to make profits to continue operations, by paying for operating costs, staff's wages and dividends for their investors.

I think the dissenting voices here get your point. They just don't agree with you. It has been mentioned before the team is testing out a new payment model by the release of this package. If it proves unpopular, it will be discontinued. Simple as that.

Pretty presumptuous of you to assume the context of his statement and that staff wage is determined by profits itself, which is not the usual practice for majority of the firms out there.


And speaking of the dissidents and their comments thus far, none of them actually got the point; they were completely obsessed with the costume's functionality and its costs; how we could do completely without it, that it's a mere cosmetic with hardly any utility. One who actually gets the message but begs to differ would argue in optimism that this would be a one-off sale and look forward to the changes ahead. Given your opinions, you clearly belong to the former too, not to mention the lack of foresight.

Please don't embarrass yourself too. Being unlisted doesn't mean they have no shareholders and investors. It just means that their investors are private instead of public. The profits from the game also determines the staff's wages.

What do you think a company is for, if not profit-making? A company HAS to make profits to continue operations, by paying for operating costs, staff's wages and dividends for their investors.

I think the dissenting voices here get your point. They just don't agree with you. It has been mentioned before the team is testing out a new payment model by the release of this package. If it proves unpopular, it will be discontinued. Simple as that.

Pretty presumptuous of you to assume the context of his statement and that staff wage is determined by profits itself, which is not the usual practice for majority of the firms out there.


And speaking of the dissidents and their comments thus far, none of them actually got the point; they were completely obsessed with the costume's functionality and its costs; how we could do completely without it, that it's a mere cosmetic with hardly any utility. One who actually gets the message but begs to differ would argue in optimism that this would be a one-off sale and look forward to the changes ahead. Given your opinions, you clearly belong to the former too, not to mention the lack of foresight.

Where do wages come from, if not from profits?

Where do wages come from, if not from profits?

Wages are paid as an expense of the company, and is included in the calculation to decide whether a profit/loss is made. Needless to say, wages are paid regardless of whether the company is able to make a profit or not.

Where do wages come from, if not from profits?

Wages are paid as an expense of the company, and is included in the calculation to decide whether a profit/loss is made. Needless to say, wages are paid regardless of whether the company is able to make a profit or not.

so... you're suggesting that the company can continue sustaining operations if they make negative profits?

also, do investors not require a return on investment?

Where do wages come from, if not from profits?

Needless to say, wages are paid regardless of whether the company is able to make a profit or not.

So, if VF doesnt have any more $$$ and not able to make a profit, YET by your logic, VF is still able to pay their devs? The $$$ just appear out of nowhere?