midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 7,093 Likes: 16,583
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
16,583
midnight tea
7,093
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Nov 20, 2019 20:37:58 GMT
SWTOR generates enough money for them to work on another expansion tho. Austin is also working on Anthem - and given their success with how things have ultimately panned out for SWTOR I think they got their hands full for next few years. Anyway - I don't know the inside workings of BW or EA, but what we know is that Edmonton has been moved to bigger quarters, that they keep hiring left and right people and that they work under a publisher that has many different studios that have all their developers trained in ways of Frostbite. And we know that - if a certain title or studio needed more help - they can move resources/developers to help with it, because that's what they've done in past few years for many games according to different reports. ...So I'm not sure if straightforward growth is even what Bioware has to do. It may be more about efficiency and where the resources/developers are allocated across bigger EA organism. plus I did read an article that claims next gen might be easier to develop for. I assume everything that offers more computing power will be easier to develop for. IRC, DAI was first developed on a strong PC - problems began when they had to scale the game down for old-gen consoles, aside from difficulty in designing for ones. Anthem has been developed with SSDs in mind and AFAIK PS5 will have one - hard to imagine Xbox won't follow suit.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Nov 20, 2019 21:03:48 GMT
The are a few parts of me that differ about this. On the one hand, I just totally hate waiting. I love the DA franchise more than any other property, so the sooner the [hopefully] better, but then I don't want any kind of rush either. However, recent examples prove that just taking longer isn't exactly a good sign in and of itself either. I always have this fear that the "live service" disease will absolutely infect the everliving fuck out of this game, and EA/BioWare tries to push it as some sort of "evolving" world that attempts to feel more dynamic and alive, and of course present an avenue of attack for a continued source of revenue through some sort of cash shop for post-purchase money-grabbing. At the bare minimum, I just hope that Dragon Age will always be a game I can play even when EA's servers inevitably shit themselves to sleep. A lot is riding on it for me because of the effect it will have on its 2 prior installments, since both of them don't really feel entirely self-contained like Origins. If this game turns out to be a wholly unsatisfying shitshow, it retroactively screws over the others as well.
Here's to hoping they don't screw this up.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Apr 19, 2024 11:33:04 GMT
31,191
colfoley
16,545
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Nov 20, 2019 22:19:23 GMT
The are a few parts of me that differ about this. On the one hand, I just totally hate waiting. I love the DA franchise more than any other property, so the sooner the [hopefully] better, but then I don't want any kind of rush either. However, recent examples prove that just taking longer isn't exactly a good sign in and of itself either. I always have this fear that the "live service" disease will absolutely infect the everliving fuck out of this game, and EA/BioWare tries to push it as some sort of "evolving" world that attempts to feel more dynamic and alive, and of course present an avenue of attack for a continued source of revenue through some sort of cash shop for post-purchase money-grabbing. At the bare minimum, I just hope that Dragon Age will always be a game I can play even when EA's servers inevitably shit themselves to sleep. A lot is riding on it for me because of the effect it will have on its 2 prior installments, since both of them don't really feel entirely self-contained like Origins. If this game turns out to be a wholly unsatisfying shitshow, it retroactively screws over the others as well. Here's to hoping they don't screw this up. I disagree. Granted it will be dissapointing from the perspective of if it sucks then, 'cliffhanger' or not, DAI should've been the last one, but nothing can replace or tarnish the love of previous games. I've always found that a really odd perspective. With live service though...why not? Books and movies and tv shows have evolving world, characters, and stories...why not games? Yes the execution hasn't been perfect but nothing ever is especially in its early inception. There are growing pains and there will be lessons to learn, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater owing to a few mistakes. And yes companies can make money on it...and they should. When they get the kinks worked out LS has the potential to be the biggest win win in the history of gaming... maybe entertainment. If gamers let it.
|
|
githcheater
N3
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
Posts: 819 Likes: 952
inherit
959
0
952
githcheater
819
Aug 13, 2016 20:29:15 GMT
August 2016
githcheater
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by githcheater on Nov 21, 2019 3:45:44 GMT
So, given the DA4 release date, does this mean like 10 years between ME games if we get another one? It's hard to say when we're looking this far out, and plans can change. If DA4 is looking at a Fall 2022 release, I wouldn't expect a new ME before... 2025-ish. And it'll also depend on what their long-term plans for Anthem are. I think unless BioWare grows considerably, something will have to give. They just don't have the staff to carry that many AAA franchises in a timely fashion. Perhaps the new building in Edmonton was purchased to allow Bioware to grow considerably ...
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Nov 21, 2019 5:34:08 GMT
The are a few parts of me that differ about this. On the one hand, I just totally hate waiting. I love the DA franchise more than any other property, so the sooner the [hopefully] better, but then I don't want any kind of rush either. However, recent examples prove that just taking longer isn't exactly a good sign in and of itself either. I always have this fear that the "live service" disease will absolutely infect the everliving fuck out of this game, and EA/BioWare tries to push it as some sort of "evolving" world that attempts to feel more dynamic and alive, and of course present an avenue of attack for a continued source of revenue through some sort of cash shop for post-purchase money-grabbing. At the bare minimum, I just hope that Dragon Age will always be a game I can play even when EA's servers inevitably shit themselves to sleep. A lot is riding on it for me because of the effect it will have on its 2 prior installments, since both of them don't really feel entirely self-contained like Origins. If this game turns out to be a wholly unsatisfying shitshow, it retroactively screws over the others as well. Here's to hoping they don't screw this up. I disagree. Granted it will be dissapointing from the perspective of if it sucks then, 'cliffhanger' or not, DAI should've been the last one, but nothing can replace or tarnish the love of previous games. I've always found that a really odd perspective. With live service though...why not? Books and movies and tv shows have evolving world, characters, and stories...why not games? Yes the execution hasn't been perfect but nothing ever is especially in its early inception. There are growing pains and there will be lessons to learn, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater owing to a few mistakes. And yes companies can make money on it...and they should. When they get the kinks worked out LS has the potential to be the biggest win win in the history of gaming... maybe entertainment. If gamers let i You have a great deal more optimism than I do. My expectations for any kind of full-on live service will essentially just be shallower narratives, fewer player options in terms of story, and the ever-present monetization mechanics. I make no secret of my growing animosity for the trend, and hope for its absolute failure. My hope is that greedy superorganisms like EA and Activision get it into their committee-addled skulls that maybe some players just want a robust product not dependent on drip fed content and a constant online system to function every moment.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Apr 19, 2024 11:33:04 GMT
31,191
colfoley
16,545
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Nov 21, 2019 5:48:40 GMT
I disagree. Granted it will be dissapointing from the perspective of if it sucks then, 'cliffhanger' or not, DAI should've been the last one, but nothing can replace or tarnish the love of previous games. I've always found that a really odd perspective. With live service though...why not? Books and movies and tv shows have evolving world, characters, and stories...why not games? Yes the execution hasn't been perfect but nothing ever is especially in its early inception. There are growing pains and there will be lessons to learn, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater owing to a few mistakes. And yes companies can make money on it...and they should. When they get the kinks worked out LS has the potential to be the biggest win win in the history of gaming... maybe entertainment. If gamers let i You have a great deal more optimism than I do. My expectations for any kind of full-on live service will essentially just be shallower narratives, fewer player options in terms of story, and the ever-present monetization mechanics. I make no secret of my growing animosity for the trend, and hope for its absolute failure. My hope is that greedy superorganisms like EA and Activision get it into their committee-addled skulls that maybe some players just want a robust product not dependent on drip fed content and a constant online system to function every moment. Welllll... A. You are certainly right/ justified in your fear. That could potentially be the whole problem with the idea, quanitity over quality and forcing content to meet some schegule or 'roadmap' rather then actually developping meaningful stuff. Or just giving players a vaccous, grindy, experience to keep them engaged until the next bit of content can 'drip' out. Its one of the reasons why I am so fascinated with what is happening with Anthem because we really haven't ever seen a LS game have to 'audible' to this extent. B. Apparently you aren't alone in this fear/ criticism of LS but its actually something I can see as beneficial for companies in terms of trying to sell their product...and us players, with the proviso that it is well devellopped of course. Just imagine if they were still 'drip feeding' content to us for Inquisition, or had continued giving us DLC, expansions, new quests, even after Tresspasser came out. Or hell maybe even Tresspasser could have just released in the last few months and instead of having to wait 7 years for new DA content we'd only have to wait 2 or 3. I know this is all hypotheticals but I hope it reallyproves my point. And video games are hardly unqiue in terms of entertainment when it comes to 'drip feeding us content. Point is there are potential issues with LS, some things in LS games I don't like...unneccessary grind being the top of the list...but really the idea of being able to play an ever evolving story that us players can help influence has a lot of appeal to me.
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 7,093 Likes: 16,583
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
16,583
midnight tea
7,093
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Nov 21, 2019 15:08:12 GMT
I disagree. Granted it will be dissapointing from the perspective of if it sucks then, 'cliffhanger' or not, DAI should've been the last one, but nothing can replace or tarnish the love of previous games. I've always found that a really odd perspective. With live service though...why not? Books and movies and tv shows have evolving world, characters, and stories...why not games? Yes the execution hasn't been perfect but nothing ever is especially in its early inception. There are growing pains and there will be lessons to learn, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater owing to a few mistakes. And yes companies can make money on it...and they should. When they get the kinks worked out LS has the potential to be the biggest win win in the history of gaming... maybe entertainment. If gamers let i You have a great deal more optimism than I do. My expectations for any kind of full-on live service will essentially just be shallower narratives, fewer player options in terms of story, and the ever-present monetization mechanics. I make no secret of my growing animosity for the trend, and hope for its absolute failure. My hope is that greedy superorganisms like EA and Activision get it into their committee-addled skulls that maybe some players just want a robust product not dependent on drip fed content and a constant online system to function every moment. You mean like DLCs that Live Service are largely an evolution of in a market that increasingly goes digital? I still remember that accusation being thrown at them - that content will be split apart and sold in portions to players. It wasn't that long ago. Yet now DLCs are frequently viewed as a staple - they're not only expected, but basically demanded to happen. And I'm fairly sure they can't be accused or giving us shallower story. After all, how much *more* story did we get for DA via DLCs - Awakening, Legacy, Trespasser? What's funny is that service like Live Service in particular can greatly benefit long-form multi-chapter storytelling like that present in DA. Like... you're telling me that I can get MORE content for a game in a longer span of time, thus making waiting for the next chapter more even and enjoyable, without having to rely on niche products like comic books...? I mean, I agree that things can always go bad - but that's been true for almost anything. Underhanded sales techniques that hurt products and drained our pockets existed before and will exist in the future. The gaming market didn't already go bust once because of existence of microtransactions or live services. Heck, Internet wasn't even a thing back then. And it's very much a thing now. People are already used to consuming their entertainment online and being basically always on. This trend won't cease just because some think games can somehow stop in time, instead of using advantages that come with online connectivity.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Nov 21, 2019 18:00:44 GMT
You have a great deal more optimism than I do. My expectations for any kind of full-on live service will essentially just be shallower narratives, fewer player options in terms of story, and the ever-present monetization mechanics. I make no secret of my growing animosity for the trend, and hope for its absolute failure. My hope is that greedy superorganisms like EA and Activision get it into their committee-addled skulls that maybe some players just want a robust product not dependent on drip fed content and a constant online system to function every moment. Welllll... A. You are certainly right/ justified in your fear. That could potentially be the whole problem with the idea, quanitity over quality and forcing content to meet some schegule or 'roadmap' rather then actually developping meaningful stuff. Or just giving players a vaccous, grindy, experience to keep them engaged until the next bit of content can 'drip' out. Its one of the reasons why I am so fascinated with what is happening with Anthem because we really haven't ever seen a LS game have to 'audible' to this extent. B. Apparently you aren't alone in this fear/ criticism of LS but its actually something I can see as beneficial for companies in terms of trying to sell their product...and us players, with the proviso that it is well devellopped of course. Just imagine if they were still 'drip feeding' content to us for Inquisition, or had continued giving us DLC, expansions, new quests, even after Tresspasser came out. Or hell maybe even Tresspasser could have just released in the last few months and instead of having to wait 7 years for new DA content we'd only have to wait 2 or 3. I know this is all hypotheticals but I hope it reallyproves my point. And video games are hardly unqiue in terms of entertainment when it comes to 'drip feeding us content. Point is there are potential issues with LS, some things in LS games I don't like...unneccessary grind being the top of the list...but really the idea of being able to play an ever evolving story that us players can help influence has a lot of appeal to me. Potential is great, but as far as I can see, no one has really been able, or at least has been willing, to use this model to meet that potential, which is why I can only spit venom at their incompetence in 15 times the detail. When I see some market speak-toting clown go on about how they can have evolving worlds and constantly changing environments, all I can really see in that pipeline is mildly different flavors of asset flips, and what would have been full campaigns, cut up into small partitions and sold piecemeal over time to extend the life of the game. In theory, it can be nice. It's just too bad that only means a few hours of shallow content here and there. The reference to drip-fed content here is different from the campaign and subsequent expansion content like what we got with Dragon Age or Mass Effect. Current games that go the drip-fed route give us nothing nearly as robust. Take Destiny. The campaign was a laughable couple of hours of content, and then you're in the endgame loop of repeatable activities for months until the next "expansion", which then does the same thing. The season pass is essentially the epitome of the mediocrity of where this drip-feed model can really go, doling out the bare minimum over the course of a few months. And then there's Fallout 76, and Bethesda's feeble attempt at course correction from its wholly misguided "players make the world" nonsense by promoting NPC's like it's a great new feature. They can sell all the dreams they like, but their dreams mean squat if they can't be arsed to do anything decent with it.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Nov 21, 2019 18:05:27 GMT
You have a great deal more optimism than I do. My expectations for any kind of full-on live service will essentially just be shallower narratives, fewer player options in terms of story, and the ever-present monetization mechanics. I make no secret of my growing animosity for the trend, and hope for its absolute failure. My hope is that greedy superorganisms like EA and Activision get it into their committee-addled skulls that maybe some players just want a robust product not dependent on drip fed content and a constant online system to function every moment. You mean like DLCs that Live Service are largely an evolution of in a market that increasingly goes digital? I still remember that accusation being thrown at them - that content will be split apart and sold in portions to players. It wasn't that long ago. Yet now DLCs are frequently viewed as a staple - they're not only expected, but basically demanded to happen. And I'm fairly sure they can't be accused or giving us shallower story. After all, how much *more* story did we get for DA via DLCs - Awakening, Legacy, Trespasser? What's funny is that service like Live Service in particular can greatly benefit long-form multi-chapter storytelling like that present in DA. Like... you're telling me that I can get MORE content for a game in a longer span of time, thus making waiting for the next chapter more even and enjoyable, without having to rely on niche products like comic books...? I mean, I agree that things can always go bad - but that's been true for almost anything. Underhanded sales techniques that hurt products and drained our pockets existed before and will exist in the future. The gaming market didn't already go bust once because of existence of microtransactions or live services. Heck, Internet wasn't even a thing back then. And it's very much a thing now. People are already used to consuming their entertainment online and being basically always on. This trend won't cease just because some think games can somehow stop in time, instead of using advantages that come with online connectivity. Thing is, there was a point where the model can be good, or even great. I loved getting the DLC for all of the BioWare games, and happily took these updates (like the Extended Cut, which saved ME3 for me), but then there's the low-effort dreck that a lot of it has devolved into, largely because these devs are instead trying to find a more profitable stream of revenue through the mtx system rather than occasional big update that might be months between. Hopefully, publishers get a clue and realize that they've gone too far with this nickel and diming and actually give more developers the room to actually make a proper video game that isn't seemingly designed to just find ways to ask for more money on a nigh weekly or even daily basis.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Apr 19, 2024 11:33:04 GMT
31,191
colfoley
16,545
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Nov 21, 2019 18:30:49 GMT
You have a great deal more optimism than I do. My expectations for any kind of full-on live service will essentially just be shallower narratives, fewer player options in terms of story, and the ever-present monetization mechanics. I make no secret of my growing animosity for the trend, and hope for its absolute failure. My hope is that greedy superorganisms like EA and Activision get it into their committee-addled skulls that maybe some players just want a robust product not dependent on drip fed content and a constant online system to function every moment. You mean like DLCs that Live Service are largely an evolution of in a market that increasingly goes digital? I still remember that accusation being thrown at them - that content will be split apart and sold in portions to players. It wasn't that long ago. Yet now DLCs are frequently viewed as a staple - they're not only expected, but basically demanded to happen. And I'm fairly sure they can't be accused or giving us shallower story. After all, how much *more* story did we get for DA via DLCs - Awakening, Legacy, Trespasser? What's funny is that service like Live Service in particular can greatly benefit long-form multi-chapter storytelling like that present in DA. Like... you're telling me that I can get MORE content for a game in a longer span of time, thus making waiting for the next chapter more even and enjoyable, without having to rely on niche products like comic books...? I mean, I agree that things can always go bad - but that's been true for almost anything. Underhanded sales techniques that hurt products and drained our pockets existed before and will exist in the future. The gaming market didn't already go bust once because of existence of microtransactions or live services. Heck, Internet wasn't even a thing back then. And it's very much a thing now. People are already used to consuming their entertainment online and being basically always on. This trend won't cease just because some think games can somehow stop in time, instead of using advantages that come with online connectivity. Bingo. All this stuff with the internet is probably going to happen anyways so we can either get behind it and offer constructive criticism on how to improve it or we can just dig in our heals to anything new and literally spite ourselves despite the fact that these models are generally improving all the time. I remember the 'early' days of DLC and lootboxes with ME 3. The whole Jaavick day 1 DLC. People complained about it in droves...its never happened again. I remember lootboxes being grindy random crap shoots, now you can practically choose what you get with them. Welllll... A. You are certainly right/ justified in your fear. That could potentially be the whole problem with the idea, quanitity over quality and forcing content to meet some schegule or 'roadmap' rather then actually developping meaningful stuff. Or just giving players a vaccous, grindy, experience to keep them engaged until the next bit of content can 'drip' out. Its one of the reasons why I am so fascinated with what is happening with Anthem because we really haven't ever seen a LS game have to 'audible' to this extent. B. Apparently you aren't alone in this fear/ criticism of LS but its actually something I can see as beneficial for companies in terms of trying to sell their product...and us players, with the proviso that it is well devellopped of course. Just imagine if they were still 'drip feeding' content to us for Inquisition, or had continued giving us DLC, expansions, new quests, even after Tresspasser came out. Or hell maybe even Tresspasser could have just released in the last few months and instead of having to wait 7 years for new DA content we'd only have to wait 2 or 3. I know this is all hypotheticals but I hope it reallyproves my point. And video games are hardly unqiue in terms of entertainment when it comes to 'drip feeding us content. Point is there are potential issues with LS, some things in LS games I don't like...unneccessary grind being the top of the list...but really the idea of being able to play an ever evolving story that us players can help influence has a lot of appeal to me. Potential is great, but as far as I can see, no one has really been able, or at least has been willing, to use this model to meet that potential, which is why I can only spit venom at their incompetence in 15 times the detail. When I see some market speak-toting clown go on about how they can have evolving worlds and constantly changing environments, all I can really see in that pipeline is mildly different flavors of asset flips, and what would have been full campaigns, cut up into small partitions and sold piecemeal over time to extend the life of the game. In theory, it can be nice. It's just too bad that only means a few hours of shallow content here and there. The reference to drip-fed content here is different from the campaign and subsequent expansion content like what we got with Dragon Age or Mass Effect. Current games that go the drip-fed route give us nothing nearly as robust. Take Destiny. The campaign was a laughable couple of hours of content, and then you're in the endgame loop of repeatable activities for months until the next "expansion", which then does the same thing. The season pass is essentially the epitome of the mediocrity of where this drip-feed model can really go, doling out the bare minimum over the course of a few months. And then there's Fallout 76, and Bethesda's feeble attempt at course correction from its wholly misguided "players make the world" nonsense by promoting NPC's like it's a great new feature. They can sell all the dreams they like, but their dreams mean squat if they can't be arsed to do anything decent with it. Destiny was likely the first ever LS game, of course mistakes were going to be made. The point though no matter how long or short a game is the goal of any game is A. Is it fun? B. Is it well executed? C. Does it make money? D. Is it worth the money the consumer pays for it? Yes, FO76 may be the dark side of LS...but then I'm not surprised that a company like Bethesda did that colossal of a blunder...but in my experience it does not have to be the norm. And that ultimately is the power here. As long as the story is engaging and the game is mostly fun I don't really care about drip fed content, especially as long as it means I have something to tide me over till the next one. Actually come to think of it I enjoy being drip fed.
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 7,093 Likes: 16,583
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
16,583
midnight tea
7,093
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Nov 21, 2019 18:35:43 GMT
You mean like DLCs that Live Service are largely an evolution of in a market that increasingly goes digital? I still remember that accusation being thrown at them - that content will be split apart and sold in portions to players. It wasn't that long ago. Yet now DLCs are frequently viewed as a staple - they're not only expected, but basically demanded to happen. And I'm fairly sure they can't be accused or giving us shallower story. After all, how much *more* story did we get for DA via DLCs - Awakening, Legacy, Trespasser? What's funny is that service like Live Service in particular can greatly benefit long-form multi-chapter storytelling like that present in DA. Like... you're telling me that I can get MORE content for a game in a longer span of time, thus making waiting for the next chapter more even and enjoyable, without having to rely on niche products like comic books...? I mean, I agree that things can always go bad - but that's been true for almost anything. Underhanded sales techniques that hurt products and drained our pockets existed before and will exist in the future. The gaming market didn't already go bust once because of existence of microtransactions or live services. Heck, Internet wasn't even a thing back then. And it's very much a thing now. People are already used to consuming their entertainment online and being basically always on. This trend won't cease just because some think games can somehow stop in time, instead of using advantages that come with online connectivity. Thing is, there was a point where the model can be good, or even great. I loved getting the DLC for all of the BioWare games, and happily took these updates (like the Extended Cut, which saved ME3 for me), but then there's the low-effort dreck that a lot of it has devolved into, largely because these devs are instead trying to find a more profitable stream of revenue through the mtx system rather than occasional big update that might be months between. Hopefully, publishers get a clue and realize that they've gone too far with this nickel and diming and actually give more developers the room to actually make a proper video game that isn't seemingly designed to just find ways to ask for more money on a nigh weekly or even daily basis. But... low effort dreck has always been present. In fact, during the aforementioned video game crash, the dreck was so bad some of the games ended up in landfills instead of being sold. And it was/is definitely a problem present before the gaming industry has consolidated DLCs, support periods, mtx and so on under an umbrella of Live Services. Thing is, so long as we have systemic issues within an economic system we have now it doesn't matter what kind of methods are used to encourage us to buy stuff or churn out content - after all, was DA2 not as good as it could have been because of live services or mtx or because the title has been given too little time to be developed? I mean, it really isn't a problem that will disappear, even if we revert to ways games have been done a few years back (that were no less problematic) - the consumer must stay vigilant of underhanded tactics if they want to shape content and services offered in a way that is fairer than what we get when we become complacent. That's not to say that people should be paranoid and overly-negative - which is what I think happens to LS as concept now. But there is a healthy space where we can see a potential of all the new tools at disposal of devs and publishers and being mindful of all the ways things can go wrong if we let them.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Apr 19, 2024 11:33:04 GMT
31,191
colfoley
16,545
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Nov 21, 2019 18:43:05 GMT
I think a large part of this revolves around how much we trust these companies too. I trust Bio and Ubisoft because they make fun, engaging games where if they make mistakes they do go through...sometimes extreme...methods to course correct.
Whereas a company like Bethesda, who I thought was a very lazy, greedy, company even before FO76...it does not surprise me in the least that they 'delivered' the product that they did.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Nov 21, 2019 18:59:09 GMT
Bingo. All this stuff with the internet is probably going to happen anyways so we can either get behind it and offer constructive criticism on how to improve it or we can just dig in our heals to anything new and literally spite ourselves despite the fact that these models are generally improving all the time. I remember the 'early' days of DLC and lootboxes with ME 3. The whole Jaavick day 1 DLC. People complained about it in droves...its never happened again. I remember lootboxes being grindy random crap shoots, now you can practically choose what you get with them. This isn't some sort of "Harumph! Change is bad!" sort of affair. Lots of proper criticism is leveled at publishers and devs when they make bad decisions, but there are times when the level of audacity of those decisions leads me to think that they're basically testing the waters to see how much they can get away with before the player base reaches its limit. Just look at Overwatch 2. They might just get away with that one if the Overwatch fan base is as big a gaggle of suckers as they hope. The days of Day 1 DLC and lootboxes? It's the same thing. Game devs have been proven to devote a fair amount of time to delving into the psychological effect of gambling, and exploited it fully for good measure, even having the gall to call it "surprise mechanics". That they backtracked because people started complaining enough to see that it would threaten their bottom line in the future is fine and good, but the fact that they did it at all says quite a lot for the type of people we're dealing with, and my expectations for what I think they might offer in the future. This is why I typically dislike any directions they go in that might suggest a model that promotes a steadier revenue stream, because it's just another way for more nickel and dime tactics. EA, Activision, Blizzard and the like are all a gaggle of greedy fucks, so I have to regard them as such. I'm pretty sure Destiny is not the first by a good few years, but it's not that mistakes were made on Bungie's part, but rather that Bungie continued to make mistakes, even to this day, and pushes the monetization model more and more, especially now that D2's base game went F2P, which promises an even more robust cash shop. That in and of itself is actually pretty nice, and probably one of the better decisions they've made, but at the same time, Bungie has a lot to learn in terms of creating content to feed into its gameplay loop. Thing is, I want to be wrong. I want a live service Dragon Age to be the best thing ever, as much as I exude tons of hatred at the idea, because in the end, I'd like to get more DA and play the hell out of it for maybe years to come. I just don't see it coming true. Massive potential is only valuable in how much is put into realizing that potential in an actual product. Time will tell I guess. Whatever they do, I just hope it's friggin' good, or I might have to put BioWare aside until they get it together.
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 7,093 Likes: 16,583
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
16,583
midnight tea
7,093
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Nov 21, 2019 19:02:14 GMT
The reference to drip-fed content here is different from the campaign and subsequent expansion content like what we got with Dragon Age or Mass Effect. Current games that go the drip-fed route give us nothing nearly as robust. Take Destiny. The campaign was a laughable couple of hours of content, and then you're in the endgame loop of repeatable activities for months until the next "expansion", which then does the same thing. The season pass is essentially the epitome of the mediocrity of where this drip-feed model can really go, doling out the bare minimum over the course of a few months. And then there's Fallout 76, and Bethesda's feeble attempt at course correction from its wholly misguided "players make the world" nonsense by promoting NPC's like it's a great new feature. They can sell all the dreams they like, but their dreams mean squat if they can't be arsed to do anything decent with it. Bethesda is hardly the only game company that's made poor decisions with some games now or in the past. Also - the problems with F76 don't just stem from the model they chose, but also from trying to implement online functionalities into that rickety engine of theirs in preparation for future challenges. F76 may have had a bad start (I don't play Fallout myself but I'm curious where they'll go with 76) is hardly anything that's made me super-pessimistic about what games of Beth or others can be tho. Why? Because Beth actually has an excellent title with *hundreds of hours* of story-driven content in form of Elder Scrolls: Online. We've just finished a whole season of it - naturally there's a lot of stuff that's standard for MMO, but virtually all of it is integrated into framework of the big story they want to tell and they consistently get praise for their storytelling chops. You'll find similar story with Final Fantasy XIV. Even some Bioware folks were absolutely beside themselves in past months about how just how damn *good* the story was in their latest expansion. But it took them a few years to figure out both of those games. Mistakes were made and they will be made in the future with some other games. That's because - in concurrence with gaming industry being young in general - we are still very much in an uncharted territory when it comes to online connectivity and ways it allows us to share and consume content; usually in intervals that are vastly different to what we're used with more established mediums or forms of distribution.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Apr 19, 2024 11:33:04 GMT
31,191
colfoley
16,545
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Nov 21, 2019 19:08:30 GMT
Bingo. All this stuff with the internet is probably going to happen anyways so we can either get behind it and offer constructive criticism on how to improve it or we can just dig in our heals to anything new and literally spite ourselves despite the fact that these models are generally improving all the time. I remember the 'early' days of DLC and lootboxes with ME 3. The whole Jaavick day 1 DLC. People complained about it in droves...its never happened again. I remember lootboxes being grindy random crap shoots, now you can practically choose what you get with them. This isn't some sort of "Harumph! Change is bad!" sort of affair. Lots of proper criticism is leveled at publishers and devs when they make bad decisions, but there are times when the level of audacity of those decisions leads me to think that they're basically testing the waters to see how much they can get away with before the player base reaches its limit. Just look at Overwatch 2. They might just get away with that one if the Overwatch fan base is as big a gaggle of suckers as they hope. The days of Day 1 DLC and lootboxes? It's the same thing. Game devs have been proven to devote a fair amount of time to delving into the psychological effect of gambling, and exploited it fully for good measure, even having the gall to call it "surprise mechanics". That they backtracked because people started complaining enough to see that it would threaten their bottom line in the future is fine and good, but the fact that they did it at all says quite a lot for the type of people we're dealing with, and my expectations for what I think they might offer in the future. This is why I typically dislike any directions they go in that might suggest a model that promotes a steadier revenue stream, because it's just another way for more nickel and dime tactics. EA, Activision, Blizzard and the like are all a gaggle of greedy fucks, so I have to regard them as such. I'm pretty sure Destiny is not the first by a good few years, but it's not that mistakes were made on Bungie's part, but rather that Bungie continued to make mistakes, even to this day, and pushes the monetization model more and more, especially now that D2's base game went F2P, which promises an even more robust cash shop. That in and of itself is actually pretty nice, and probably one of the better decisions they've made, but at the same time, Bungie has a lot to learn in terms of creating content to feed into its gameplay loop. Thing is, I want to be wrong. I want a live service Dragon Age to be the best thing ever, as much as I exude tons of hatred at the idea, because in the end, I'd like to get more DA and play the hell out of it for maybe years to come. I just don't see it coming true. Massive potential is only valuable in how much is put into realizing that potential in an actual product. Time will tell I guess. Whatever they do, I just hope it's friggin' good, or I might have to put BioWare aside until they get it together. That is the perspective and attitude I get from many posts around here. Like for instance. There is nothing wrong with gambling. There is nothing especially wrong with being 'nickel and dimed' (at least in this context and my experience with LS games.) If such things are entirely optional and encourage devs to continue giving us new content months even years after release...then there is nothing wrong with it and these busy body politicians and knee jerk reactions just make it harder to do their jobs.. and more prone that their next money making scheme actually IS dangerous and anti consumer. D2 is FTP? I might want to check it out.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Nov 21, 2019 20:44:19 GMT
This isn't some sort of "Harumph! Change is bad!" sort of affair. Lots of proper criticism is leveled at publishers and devs when they make bad decisions, but there are times when the level of audacity of those decisions leads me to think that they're basically testing the waters to see how much they can get away with before the player base reaches its limit. Just look at Overwatch 2. They might just get away with that one if the Overwatch fan base is as big a gaggle of suckers as they hope. The days of Day 1 DLC and lootboxes? It's the same thing. Game devs have been proven to devote a fair amount of time to delving into the psychological effect of gambling, and exploited it fully for good measure, even having the gall to call it "surprise mechanics". That they backtracked because people started complaining enough to see that it would threaten their bottom line in the future is fine and good, but the fact that they did it at all says quite a lot for the type of people we're dealing with, and my expectations for what I think they might offer in the future. This is why I typically dislike any directions they go in that might suggest a model that promotes a steadier revenue stream, because it's just another way for more nickel and dime tactics. EA, Activision, Blizzard and the like are all a gaggle of greedy fucks, so I have to regard them as such. I'm pretty sure Destiny is not the first by a good few years, but it's not that mistakes were made on Bungie's part, but rather that Bungie continued to make mistakes, even to this day, and pushes the monetization model more and more, especially now that D2's base game went F2P, which promises an even more robust cash shop. That in and of itself is actually pretty nice, and probably one of the better decisions they've made, but at the same time, Bungie has a lot to learn in terms of creating content to feed into its gameplay loop. Thing is, I want to be wrong. I want a live service Dragon Age to be the best thing ever, as much as I exude tons of hatred at the idea, because in the end, I'd like to get more DA and play the hell out of it for maybe years to come. I just don't see it coming true. Massive potential is only valuable in how much is put into realizing that potential in an actual product. Time will tell I guess. Whatever they do, I just hope it's friggin' good, or I might have to put BioWare aside until they get it together. That is the perspective and attitude I get from many posts around here. Like for instance. There is nothing wrong with gambling. There is nothing especially wrong with being 'nickel and dimed' (at least in this context and my experience with LS games.) If such things are entirely optional and encourage devs to continue giving us new content months even years after release...then there is nothing wrong with it and these busy body politicians and knee jerk reactions just make it harder to do their jobs.. and more prone that their next money making scheme actually IS dangerous and anti consumer. D2 is FTP? I might want to check it out. It's not as if this perspective and attitude is without reason, though. You say there's nothing wrong with gambling, but in a game that's already asked for full price? You sure as shit there's something wrong there. RNG as a mechanic exists to promote repeat play through the normal loop. It's supposed to be a thing that keeps loot feeling fresh and varied, especially in games where loot has multiple permutations in stats that may be suitable for certain builds, or the hunt for that "god-roll". When that same randomized mechanic is added as a paywall addition, then it becomes very problematic. Basically, access to in-game loot assets that already *exist* within the game you paid for, are now locked behind a slot machine. If it was just a matter of paying for in-game currency to straight up buy the item, then that would be one thing. Even if I'm not a fan of the translation between the game currency to real currency and how much I actually have to pay, at least there's no mystery in the value I've spent there. I didn't buy box after box, possibly getting meaningless chaff for maybe 1 item. Just look at the Black Ops or Battlefront controversy. This is the thing these publishers bank on, that the addictive personalities of its player base will feed them thousands upon thousands more through a predatory monetization scheme. The "optional" excuse doesn't really work, because incentive for lootbox transactions hinge on the lack of more desirable items that can be earned in gameplay, or by creating an intensely grindy system that discourages players from just earning that stuff the old-fashioned way. Just look at those shits at Ubisoft that sold XP boosts for Odyssey, or the $10 save slot for Metal Gear Survive. I'm curious as to what actions or policies knee-jerk reactions and busybody politicians resulted in, especially those that would somehow not put the onus entire on the publishers and developers to not engage in any sort of predatory monetization schemes, but as for their jobs getting harder? Good! Fuck 'em. With all the stupid things various game publishers have done over the years, they deserve nothing less but brazen bull levels of fire lit under their collective asses. Maybe actually creating products that retain greater value for what we pay for might ease their poor, tired, overworked shoulders. As for D2 going F2P, this I feel is a good example of the direction to go in when they want to monetize their game. The game retains its value now because of the low requirement for entry. You need to pay for Forsaken and Shadowkeep to do any missions or the raids, but you can still go to the expansion areas with your friends to do open world activities. It's a great "demo" of sorts to get into.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Apr 19, 2024 11:33:04 GMT
31,191
colfoley
16,545
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Nov 21, 2019 21:34:47 GMT
That is the perspective and attitude I get from many posts around here. Like for instance. There is nothing wrong with gambling. There is nothing especially wrong with being 'nickel and dimed' (at least in this context and my experience with LS games.) If such things are entirely optional and encourage devs to continue giving us new content months even years after release...then there is nothing wrong with it and these busy body politicians and knee jerk reactions just make it harder to do their jobs.. and more prone that their next money making scheme actually IS dangerous and anti consumer. D2 is FTP? I might want to check it out. It's not as if this perspective and attitude is without reason, though. You say there's nothing wrong with gambling, but in a game that's already asked for full price? You sure as shit there's something wrong there. RNG as a mechanic exists to promote repeat play through the normal loop. It's supposed to be a thing that keeps loot feeling fresh and varied, especially in games where loot has multiple permutations in stats that may be suitable for certain builds, or the hunt for that "god-roll". When that same randomized mechanic is added as a paywall addition, then it becomes very problematic. Basically, access to in-game loot assets that already *exist* within the game you paid for, are now locked behind a slot machine. If it was just a matter of paying for in-game currency to straight up buy the item, then that would be one thing. Even if I'm not a fan of the translation between the game currency to real currency and how much I actually have to pay, at least there's no mystery in the value I've spent there. I didn't buy box after box, possibly getting meaningless chaff for maybe 1 item. Just look at the Black Ops or Battlefront controversy. This is the thing these publishers bank on, that the addictive personalities of its player base will feed them thousands upon thousands more through a predatory monetization scheme. The "optional" excuse doesn't really work, because incentive for lootbox transactions hinge on the lack of more desirable items that can be earned in gameplay, or by creating an intensely grindy system that discourages players from just earning that stuff the old-fashioned way. Just look at those shits at Ubisoft that sold XP boosts for Odyssey, or the $10 save slot for Metal Gear Survive. I'm curious as to what actions or policies knee-jerk reactions and busybody politicians resulted in, especially those that would somehow not put the onus entire on the publishers and developers to not engage in any sort of predatory monetization schemes, but as for their jobs getting harder? Good! Fuck 'em. With all the stupid things various game publishers have done over the years, they deserve nothing less but brazen bull levels of fire lit under their collective asses. Maybe actually creating products that retain greater value for what we pay for might ease their poor, tired, overworked shoulders. As for D2 going F2P, this I feel is a good example of the direction to go in when they want to monetize their game. The game retains its value now because of the low requirement for entry. You need to pay for Forsaken and Shadowkeep to do any missions or the raids, but you can still go to the expansion areas with your friends to do open world activities. It's a great "demo" of sorts to get into. Granted maybe I should've led with this...but then your post does touch on it too. More modern games their MTX and lootbox mechanics aren't gambling. At least in the tripple A 'pay 60 dollars for a game' sphere. Sure maybe this is something that the politicians and the critical reaction has led to game devs changing...yet people continue to complain about them like there isn't a difference between the ME 3 lootboxes and the more modern ones. In Breakpoint, in Wildlands, in Odyssey I know EXACTLY what I am spending my money on if I choose to spend my money on those things. And those games are perfectly fine without me spending a single dime on any of the additional (optional) MTXs. The weapons and gear in the base games have been perfectly usable and playable, the games aren't that grindy so I haven't felt any desire to buy any of the 'time savers' (and remember that's just what they are, if you are too busy and have enough money...you can buy them...or not). And Breakpoint, contrary to what the internet might tell you, takes it one step further where anything that can actually effect the gameplay is available in the game for you to play or enjoy...or you can buy them if you are impatient. Only thing that is seperate is literally meaningless cosmetics. There might be a little bit of grind to encourage people to play said games, but grind is hardly a new problem in games or a unique one to LS games. Hell probably the two grindiest games I've ever played is Origins and DA 2.
|
|
inherit
8885
0
7,210
river82
4,946
July 2017
river82
|
Post by river82 on Nov 21, 2019 22:59:28 GMT
Agreed because most of that time wasn't spent on working on DA4 but other stuff!!!! I doubt they started working on it any time before 2018 at the earliest, does anyone actually know when they started work on it? I only know what Hrungr tells me There was the recent blog post from Casey Hudson about it moving out of pre-production, but how long they've been working on this version of the game before that, I don't know. There is also the infamous "reboot", whenever that took place. Working through pre-production. If they're aiming for a late 2022 release at the earliest, it probably won't move out of pre-production for a little while yet *shrugs*
|
|
bladefist
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
Origin: bladefist1
Posts: 629 Likes: 771
inherit
4239
0
Jun 30, 2023 22:26:13 GMT
771
bladefist
629
March 2017
bladefist
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
bladefist1
|
Post by bladefist on Nov 24, 2019 23:25:52 GMT
More like a release year than a release date.
|
|
Sanunes
N6
Just a flip of the coin.
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Prime Posts: 4392
Prime Likes: 882
Posts: 5,899 Likes: 8,927
inherit
1561
0
8,927
Sanunes
Just a flip of the coin.
5,899
Sept 13, 2016 11:51:12 GMT
September 2016
sanunes
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
4392
882
|
Post by Sanunes on Nov 25, 2019 4:46:07 GMT
Destiny was likely the first ever LS game, of course mistakes were going to be made. The point though no matter how long or short a game is the goal of any game is A. Is it fun? B. Is it well executed? C. Does it make money? D. Is it worth the money the consumer pays for it? Yes, FO76 may be the dark side of LS...but then I'm not surprised that a company like Bethesda did that colossal of a blunder...but in my experience it does not have to be the norm. And that ultimately is the power here. As long as the story is engaging and the game is mostly fun I don't really care about drip fed content, especially as long as it means I have something to tide me over till the next one. Actually come to think of it I enjoy being drip fed. The problem with all the hatred towards live services is nobody knows what it really means, so people go pointing at things and say that is a live service or how live service is going to do certain things. EA in their last investor's report stated they have been doing live service content for a decade and that even predates Dead Space 3 and its controversial system and lootboxes in major titles. Hearing all these different things from different companies and individuals I still don't have a clear idea what they consider a live service versus what the playerbase considers a live service. Edit: I think at one point a BioWare twitter response was that "its content we can stream into the game without a patch" while giving the ME3 weekend events as an example. Again who knows if that is accurate.
|
|
inherit
8885
0
7,210
river82
4,946
July 2017
river82
|
Post by river82 on Nov 25, 2019 5:20:56 GMT
EA in their last investor's report stated they have been doing live service content for a decade Why would this be surprising? SW:TOR is 8 years old for starters … hold on, EA's been doing Ultima Online for much longer than a decade. They've also done lesser known MMOs like Earth and Beyond (2002). So it seems EA has been doing live service for a long time.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Apr 19, 2024 11:33:04 GMT
31,191
colfoley
16,545
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Nov 25, 2019 6:25:53 GMT
Destiny was likely the first ever LS game, of course mistakes were going to be made. The point though no matter how long or short a game is the goal of any game is A. Is it fun? B. Is it well executed? C. Does it make money? D. Is it worth the money the consumer pays for it? Yes, FO76 may be the dark side of LS...but then I'm not surprised that a company like Bethesda did that colossal of a blunder...but in my experience it does not have to be the norm. And that ultimately is the power here. As long as the story is engaging and the game is mostly fun I don't really care about drip fed content, especially as long as it means I have something to tide me over till the next one. Actually come to think of it I enjoy being drip fed. The problem with all the hatred towards live services is nobody knows what it really means, so people go pointing at things and say that is a live service or how live service is going to do certain things. EA in their last investor's report stated they have been doing live service content for a decade and that even predates Dead Space 3 and its controversial system and lootboxes in major titles. Hearing all these different things from different companies and individuals I still don't have a clear idea what they consider a live service versus what the playerbase considers a live service. Edit: I think at one point a BioWare twitter response was that "its content we can stream into the game without a patch" while giving the ME3 weekend events as an example. Again who knows if that is accurate. the issue is LS is fairly set but people seem intent on conflating it owing to bias, fear, and the overall newness of the term. Which of course there is good ls and bad LS. Plans that are well executed and plans that fumble. Overly greedy companies and those that aren't.
|
|
inherit
293
0
4,074
lilyenachaos
Don't grow up, it's a trap.
1,470
August 2016
lilyenachaos
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by lilyenachaos on Nov 25, 2019 7:38:57 GMT
People fear the fact that the addition of live services (which we've supposedly been getting with the games for years) caused a reboot. Logic would tell you that if they'd been adding LS to their games for years that they'd have been in the original plans for DA4 too, but for some reason they had to scrap the entire thing. Makes me think that the live aspect is going to be a great deal more invasive than most people want from a single player game. (Not to mention that they went and started calling those things 'live services')
If the game comes out as a full game (yeah DLC are always wanted, but the game should feel complete without them) and I can play it in offline mode I'll be happy.
|
|
saandrig
N5
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 3,381 Likes: 6,961
inherit
2719
0
6,961
saandrig
3,381
January 2017
saandrig
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by saandrig on Nov 25, 2019 10:27:55 GMT
People fear the fact that the addition of live services (which we've supposedly been getting with the games for years) caused a reboot. Logic would tell you that if they'd been adding LS to their games for years that they'd have been in the original plans for DA4 too, but for some reason they had to scrap the entire thing. Makes me think that the live aspect is going to be a great deal more invasive than most people want from a single player game. (Not to mention that they went and started calling those things 'live services') If the game comes out as a full game (yeah DLC are always wanted, but the game should feel complete without them) and I can play it in offline mode I'll be happy. I am a bit surprised of the reboot if it's just because of live service implementation. DAI had DLCs (two of them completely skippable and just Trespasser being a bit on the nose as an obvious ending to the game) and a couple useless gear packs. It could have easily been much more gear packs and extra quests or such - they had so much empty game maps space to add loads of stories as DLC. So in that sense - what kind of live service they had in mind for DA4? And if the reboot was just for that, what kind of live service is intended to be included? Because DLCs and gear packs would have been easy to do in the first place without a reboot.
Currently we have AC Odyssey as the benchmark for a live service purely SP action RPG. It has two paid DLCs (both expanding the world and story without being a cut ending), a dozen or so gear packs, maybe 10 or so free new quest stories (Lost Tales), and a standalone Discovery Tour update. Plus a load of updates that increased the level cap, improved/added to the game mechanics, a variety of QoL updates, a "Create your own story" toolkit for players, etc. All of which even DAI could accommodate. So no reason to believe DA4 pre-reboot couldn't do this as well.
So if DA4 was rebooted just for the live service offering... But I think there must have been other reasons. Or Bioware had an epiphany and discovered how to do the next awesome evolution of non-predatory live services in a SP game... ... ... ... ... ... Sorry, couldn't keep a straight face.
|
|
inherit
299
0
5,812
AlleluiaElizabeth
2,463
August 2016
alleluiaelizabeth
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by AlleluiaElizabeth on Nov 25, 2019 11:55:12 GMT
What nachos said. If live services was just a rebranding of previous practices in DA of having DLC and multiplayer, it’d be no big deal. But those are standard practices at this point. If the normal stuff is all LS mean then they should not have needed to reboot the game to add live services. But we know they did. Thus live services means something other than the stuff weve seen before from the franchise. Edit: * lilyenachaos. Sorry. Autocorrect. lol
|
|