inherit
1033
0
31,191
colfoley
16,544
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Feb 25, 2019 21:58:25 GMT
A. No i'm not. I've never considered LS games a problem. In fact I'm looking forward to DA 4 being one. Multiplayer games on the other hand... B. Perhaps not but then i don't see the issue here in the first place. Certain gamers were whining over games having lootboxes and were unfinished with paid dlc finishing the game... Now people are whigning over all that being free. I mean seriously how much content does Anthem have at launch? I believe I've heard as high as fifty hours which is pretty typical of a 60 dollar bioware game pre Inquisition. B ) People finish the main quest in about 20 hours, and there's not much end game content. You can extend that experience but the world is pretty empty, and the environment is all the same. Also consider that the people who splurged out the most for that game, the ULTRA, SPECIAL, SUPER DUPER COMBO ULTIMATE VERSION got a horrible copy of the game and the guy who buys it for half price, and a fifth of the price of that special edition, gets a great version. People tend to call that - horrible corporate behaviour, or not rewarding your hardest fans. Anyway, as the video above states people are not defining LS games correctly. When Bioware says "live service" it means a very specific thing with the community because the community believe "live service" to be a very specific thing. Look up "live service" or "game as a service" and within that definition it's rare to find "dlc game" sure. BUT people also have a tendency to confuse LS games with MMOs and other MP games which is just...absurd. I just see live service as a slight evolution on gaming concepts going back decades. More frequent expansions to keep gamers invested for longer until a new main game comes out. It has zero to do with MP and some of the SP LS games ive played have been highly enjoyable and finished products. So yeah all this fear around this term is...misplaced. I dont even know where its coming from tbh.
|
|
inherit
8885
0
7,210
river82
4,946
July 2017
river82
|
Post by river82 on Feb 25, 2019 22:08:40 GMT
There's one last thing to consider. So Schreier has been incredibly accurate about his leaks going right back to his Destiny days, where he was almost never wrong. He then brought that to his Bioware talks where he's also been incredibly accurate, stating last January that a late 2018 release for Anthem was never feasible (according to his sources). So when Schreier says Dragon Age was rebooted to add more live services to the game, that's worrying. Because you don't need to "reboot" a game to add expansions afterward. IMO you reboot the game if you want to add in things like in world events and stuff. But that's just speculation. We'll see when DA:4 is released
|
|
inherit
1033
0
31,191
colfoley
16,544
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Feb 25, 2019 22:10:55 GMT
There's one last thing to consider. So Schreier has been incredibly accurate about his leaks going right back to his Destiny days, where he was almost never wrong. He then brought that to his Bioware talks where he's also been incredibly accurate, stating last January that a late 2018 release for Anthem was never feasible (according to his sources). So when Schreier says Dragon Age was rebooted to add more live services to the game, that's worrying. Because you don't need to "reboot" a game to add expansions afterward. IMO you reboot the game if you want to add in things like in world events and stuff. But that's just speculation. We'll see when DA:4 is released i thought thats where i got that tidbit. And even then you do have to if the model is different.
|
|
inherit
1039
0
3,036
Lebanese Dude
Anti-Gamer Culture
1,520
Aug 17, 2016 14:13:30 GMT
August 2016
lebanesedude
|
Post by Lebanese Dude on Feb 26, 2019 1:50:12 GMT
DLC could technically be described as live service but i doubt it meets the ea criteria. Well that's your choice to believe it or not. It doesn't make it any less true.
|
|
inherit
1039
0
3,036
Lebanese Dude
Anti-Gamer Culture
1,520
Aug 17, 2016 14:13:30 GMT
August 2016
lebanesedude
|
Post by Lebanese Dude on Feb 26, 2019 1:52:08 GMT
Watch Mojo has a pretty good explanation of the "live service/games as a service" concept and how it's an evolution of the free-to-play model. It also discusses their biggest potential flaw — namely, what happens when the market is saturated with live service games? ... what? How is that even a flaw. It's like saying that it's a flaw if there are dozen variations of chocolate cookies on the market. Live services serve entertainment. Entertainment is a product you are sold. Consumers pick what entertainment they want. Quantity has literally no bearing here. Saturation is an even weirder term as it's as if one can say that the internet can ever possibly be saturated in this "golden age" of digital economies. The analogy is ESPECIALLY flawed with how "informed" modern users are, and I put informed in quotes because, as your sharing of this video demonstrates, having more information at your fingertips doesn't make it worth a damn. ... A lot of these posts have been utterly disappointing and just reinforce just how sad the gaming community is. Games have evolved yet the player base has not. It's as if they want to absolve themselves of all wrong doing. Gamers want to know why their games have 'gone to shit'. Games have literally always been buggy ass messes on launch, and the only time they weren't was when they had the fidelity of an 8 bit gameboy cartridge programming. It's more like gamers have become insatiable, like sex addicts who look for increasingly weird requirements to satisfy their increasingly irrational needs. What's worse is that they get supported for it, like all these content "creators"... At least there are still safe havens. In my experience the biggest issue are fans of shooters. Explains why Dragon Age gets less flak in general.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Feb 26, 2019 2:01:01 GMT
Watch Mojo has a pretty good explanation of the "live service/games as a service" concept and how it's an evolution of the free-to-play model. It also discusses their biggest potential flaw — namely, what happens when the market is saturated with live service games? ... what? How is that even a flaw. It's like saying that it's a flaw if there are dozen variations of chocolate cookies on the market. Live services serve entertainment. Entertainment is a product you are sold. Consumers pick what entertainment they want. Quantity has literally no bearing here. The analogy is ESPECIALLY flawed with how "informed" modern users are, and I put informed in quotes because, as your sharing of this video demonstrates, having more information at your fingertips doesn't make it worth a damn. Not having seen the video, I imagine the argument is that most people are time-poor, and will generally commit to ONE online multiplayer game, rather than try to play several. Anthem has to convince people to spend a significant amount of money on THEIR product, when similar gameplay experiences are available for free.
|
|
inherit
8885
0
7,210
river82
4,946
July 2017
river82
|
Post by river82 on Feb 26, 2019 2:03:30 GMT
... what? How is that even a flaw. It's like saying that it's a flaw if there are dozen variations of chocolate cookies on the market. Live services serve entertainment. Entertainment is a product you are sold. Consumers pick what entertainment they want. Quantity has literally no bearing here. The analogy is ESPECIALLY flawed with how "informed" modern users are, and I put informed in quotes because, as your sharing of this video demonstrates, having more information at your fingertips doesn't make it worth a damn. Not having seen the video, I imagine the argument is that most people are time-poor, and will generally commit to ONE online multiplayer game, rather than try to play several. Anthem has to convince people to spend a significant amount of money on THEIR product, when similar gameplay experiences are available for free. Pretty much spot on! It concentrates mostly on the multiplayer scene, considering that's where live services tend to be focused. Live services are games that entice the player to play a game forever ... or if not forever then at least for a God awful long time. So quoting from the video: "If everyone has their own live service game, when exactly will you have time to play them all in order to get a valued experience? A gamers time is valuable as many of us work full time jobs or go to school. And if not enough players are around to support your favourite titles, it will eventually lead to the games being shut down forever. Since maintaining server costs isn't cheap. Meaning all that time you spent building your favourite character - gone. That's the potential looming scenario facing gamers everywhere. Fewer and fewer titles that are waning in quality that at the same time require intense time sinks and are seemingly built around methods of requiring players to spend more money. It's an unsustainable model and it can't last forever if everybody starts doing it all at once."
|
|
inherit
1039
0
3,036
Lebanese Dude
Anti-Gamer Culture
1,520
Aug 17, 2016 14:13:30 GMT
August 2016
lebanesedude
|
Post by Lebanese Dude on Feb 26, 2019 2:03:59 GMT
... what? How is that even a flaw. It's like saying that it's a flaw if there are dozen variations of chocolate cookies on the market. Live services serve entertainment. Entertainment is a product you are sold. Consumers pick what entertainment they want. Quantity has literally no bearing here. The analogy is ESPECIALLY flawed with how "informed" modern users are, and I put informed in quotes because, as your sharing of this video demonstrates, having more information at your fingertips doesn't make it worth a damn. Not having seen the video, I imagine the argument is that most people are time-poor, and will generally commit to ONE online multiplayer game, rather than try to play several. Anthem has to convince people to spend a significant amount of money on THEIR product, when similar gameplay experiences are available for free. I fail to see how that is a problem for the consumer, or how it's the responsibility of the producer to account for someone's limited time.
|
|
inherit
1039
0
3,036
Lebanese Dude
Anti-Gamer Culture
1,520
Aug 17, 2016 14:13:30 GMT
August 2016
lebanesedude
|
Post by Lebanese Dude on Feb 26, 2019 2:08:07 GMT
Not having seen the video, I imagine the argument is that most people are time-poor, and will generally commit to ONE online multiplayer game, rather than try to play several. Anthem has to convince people to spend a significant amount of money on THEIR product, when similar gameplay experiences are available for free. Pretty much spot on! It concentrates mostly on the multiplayer scene, considering that's where live services tend to be focused. Live services are games that entice the player to play a game forever ... or if not forever then at least for a God awful long time. So quoting from the video: "If everyone has their own live service game, when exactly will you have time to play them all in order to get a valued experience? A gamers time is valuable as many of us work full time jobs or go to school. And if not enough players are around to support your favourite titles, it will eventually lead to the games being shut down forever. Since maintaining server costs isn't cheap. Meaning all that time you spent building your favourite character - gone. That's the potential looming scenario facing gamers everywhere. Fewer and fewer titles that are waning in quality that at the same time require intense time sinks and are seemingly built around methods of requiring players to spend more money. It's an unsustainable model and it can't last forever if everybody starts doing it all at once." This is hyperbolic fearmongering nonsense. The live service model as you describe it isn't going to be adopted by the general gaming industry. It isn't even possible. It's generally the domain of a specific subset of multiplayer game archetypes with a few exceptions that have popped up like Assassin's Creed Odyssey which inexplicably drew backlash because the shop sold boosts you don't even need to progress in a single player game. And talking about servers and "loss" is particularly weird. This is a general problem with the digital economy permeating almost every part of our lives. Absolutely everything online does not belong to you.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Feb 26, 2019 2:12:48 GMT
Not having seen the video, I imagine the argument is that most people are time-poor, and will generally commit to ONE online multiplayer game, rather than try to play several. Anthem has to convince people to spend a significant amount of money on THEIR product, when similar gameplay experiences are available for free. Pretty much spot on! It concentrates mostly on the multiplayer scene, considering that's where live services tend to be focused. Live services are games that entice the player to play a game forever ... or if not forever then at least for a God awful long time. So quoting from the video: "If everyone has their own live service game, when exactly will you have time to play them all in order to get a valued experience? A gamers time is valuable as many of us work full time jobs or go to school. And if not enough players are around to support your favourite titles, it will eventually lead to the games being shut down forever. Since maintaining server costs isn't cheap. Meaning all that time you spent building your favourite character - gone. That's the potential looming scenario facing gamers everywhere. Fewer and fewer titles that are waning in quality that at the same time require intense time sinks and are seemingly built around methods of requiring players to spend more money. It's an unsustainable model and it can't last forever if everybody starts doing it all at once." Well, the entire entertainment industry is chasing trends all the time. After The Hunger Games blew up, suddenly the YA section in bookstores was just full of dystopian sci-fi. Publishers, developers and filmmmakers are constantly to steal each others lunch, and then occasionally one of them will strike out and succeed by doing something different, and the whole fucking cycle starts over again.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Feb 26, 2019 2:14:30 GMT
Not having seen the video, I imagine the argument is that most people are time-poor, and will generally commit to ONE online multiplayer game, rather than try to play several. Anthem has to convince people to spend a significant amount of money on THEIR product, when similar gameplay experiences are available for free. I fail to see how that is a problem for the consumer, or how it's the responsibility of the producer to account for someone's limited time. Lol, the whole point of marketing IS to convince people to give Anthem their limited time. New gamers aren't going to just materialise out of thin air to play it.
|
|
inherit
1039
0
3,036
Lebanese Dude
Anti-Gamer Culture
1,520
Aug 17, 2016 14:13:30 GMT
August 2016
lebanesedude
|
Post by Lebanese Dude on Feb 26, 2019 2:17:50 GMT
I fail to see how that is a problem for the consumer, or how it's the responsibility of the producer to account for someone's limited time. Lol, the whole point of marketing IS to convince people to give Anthem their limited time. New gamers aren't going to just materialise out of thin air to play it. That's not the "whole" point of marketing, and you're selecting one subset of players and using them as a general rule for all gamers... categorically untrue. You ignore gamers who have time to spare, a lot of money to spare, or both. Furthermore, not every gamer who has limited time feels compelled to engage in transactions and such to keep up.
|
|
inherit
8885
0
7,210
river82
4,946
July 2017
river82
|
Post by river82 on Feb 26, 2019 2:20:04 GMT
Pretty much spot on! It concentrates mostly on the multiplayer scene, considering that's where live services tend to be focused. Live services are games that entice the player to play a game forever ... or if not forever then at least for a God awful long time. So quoting from the video: "If everyone has their own live service game, when exactly will you have time to play them all in order to get a valued experience? A gamers time is valuable as many of us work full time jobs or go to school. And if not enough players are around to support your favourite titles, it will eventually lead to the games being shut down forever. Since maintaining server costs isn't cheap. Meaning all that time you spent building your favourite character - gone. That's the potential looming scenario facing gamers everywhere. Fewer and fewer titles that are waning in quality that at the same time require intense time sinks and are seemingly built around methods of requiring players to spend more money. It's an unsustainable model and it can't last forever if everybody starts doing it all at once." This is hyperbolic fearmongering nonsense. The live service model as you describe it isn't going to be adopted by the general gaming industry. It isn't even possible. It's generally the domain of a specific subset of multiplayer game archetypes with a few exceptions that have popped up like Assassin's Creed Odyssey which inexplicably drew backlash because the shop sold boosts you don't even need to progress in a single player game. I wouldn't be surprised if the industry wants to go there, as the next evolution of what open world games offer. Open world games, imo, offer a great experience when they offer a more sim based experience rather than a story one, Breath in the Wild was hailed a success for forwarding open world games in creating unique stories for the player and creating a "living world". What better way to create a living world and create unique stories than to pair that open world with a live service model? Bethesda's gone there. Bioware's gone there. Blizzard's gone there.
|
|
inherit
1039
0
3,036
Lebanese Dude
Anti-Gamer Culture
1,520
Aug 17, 2016 14:13:30 GMT
August 2016
lebanesedude
|
Post by Lebanese Dude on Feb 26, 2019 2:21:37 GMT
This is hyperbolic fearmongering nonsense. The live service model as you describe it isn't going to be adopted by the general gaming industry. It isn't even possible. It's generally the domain of a specific subset of multiplayer game archetypes with a few exceptions that have popped up like Assassin's Creed Odyssey which inexplicably drew backlash because the shop sold boosts you don't even need to progress in a single player game. I wouldn't be surprised if the industry wants to go there, as the next evolution of what open world games offer. Open world games, imo, offer a great experience when they offer a more sim based experience rather than a story one, Breath in the Wild was hailed a success for forwarding open world games in creating unique stories for the player and creating a "living world". What better way to create a living world and create unique stories than to pair that open world with a live service model? Bethesda's gone there. Bioware's gone there. Blizzard's gone there. I imagine developers with AAA studio backing will go there because it is indeed lucrative. Fortunately that's not even a fraction of most games. Fact is there will be experiments, and the reaction is here. Live service models will continue to evolve and I hope they reach a point where they become more satisfactory.
|
|
inherit
813
0
Jun 26, 2019 23:40:38 GMT
5,054
thats1evildude
2,478
August 2016
thats1evildude
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition
|
Post by thats1evildude on Feb 26, 2019 2:23:01 GMT
How is that even a flaw. It's like saying that it's a flaw if there are dozen variations of chocolate cookies on the market. Did you watch the video or just react to what I said? The problem, as the video explains, is that these games are NOT chocolate cookies, but more like tiny piles of cookie crumbs. Live service games are often extremely lacking in content and very grindy, all with the idea of forcing the player to continue playing a game in perpetuity. A prime example was Sea of Thieves, which only featured three main activities in its base game: searching for treasure chests, collecting animals and trapping animals. Oh, and you could grief other players, but there was no point in doing so except to stave off boredom. Virtually the same thing has happened with Anthem. The campaign is anemic, to put it mildly, and extremely repetitive missions are a frequent complaint. And if every AAA title on the market is a liiiiiiiiive seeeeervice game, they’re going to be all competing for the same finite pool of players with a finite amount of free time. If you’re logging in every day to play Anthem - and God help you if you are - when are you going to find time to do the same for Assassin’s Creed? Or Fortnite? Or WarFrame? Or The Division 2? Or Apex Legends? Or FIFA? Or Halo Infinite? And all these fucking games want you spending money on lootboxes and cosmetics too. There’s only so much money to go around. But we’re NOT getting what we want. Did anyone ask for Fallout 76 to be a bug-laden mess? Did anyone ask for constant loading screens in Anthem? Did anyone on this board ask for a live service Dragon Age that steals resources from the SP campaign? ‘Cuz that’s what we’re getting. That’s funny, because I remember a time when games were supposed to basically work. Today, games are sold with a “Release it now, patch it later” mentality. We’ve become the unpaid beta testers of the industry.
|
|
inherit
1039
0
3,036
Lebanese Dude
Anti-Gamer Culture
1,520
Aug 17, 2016 14:13:30 GMT
August 2016
lebanesedude
|
Post by Lebanese Dude on Feb 26, 2019 2:24:41 GMT
The problem, as the video explains, is that these games are NOT chocolate cookies, but more like tiny piles of cookie crumbs. Live service games are often extremely lacking in content and very grindy, all with the idea of forcing the player to continue playing a game in perpetuity. *laughs in ancient gamer* When talking about "grindy' you are literally describing almost every game that has ever existed... few tasks repeated ad nauseum in different ways within different contexts. The fact that multiplayer game grinds are more obvious is that they don't have a story to handhold you through it... You pick games specifically designed for repeated experiences and use them to generalize the idea of a live service. MOBAS are THE definition of repititive gameplay, yet apparently are one of the most popular genres. Battlefield was literally a dozen players just shooting each other in different ways. What's the problem then? Multiplayers have ALWAYS been this way. Spare me the pearl clutching. Also please use the word "force' sparingly. Nobody forces you to do anything. Maybe if people recognized they have a choice in what they partake in they'd be less salty about games in general
|
|
inherit
813
0
Jun 26, 2019 23:40:38 GMT
5,054
thats1evildude
2,478
August 2016
thats1evildude
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition
|
Post by thats1evildude on Feb 26, 2019 2:30:59 GMT
*laughs in ancient gamer* When talking about "grindy' you are literally describing almost every game that has ever existed. You and I remember games very differently. I remember this hobby being a lot more fun and a lot less like having a second job.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Feb 26, 2019 2:32:19 GMT
Lol, the whole point of marketing IS to convince people to give Anthem their limited time. New gamers aren't going to just materialise out of thin air to play it. That's not the "whole" point of marketing, and you're selecting one subset of players and using them as a general rule for all gamers. You ignore gamers who have a lot of time to spare, a lot of money to spare, or both. Furthermore, not every gamer who has limited time feels compelled to engage in transactions and such to keep up. I ignore those people because their market share is small. Most PEOPLE (not just most 'gamers') work around eight hours a day, five days a week, at minimum. They also probably have social or familial commitments that take up a chunk of their free time, plus, you need a certain amount of sleep in order to, you know, live. If you aren't employed full-time, then you likely have much less disposable income. Very, very few people are wealthy enough that they can spend the bulk of their time AND money on new video games. The entire entertainment industry is squabbling over our free time. Not just games, but books, movies, tv shows, board games, theatre, social venues like bars and nightclubs, and so on and so on. I have no idea if Anthem is going to succeed or not, but releasing a brand new IP is always a risk. More IPs fail than secure lasting success, and the online multiplayer genre is a particularly difficult sell, because you aren't just banking on a lot of people buying the game, but on them continuing to spend time and money on it in the long term.
|
|
inherit
1039
0
3,036
Lebanese Dude
Anti-Gamer Culture
1,520
Aug 17, 2016 14:13:30 GMT
August 2016
lebanesedude
|
Post by Lebanese Dude on Feb 26, 2019 2:33:15 GMT
*laughs in ancient gamer* When talking about "grindy' you are literally describing almost every game that has ever existed. You and I remember games very differently. Yeah I'm not clouded by bias. Whether it's repeating levels 30 times on a gameboy to advance to the next level, or killing dozens of mobs over and over again in slightly different ways as you progress in World of Warcraft, or playing the same role in the same map in the same MOBA or shooter (with different teammates)... games are just experiences repeated ad nauseum with slightly different context to keep you distracted. And it works. Games are fun.
|
|
inherit
1039
0
3,036
Lebanese Dude
Anti-Gamer Culture
1,520
Aug 17, 2016 14:13:30 GMT
August 2016
lebanesedude
|
Post by Lebanese Dude on Feb 26, 2019 2:34:08 GMT
That's not the "whole" point of marketing, and you're selecting one subset of players and using them as a general rule for all gamers. You ignore gamers who have a lot of time to spare, a lot of money to spare, or both. Furthermore, not every gamer who has limited time feels compelled to engage in transactions and such to keep up. I ignore those people because their market share is small. Most PEOPLE (not just most 'gamers') work around eight hours a day, five days a week, at minimum. They also probably have social or familial commitments that take up a chunk of their free time, plus, you need a certain amount of sleep in order to, you know, live. If you aren't employed full-time, then you likely have much less disposable income. Very, very few people are wealthy enough that they can spend the bulk of their time AND money on new video games. The entire entertainment industry is squabbling over our free time. Not just games, but books, movies, tv shows, board games, theatre, social venues like bars and nightclubs, and so on and so on. I have no idea if Anthem is going to succeed or not, but releasing a brand new IP is always a risk. More IPs fail than secure lasting success, and the online multiplayer genre is a particularly difficult sell, because you aren't just banking on a lot of people buying the game, but on them continuing to spend time and money on it in the long term. I'm one of the people you describe. We apparently have wildly different definitions of what constitutes "free time"... and you also wildly underestimate just how much people fork over for their hobbies. You've lost your focus here. What are you even discussing at this point? You are attempting to hold games like Anthem responsible for someone having such limited time and then simultaneously argue that they need to keep you hooked for extended periods of time. As far as I know, someone who plays a game an hour a day only will probably take a while to get bored of a video game.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Feb 26, 2019 2:43:38 GMT
I ignore those people because their market share is small. Most PEOPLE (not just most 'gamers') work around eight hours a day, five days a week, at minimum. They also probably have social or familial commitments that take up a chunk of their free time, plus, you need a certain amount of sleep in order to, you know, live. If you aren't employed full-time, then you likely have much less disposable income. Very, very few people are wealthy enough that they can spend the bulk of their time AND money on new video games. The entire entertainment industry is squabbling over our free time. Not just games, but books, movies, tv shows, board games, theatre, social venues like bars and nightclubs, and so on and so on. I have no idea if Anthem is going to succeed or not, but releasing a brand new IP is always a risk. More IPs fail than secure lasting success, and the online multiplayer genre is a particularly difficult sell, because you aren't just banking on a lot of people buying the game, but on them continuing to spend time and money on it in the long term. I'm one of the people you describe. We apparently have wildly different definitions of what constitutes "free time"... and you also wildly underestimate just how much people fork over for their hobbies. You've lost your focus here. What are you even discussing at this point? You are attempting to hold games like Anthem responsible for someone having such limited time and then simultaneously argue that they need to keep you hooked for extended periods of time. As far as I know, someone who plays a game an hour a day only will probably take a while to get bored of a video game. Alright calm down, Richie Rich. Where did I say multiplayer games were responsible for a lack of free time? A lack of free time is a fact of modern life for most people, whether they play any games or not, but apparently not for you, you lucky duck. I only hope it lasts.
|
|
inherit
1265
0
Apr 14, 2024 11:47:48 GMT
1,669
isaidlunch
794
Aug 26, 2016 22:27:12 GMT
August 2016
isaidlunch
|
Post by isaidlunch on Feb 26, 2019 2:58:22 GMT
There's one last thing to consider. So Schreier has been incredibly accurate about his leaks going right back to his Destiny days, where he was almost never wrong. He then brought that to his Bioware talks where he's also been incredibly accurate, stating last January that a late 2018 release for Anthem was never feasible (according to his sources). So when Schreier says Dragon Age was rebooted to add more live services to the game, that's worrying. Because you don't need to "reboot" a game to add expansions afterward. IMO you reboot the game if you want to add in things like in world events and stuff. But that's just speculation. We'll see when DA:4 is released I don't understand why a single player game needs live-service elements. If your game doesn't have microtransactions or a subscription fee, what do you have to gain?
|
|
Polka Dot
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 679 Likes: 1,207
inherit
10957
0
Feb 14, 2019 20:07:41 GMT
1,207
Polka Dot
679
Feb 14, 2019 18:50:29 GMT
February 2019
polkadot
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Polka Dot on Feb 26, 2019 3:16:16 GMT
Not having seen the video, I imagine the argument is that most people are time-poor, and will generally commit to ONE online multiplayer game, rather than try to play several. Anthem has to convince people to spend a significant amount of money on THEIR product, when similar gameplay experiences are available for free. Pretty much spot on! It concentrates mostly on the multiplayer scene, considering that's where live services tend to be focused. Live services are games that entice the player to play a game forever ... or if not forever then at least for a God awful long time. So quoting from the video: "If everyone has their own live service game, when exactly will you have time to play them all in order to get a valued experience? A gamers time is valuable as many of us work full time jobs or go to school. And if not enough players are around to support your favourite titles, it will eventually lead to the games being shut down forever. Since maintaining server costs isn't cheap. Meaning all that time you spent building your favourite character - gone. That's the potential looming scenario facing gamers everywhere. Fewer and fewer titles that are waning in quality that at the same time require intense time sinks and are seemingly built around methods of requiring players to spend more money. It's an unsustainable model and it can't last forever if everybody starts doing it all at once." See, that's actually my bigger concern. The servers won't be online forever - will I be able to continue to play DA4 after they're shut down? I would hope they'd do one last update to remove any requirement for server connection before they would shut them down. I'm also concerned about replaying the game with different characters. The typical GaaS/live service game allows you but one character that you're expected to play indefinitely. Hopefully, they won't do that with DA4. I hope that live services in DA are handled roughly the same as in ACOD - but even then, ACOD is a very different type of game. It does have a main questline, but it's also a huge open world with many, many other things to do. Via live services, they provide special daily and weekly missions (typically kill x of y enemy) that reward you with a special currency you can use to purchase armor and weapons (which are also available for cash in the MTX store). I think someone else mentioned other additional quests, but ACOD doesn't have followers. I can't really imagine BioWare calling in 9 VAs to record lines for a new quest delivered for free... DA has traditionally been highly focused and driven by a linear narrative. I don't know of any GaaS/live service games that fit that description, thus the concern.
|
|
Polka Dot
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 679 Likes: 1,207
inherit
10957
0
Feb 14, 2019 20:07:41 GMT
1,207
Polka Dot
679
Feb 14, 2019 18:50:29 GMT
February 2019
polkadot
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Polka Dot on Feb 26, 2019 3:25:17 GMT
You and I remember games very differently. Yeah I'm not clouded by bias. Whether it's repeating levels 30 times on a gameboy to advance to the next level, or killing dozens of mobs over and over again in slightly different ways as you progress in World of Warcraft, or playing the same role in the same map in the same MOBA or shooter (with different teammates)... games are just experiences repeated ad nauseum with slightly different context to keep you distracted. And it works. Games are fun. Yeah, well, DA games are traditionally more like interactive movies in that they are highly focused linear narratives.
|
|
inherit
813
0
Jun 26, 2019 23:40:38 GMT
5,054
thats1evildude
2,478
August 2016
thats1evildude
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition
|
Post by thats1evildude on Feb 26, 2019 3:40:28 GMT
There's one last thing to consider. So Schreier has been incredibly accurate about his leaks going right back to his Destiny days, where he was almost never wrong. He then brought that to his Bioware talks where he's also been incredibly accurate, stating last January that a late 2018 release for Anthem was never feasible (according to his sources). So when Schreier says Dragon Age was rebooted to add more live services to the game, that's worrying. Because you don't need to "reboot" a game to add expansions afterward. IMO you reboot the game if you want to add in things like in world events and stuff. But that's just speculation. We'll see when DA:4 is released I don't understand why a single player game needs live-service elements. If your game doesn't have microtransactions or a subscription fee, what do you have to gain? Well, that’s the million-dollar question, right? DA players don’t need to be hooked for longer because many of us do repeat playthroughs. So why would they add live service elements into DA4 if they WEREN’T hoping to sell us something extra? And sadly, I don’t mean story DLC.
|
|