Aurelionunu

I actually quite like this idea. Although some people would complain certain survivors would be stronger than others now (possibly even going as far as saying pay-2-win with characters like Laurie), I still think it would be a good idea and bring some meaning to each character rather than just a re-skin.

I completely agree. There's always just that one other perk that would make my build perfect. The meta shift it would bring could cause so many issues for the devs and players. It would be safer sticking to what the game is like now but I think its a idea to think of how the game would change.

Yeah I definitely like the limited choice we have because you have to really think about the perks you take. I think the only thing that irritates me about the limit is that meme/non-meta builds could be just a tiny bit stronger if they had one more perk slot to bolster them e.g. I wanted to take Breakout/Flip…

I disagree to some extent. I know there are a lot of games that have kept their core elements and remained timeless to some extent. Some games have even made the game a lot worse by changing the fundamentals of the game (PAYDAY 2 for example). However, I feel like Pokemon isn't too comparable to DbD since it has so many…

Yeah that's the biggest issue I think :( sadly the game isn't in a great place balance wise so this might end up causing too many problems for the game in a balance sense

I really like the idea too. I feel like some sort of rework with perks is needed because ultimately some perks are just rarely used :( if they give these perks a separate "passive" status then could actually see the light of day :D

What's the point in saying it's even worse if you're not going to tell the poor lad what the Nurse bug is? xD

Not once have I mentioned that I spent money on a one of the convention codes, nor did I go to the convention. If you read my post correctly, you'd realise I was taking a hypothetical stance to a the scenario. Regardless, you cannot simply dismiss the role of the developer's in people choosing to spend this kind of money.…

I agree with you - I think they should be released on console because they have never had the chance to get these exclusives. Most of what I've said is directed at PC, not consoles. Perhaps I should have made that clearer. Regardless, it may make newer players happy who, ultimately, are the majority nowadays, but it has…

There should be a mutual loyalty. Where older players have supported BHVR and remained loyal (despite their rocky moments), there should be a similar sense of loyalty towards them. There should be a form of compensation for those who managed to grab an exclusive back in the early days of DBD because it demonstrates their…

Honestly, I wish I could take this view because it's so wholesome but there's just something that makes me feel disappointed with their justifications for it. I feel bad for the small minority who have got the exclusives already and just feel like BHVR have forgotten about them in some ways.

Its nothing to do with other people. As a business, their decision has an impact on myself and everyone else involved. If I want to voice how I feel about their decision, I will. If a company created a loyalty scheme which was exclusive for those who had put the time and effort into their business, would it then be fair…

I appreciate the information you've given me but this isn't the point of my discussion. I am already aware of the reasoning behind why certain exclusives aren't going to be released. The main point of my discussion is that BHVR have failed a loyal playerbase. I only brought up the exclusives of Bloodletting, Legacy and…

I agree with you that its completely unfair that people who resell these codes are selling them at such high prices. My main problem is how long BHVR left this issue for. Most of these codes have now already been sold at extortionate prices. I don't agree that they've left exclusives for three years and are only now…