Star Wars: Battlefront II Review – This is the Star Wars Game You’ve Been Looking For - Not So MMO -

1246

Comments

  • AsheramAsheram Member RarePosts: 2,644
    CrazKanuk said:
    Aeander said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    I'm going to buy 10 copies just to make the MT whiners cringe. 
    That'll show em. You'll definitely get in an invite to The Skulls for this.


    I know right! It's kind of like boycotting. Video game development costs are getting higher and higher as consumer demands for higher fidelity graphics and better gaming experiences continue to grow. However, if you ask for $100 for the game, people complain (actually, they complained about a $10 hike with the release of the PS4, so it doesn't even need to be $100). So they offset that cost by monetizing the 1%. The 99% who aren't actually going to buy anything, anyway, complain. Sooooooo, the message that is being sent here is what? Oh yeah! They already told us! It's not worth making single player experiences anymore :) 

    See, there is an error in logic in not buying the game. First of all, there isn't enough people NOT buying the game to make a difference. Secondly, when half the revenue for the game is coming from microtransactions, 50,000, 100,000, shit 500,000 copies probably doesn't amount to a hill of beans. There are 2 things that make boycotts work. 1) Affect their bottom line. That rarely happens because there is never enough support for the boycott to have an impact. 2) Affect their reputation. Very effective..... unless we're talking about EA, in which case they are already the most hated in the industry, so you can't actually impact them at all with a boycott. From an industry standpoint, this whole microtransaction fight needs to be handled like a civil war, among the community. It needs to be socially unacceptable to do this, to the point that nobody actually wants to buy anything because they will be shunned. That way, you actually make microtransactions less appealing to the 1%, or whatever small percentage, who do actually use them. 
    Yeah, I bet game development costs are getting real fucking high as high quality standard engines become more affordable, manufacturing costs become almost non existent as digital continues to increase its dominance of the market, and offshore tax havens are used to avoid paying taxes.

    No one in the industry actually uses this argument. Only corporate shills and fanboys. Want to know why? Because it's patently false. It's a convenient lie to hide behind. 

    They release multiple special editions because they want to. They nickel and dime us with microtransactions because they want to. They introduce fucking gambling mechanics because they want to. Want to. Not need to. 

    Similar to how you believe these are convenient excuses made up by fan boys, if you took the time to actually look at their financials, you'd understand that without microtransactions, subscriptions, and subscriptions, they would be losing money. That's right! The boxed game doesn't actually make the company money. Could they reduce costs? Probably. However, you also need to remember that companies like EA NEED to market because they are talking to casuals. 

    Please! PLEASE.... give me a lesson on industry finances and how things need to run. I'm sure that there are lots of companies eagerly awaiting your guidance! Lol. 

    As far as people in the industry not using this argument, I've seen no less than 3 articles about this subject at gamespot, from interviews with people in the industry, in the past month. All support the idea that game costs are rising and they need additional monetization to justify development. 
    Damn Bethesda must have lost their shirts selling that single player game Wolfenstein 2 with no mts.

    image
  • heerobyaheerobya Member UncommonPosts: 438
    MikeB said:
    imageStar Wars: Battlefront II Review – This is the Star Wars Game You’ve Been Looking For - Not So MMO - MMORPG.com

    Star Wars: Battlefront II is sure to be overshadowed by the controversy surrounding its microtransactions, but beneath the fury lies a game truly worthy of the Star Wars IP.

    Read the full story here

    Thank you MikeB for a balanced, fair review.

    I wasn't worried about the loot box issues, nice to know that (outside of maybe unlocking heroes) it is not disruptive to the game.

    I've got nothing else I'm going to be putting time into (game wise) this November, so I plan to spend a LOT of time in my favorite galaxy far, far away.
    TorvalMikeB
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Elmira, ONMember EpicPosts: 5,827
    Asheram said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Aeander said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    I'm going to buy 10 copies just to make the MT whiners cringe. 
    That'll show em. You'll definitely get in an invite to The Skulls for this.


    I know right! It's kind of like boycotting. Video game development costs are getting higher and higher as consumer demands for higher fidelity graphics and better gaming experiences continue to grow. However, if you ask for $100 for the game, people complain (actually, they complained about a $10 hike with the release of the PS4, so it doesn't even need to be $100). So they offset that cost by monetizing the 1%. The 99% who aren't actually going to buy anything, anyway, complain. Sooooooo, the message that is being sent here is what? Oh yeah! They already told us! It's not worth making single player experiences anymore :) 

    See, there is an error in logic in not buying the game. First of all, there isn't enough people NOT buying the game to make a difference. Secondly, when half the revenue for the game is coming from microtransactions, 50,000, 100,000, shit 500,000 copies probably doesn't amount to a hill of beans. There are 2 things that make boycotts work. 1) Affect their bottom line. That rarely happens because there is never enough support for the boycott to have an impact. 2) Affect their reputation. Very effective..... unless we're talking about EA, in which case they are already the most hated in the industry, so you can't actually impact them at all with a boycott. From an industry standpoint, this whole microtransaction fight needs to be handled like a civil war, among the community. It needs to be socially unacceptable to do this, to the point that nobody actually wants to buy anything because they will be shunned. That way, you actually make microtransactions less appealing to the 1%, or whatever small percentage, who do actually use them. 
    Yeah, I bet game development costs are getting real fucking high as high quality standard engines become more affordable, manufacturing costs become almost non existent as digital continues to increase its dominance of the market, and offshore tax havens are used to avoid paying taxes.

    No one in the industry actually uses this argument. Only corporate shills and fanboys. Want to know why? Because it's patently false. It's a convenient lie to hide behind. 

    They release multiple special editions because they want to. They nickel and dime us with microtransactions because they want to. They introduce fucking gambling mechanics because they want to. Want to. Not need to. 

    Similar to how you believe these are convenient excuses made up by fan boys, if you took the time to actually look at their financials, you'd understand that without microtransactions, subscriptions, and subscriptions, they would be losing money. That's right! The boxed game doesn't actually make the company money. Could they reduce costs? Probably. However, you also need to remember that companies like EA NEED to market because they are talking to casuals. 

    Please! PLEASE.... give me a lesson on industry finances and how things need to run. I'm sure that there are lots of companies eagerly awaiting your guidance! Lol. 

    As far as people in the industry not using this argument, I've seen no less than 3 articles about this subject at gamespot, from interviews with people in the industry, in the past month. All support the idea that game costs are rising and they need additional monetization to justify development. 
    Damn Bethesda must have lost their shirts selling that single player game Wolfenstein 2 with no mts.


    Are you saying they haven't? First of all, the scope is much different. Second of all, they haven't even broken 200k sales on steam. You're referencing a game, in jest, stating that the developer must have lost their shirts, but there has been ACTUAL discussion (industry news articles) that Wolfenstein 2 may flop as a high fidelity game like this without multiplayer just doesn't work. 

    Maybe you've got some information I've been missing, though. Feel free to send it my way. 
    TorvalunfilteredJW

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • AeanderAeander Walker, LAMember RarePosts: 1,546
    Torval said:
    Asheram said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Aeander said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    I'm going to buy 10 copies just to make the MT whiners cringe. 
    That'll show em. You'll definitely get in an invite to The Skulls for this.


    I know right! It's kind of like boycotting. Video game development costs are getting higher and higher as consumer demands for higher fidelity graphics and better gaming experiences continue to grow. However, if you ask for $100 for the game, people complain (actually, they complained about a $10 hike with the release of the PS4, so it doesn't even need to be $100). So they offset that cost by monetizing the 1%. The 99% who aren't actually going to buy anything, anyway, complain. Sooooooo, the message that is being sent here is what? Oh yeah! They already told us! It's not worth making single player experiences anymore :) 

    See, there is an error in logic in not buying the game. First of all, there isn't enough people NOT buying the game to make a difference. Secondly, when half the revenue for the game is coming from microtransactions, 50,000, 100,000, shit 500,000 copies probably doesn't amount to a hill of beans. There are 2 things that make boycotts work. 1) Affect their bottom line. That rarely happens because there is never enough support for the boycott to have an impact. 2) Affect their reputation. Very effective..... unless we're talking about EA, in which case they are already the most hated in the industry, so you can't actually impact them at all with a boycott. From an industry standpoint, this whole microtransaction fight needs to be handled like a civil war, among the community. It needs to be socially unacceptable to do this, to the point that nobody actually wants to buy anything because they will be shunned. That way, you actually make microtransactions less appealing to the 1%, or whatever small percentage, who do actually use them. 
    Yeah, I bet game development costs are getting real fucking high as high quality standard engines become more affordable, manufacturing costs become almost non existent as digital continues to increase its dominance of the market, and offshore tax havens are used to avoid paying taxes.

    No one in the industry actually uses this argument. Only corporate shills and fanboys. Want to know why? Because it's patently false. It's a convenient lie to hide behind. 

    They release multiple special editions because they want to. They nickel and dime us with microtransactions because they want to. They introduce fucking gambling mechanics because they want to. Want to. Not need to. 

    Similar to how you believe these are convenient excuses made up by fan boys, if you took the time to actually look at their financials, you'd understand that without microtransactions, subscriptions, and subscriptions, they would be losing money. That's right! The boxed game doesn't actually make the company money. Could they reduce costs? Probably. However, you also need to remember that companies like EA NEED to market because they are talking to casuals. 

    Please! PLEASE.... give me a lesson on industry finances and how things need to run. I'm sure that there are lots of companies eagerly awaiting your guidance! Lol. 

    As far as people in the industry not using this argument, I've seen no less than 3 articles about this subject at gamespot, from interviews with people in the industry, in the past month. All support the idea that game costs are rising and they need additional monetization to justify development. 
    Damn Bethesda must have lost their shirts selling that single player game Wolfenstein 2 with no mts.
    I bet we don't see Bethesda make many (or any) more games with that style. The next Elder Scrolls single player game won't be like that. Because even though Wolfenstein is a good game that sold well, it won't perform anywhere near where service titles perform. That's why EA isn't making single player games anymore and focusing on software as a service.

    I expect the next major Bethesda title to be monetized a lot more like ESO than Wolfenstein or older Elder Scrolls games. I would expect similar things with Ubisoft and other major publishers. Games will have microtransactions and RMT conversion especially for the multiplayer components. At the very least expect something like Uncharted 4, GTA Online, or Shadow of War. These companies are eyeing MMOs and how they're sold and how much revenue they generate. They want that.
    I would argue that they do not have to change their core framework in any way to accomodate microtransactions. They already have the abortion of an idea that is the creation club, which allows them to effectively outsource microtransactions without lifting a finger other than to provide "quality assurance" (in quotes because the idea of Bethesda having quality standards is laughable at best).
    Gdemami
  • GinazGinaz Calgary, ABMember RarePosts: 1,979
    Well, it looks like this is officially P2W which means this review is officially Gunk...Gunk with a G Gunk.

    Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?

    Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.

  • AsheramAsheram Member RarePosts: 2,644
    ToCrazKanuk said:
    Asheram said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Aeander said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    I'm going to buy 10 copies just to make the MT whiners cringe. 
    That'll show em. You'll definitely get in an invite to The Skulls for this.


    I know right! It's kind of like boycotting. Video game development costs are getting higher and higher as consumer demands for higher fidelity graphics and better gaming experiences continue to grow. However, if you ask for $100 for the game, people complain (actually, they complained about a $10 hike with the release of the PS4, so it doesn't even need to be $100). So they offset that cost by monetizing the 1%. The 99% who aren't actually going to buy anything, anyway, complain. Sooooooo, the message that is being sent here is what? Oh yeah! They already told us! It's not worth making single player experiences anymore :) 

    See, there is an error in logic in not buying the game. First of all, there isn't enough people NOT buying the game to make a difference. Secondly, when half the revenue for the game is coming from microtransactions, 50,000, 100,000, shit 500,000 copies probably doesn't amount to a hill of beans. There are 2 things that make boycotts work. 1) Affect their bottom line. That rarely happens because there is never enough support for the boycott to have an impact. 2) Affect their reputation. Very effective..... unless we're talking about EA, in which case they are already the most hated in the industry, so you can't actually impact them at all with a boycott. From an industry standpoint, this whole microtransaction fight needs to be handled like a civil war, among the community. It needs to be socially unacceptable to do this, to the point that nobody actually wants to buy anything because they will be shunned. That way, you actually make microtransactions less appealing to the 1%, or whatever small percentage, who do actually use them. 
    Yeah, I bet game development costs are getting real fucking high as high quality standard engines become more affordable, manufacturing costs become almost non existent as digital continues to increase its dominance of the market, and offshore tax havens are used to avoid paying taxes.

    No one in the industry actually uses this argument. Only corporate shills and fanboys. Want to know why? Because it's patently false. It's a convenient lie to hide behind. 

    They release multiple special editions because they want to. They nickel and dime us with microtransactions because they want to. They introduce fucking gambling mechanics because they want to. Want to. Not need to. 

    Similar to how you believe these are convenient excuses made up by fan boys, if you took the time to actually look at their financials, you'd understand that without microtransactions, subscriptions, and subscriptions, they would be losing money. That's right! The boxed game doesn't actually make the company money. Could they reduce costs? Probably. However, you also need to remember that companies like EA NEED to market because they are talking to casuals. 

    Please! PLEASE.... give me a lesson on industry finances and how things need to run. I'm sure that there are lots of companies eagerly awaiting your guidance! Lol. 

    As far as people in the industry not using this argument, I've seen no less than 3 articles about this subject at gamespot, from interviews with people in the industry, in the past month. All support the idea that game costs are rising and they need additional monetization to justify development. 
    Damn Bethesda must have lost their shirts selling that single player game Wolfenstein 2 with no mts.


    Are you saying they haven't? First of all, the scope is much different. Second of all, they haven't even broken 200k sales on steam. You're referencing a game, in jest, stating that the developer must have lost their shirts, but there has been ACTUAL discussion (industry news articles) that Wolfenstein 2 may flop as a high fidelity game like this without multiplayer just doesn't work. 

    Maybe you've got some information I've been missing, though. Feel free to send it my way. 
    I wasn't aware it was flopping sry, but you say it is because it doesn't have mp.

    image
  • laseritlaserit Vancouver, BCMember EpicPosts: 5,027
    There you have it folks

    AAA Video Games are no longer games. They are now video toys. We'll have some limited addition video action figures coming up real soon. Hurry up and get yours while supplies last. 

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • AeanderAeander Walker, LAMember RarePosts: 1,546
    laserit said:
    There you have it folks

    AAA Video Games are no longer games. They are now video toys. We'll have some limited addition video action figures coming up real soon. Hurry up and get yours while supplies last. 
    You mean amiibo?
    laserit
  • Gymrat313Gymrat313 Lincoln Park, MIMember UncommonPosts: 143
    I think this whole Star Wars:Battlefront II thing is a classic example of the snowball effect.  I think there were people that were really interested in this game and felt shafted by the system in EA had put in place. However I think people are just laying it on because it is EA and their business practices in the past have also reeked of such shenanigans.

    image
  • laseritlaserit Vancouver, BCMember EpicPosts: 5,027
    edited November 14
    Aeander said:
    laserit said:
    There you have it folks

    AAA Video Games are no longer games. They are now video toys. We'll have some limited addition video action figures coming up real soon. Hurry up and get yours while supplies last. 
    You mean amiibo?
    I learn something new everyday ;)

    Amiibo's are in the physical realm, I'm talking pixel power. 
    Post edited by laserit on

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • d_20d_20 SeoulMember RarePosts: 1,601
    edited November 14
    The link leads to a reddit post in which someone claiming electronic media PR experience attempts to describe the situation:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBattlefront/comments/7cji8a/i_work_in_electronic_media_pr_ill_tell_you_what/

    Post edited by d_20 on
    Torval

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,799
    edited November 14
    CrazKanuk said:
    Asheram said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Aeander said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    I'm going to buy 10 copies just to make the MT whiners cringe. 
    That'll show em. You'll definitely get in an invite to The Skulls for this.


    I know right! It's kind of like boycotting. Video game development costs are getting higher and higher as consumer demands for higher fidelity graphics and better gaming experiences continue to grow. However, if you ask for $100 for the game, people complain (actually, they complained about a $10 hike with the release of the PS4, so it doesn't even need to be $100). So they offset that cost by monetizing the 1%. The 99% who aren't actually going to buy anything, anyway, complain. Sooooooo, the message that is being sent here is what? Oh yeah! They already told us! It's not worth making single player experiences anymore :) 

    See, there is an error in logic in not buying the game. First of all, there isn't enough people NOT buying the game to make a difference. Secondly, when half the revenue for the game is coming from microtransactions, 50,000, 100,000, shit 500,000 copies probably doesn't amount to a hill of beans. There are 2 things that make boycotts work. 1) Affect their bottom line. That rarely happens because there is never enough support for the boycott to have an impact. 2) Affect their reputation. Very effective..... unless we're talking about EA, in which case they are already the most hated in the industry, so you can't actually impact them at all with a boycott. From an industry standpoint, this whole microtransaction fight needs to be handled like a civil war, among the community. It needs to be socially unacceptable to do this, to the point that nobody actually wants to buy anything because they will be shunned. That way, you actually make microtransactions less appealing to the 1%, or whatever small percentage, who do actually use them. 
    Yeah, I bet game development costs are getting real fucking high as high quality standard engines become more affordable, manufacturing costs become almost non existent as digital continues to increase its dominance of the market, and offshore tax havens are used to avoid paying taxes.

    No one in the industry actually uses this argument. Only corporate shills and fanboys. Want to know why? Because it's patently false. It's a convenient lie to hide behind. 

    They release multiple special editions because they want to. They nickel and dime us with microtransactions because they want to. They introduce fucking gambling mechanics because they want to. Want to. Not need to. 

    Similar to how you believe these are convenient excuses made up by fan boys, if you took the time to actually look at their financials, you'd understand that without microtransactions, subscriptions, and subscriptions, they would be losing money. That's right! The boxed game doesn't actually make the company money. Could they reduce costs? Probably. However, you also need to remember that companies like EA NEED to market because they are talking to casuals. 

    Please! PLEASE.... give me a lesson on industry finances and how things need to run. I'm sure that there are lots of companies eagerly awaiting your guidance! Lol. 

    As far as people in the industry not using this argument, I've seen no less than 3 articles about this subject at gamespot, from interviews with people in the industry, in the past month. All support the idea that game costs are rising and they need additional monetization to justify development. 
    Damn Bethesda must have lost their shirts selling that single player game Wolfenstein 2 with no mts.


    Are you saying they haven't? First of all, the scope is much different. Second of all, they haven't even broken 200k sales on steam. You're referencing a game, in jest, stating that the developer must have lost their shirts, but there has been ACTUAL discussion (industry news articles) that Wolfenstein 2 may flop as a high fidelity game like this without multiplayer just doesn't work. 

    Maybe you've got some information I've been missing, though. Feel free to send it my way. 
    I was searching for the flop articles, but have as of yet found any.  Can you send those my way?

    I don't doubt it won't sell as well as a multiplayer title, because there's inherently more replay value in multiplayer than anstory-drive singleplayer game, but that has nothing to do with a chosen revenue model.  That's about the initial box price and the longevity a player can expect.  But I'm interested in reading the articles you mention.

    EDIT- food for thought, as many as 4 years ago, the value of PvP in engaging and retaining players was already being established.  Singleplayer lack this.  

    http://www.gamedonia.com/blog/pvp-increase-game-revenue

    Linked article references a Kongregate analysis showing how PvP engagement helps boost player engagement.  Has this trend of multiplayer boosting retention somehow been mitigated or reversed since then?
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on

    image
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Elmira, ONMember EpicPosts: 5,827
    CrazKanuk said:
    Asheram said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Aeander said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    I'm going to buy 10 copies just to make the MT whiners cringe. 
    That'll show em. You'll definitely get in an invite to The Skulls for this.


    I know right! It's kind of like boycotting. Video game development costs are getting higher and higher as consumer demands for higher fidelity graphics and better gaming experiences continue to grow. However, if you ask for $100 for the game, people complain (actually, they complained about a $10 hike with the release of the PS4, so it doesn't even need to be $100). So they offset that cost by monetizing the 1%. The 99% who aren't actually going to buy anything, anyway, complain. Sooooooo, the message that is being sent here is what? Oh yeah! They already told us! It's not worth making single player experiences anymore :) 

    See, there is an error in logic in not buying the game. First of all, there isn't enough people NOT buying the game to make a difference. Secondly, when half the revenue for the game is coming from microtransactions, 50,000, 100,000, shit 500,000 copies probably doesn't amount to a hill of beans. There are 2 things that make boycotts work. 1) Affect their bottom line. That rarely happens because there is never enough support for the boycott to have an impact. 2) Affect their reputation. Very effective..... unless we're talking about EA, in which case they are already the most hated in the industry, so you can't actually impact them at all with a boycott. From an industry standpoint, this whole microtransaction fight needs to be handled like a civil war, among the community. It needs to be socially unacceptable to do this, to the point that nobody actually wants to buy anything because they will be shunned. That way, you actually make microtransactions less appealing to the 1%, or whatever small percentage, who do actually use them. 
    Yeah, I bet game development costs are getting real fucking high as high quality standard engines become more affordable, manufacturing costs become almost non existent as digital continues to increase its dominance of the market, and offshore tax havens are used to avoid paying taxes.

    No one in the industry actually uses this argument. Only corporate shills and fanboys. Want to know why? Because it's patently false. It's a convenient lie to hide behind. 

    They release multiple special editions because they want to. They nickel and dime us with microtransactions because they want to. They introduce fucking gambling mechanics because they want to. Want to. Not need to. 

    Similar to how you believe these are convenient excuses made up by fan boys, if you took the time to actually look at their financials, you'd understand that without microtransactions, subscriptions, and subscriptions, they would be losing money. That's right! The boxed game doesn't actually make the company money. Could they reduce costs? Probably. However, you also need to remember that companies like EA NEED to market because they are talking to casuals. 

    Please! PLEASE.... give me a lesson on industry finances and how things need to run. I'm sure that there are lots of companies eagerly awaiting your guidance! Lol. 

    As far as people in the industry not using this argument, I've seen no less than 3 articles about this subject at gamespot, from interviews with people in the industry, in the past month. All support the idea that game costs are rising and they need additional monetization to justify development. 
    Damn Bethesda must have lost their shirts selling that single player game Wolfenstein 2 with no mts.


    Are you saying they haven't? First of all, the scope is much different. Second of all, they haven't even broken 200k sales on steam. You're referencing a game, in jest, stating that the developer must have lost their shirts, but there has been ACTUAL discussion (industry news articles) that Wolfenstein 2 may flop as a high fidelity game like this without multiplayer just doesn't work. 

    Maybe you've got some information I've been missing, though. Feel free to send it my way. 
    I was searching for the flop articles, but have as of yet found any.  Can you send those my way?

    I don't doubt it won't sell as well as a multiplayer title, because there's inherently more replay value in multiplayer than anstory-drive singleplayer game, but that has nothing to do with a chosen revenue model.  That's about the initial box price and the longevity a player can expect.  But I'm interested in reading the articles you mention.

    EDIT- food for thought, as many as 4 years ago, the value of PvP in engaging and retaining players was already being established.  Singleplayer lack this.  

    http://www.gamedonia.com/blog/pvp-increase-game-revenue

    Linked article references a Kongregate analysis showing how PvP engagement helps boost player engagement.  Has this trend of multiplayer boosting retention somehow been mitigated or reversed since then?

    I haven't seen a flop article, but an article discussing it as a possibility. I can't find it right now, but I thought it was Polygon around the 27th of October? The only flop talk I've seen is speculation on 4chan. So nothing concrete, but the steam sales seem to be very light. Maybe Xmas? I'm a single player guy, so I really don't want it to flop, just seemed like an odd example to use. Why not Divinity? 
    MadFrenchie

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • AsheramAsheram Member RarePosts: 2,644
    CrazKanuk said:
    CrazKanuk said:



    Are you saying they haven't? First of all, the scope is much different. Second of all, they haven't even broken 200k sales on steam. You're referencing a game, in jest, stating that the developer must have lost their shirts, but there has been ACTUAL discussion (industry news articles) that Wolfenstein 2 may flop as a high fidelity game like this without multiplayer just doesn't work. 

    Maybe you've got some information I've been missing, though. Feel free to send it my way. 
    I was searching for the flop articles, but have as of yet found any.  Can you send those my way?

    I don't doubt it won't sell as well as a multiplayer title, because there's inherently more replay value in multiplayer than anstory-drive singleplayer game, but that has nothing to do with a chosen revenue model.  That's about the initial box price and the longevity a player can expect.  But I'm interested in reading the articles you mention.

    EDIT- food for thought, as many as 4 years ago, the value of PvP in engaging and retaining players was already being established.  Singleplayer lack this.  

    http://www.gamedonia.com/blog/pvp-increase-game-revenue

    Linked article references a Kongregate analysis showing how PvP engagement helps boost player engagement.  Has this trend of multiplayer boosting retention somehow been mitigated or reversed since then?

    I haven't seen a flop article, but an article discussing it as a possibility. I can't find it right now, but I thought it was Polygon around the 27th of October? The only flop talk I've seen is speculation on 4chan. So nothing concrete, but the steam sales seem to be very light. Maybe Xmas? I'm a single player guy, so I really don't want it to flop, just seemed like an odd example to use. Why not Divinity? 
    Sorry I just pulled the first one to come to mind that released recently that I thought was getting good reviews (well I seen a good review here at least).

    Hopefully CDPR doesn't fall to the dark side with Cyberpunk 2077.

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,799
    CrazKanuk said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Asheram said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Aeander said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    I'm going to buy 10 copies just to make the MT whiners cringe. 
    That'll show em. You'll definitely get in an invite to The Skulls for this.


    I know right! It's kind of like boycotting. Video game development costs are getting higher and higher as consumer demands for higher fidelity graphics and better gaming experiences continue to grow. However, if you ask for $100 for the game, people complain (actually, they complained about a $10 hike with the release of the PS4, so it doesn't even need to be $100). So they offset that cost by monetizing the 1%. The 99% who aren't actually going to buy anything, anyway, complain. Sooooooo, the message that is being sent here is what? Oh yeah! They already told us! It's not worth making single player experiences anymore :) 

    See, there is an error in logic in not buying the game. First of all, there isn't enough people NOT buying the game to make a difference. Secondly, when half the revenue for the game is coming from microtransactions, 50,000, 100,000, shit 500,000 copies probably doesn't amount to a hill of beans. There are 2 things that make boycotts work. 1) Affect their bottom line. That rarely happens because there is never enough support for the boycott to have an impact. 2) Affect their reputation. Very effective..... unless we're talking about EA, in which case they are already the most hated in the industry, so you can't actually impact them at all with a boycott. From an industry standpoint, this whole microtransaction fight needs to be handled like a civil war, among the community. It needs to be socially unacceptable to do this, to the point that nobody actually wants to buy anything because they will be shunned. That way, you actually make microtransactions less appealing to the 1%, or whatever small percentage, who do actually use them. 
    Yeah, I bet game development costs are getting real fucking high as high quality standard engines become more affordable, manufacturing costs become almost non existent as digital continues to increase its dominance of the market, and offshore tax havens are used to avoid paying taxes.

    No one in the industry actually uses this argument. Only corporate shills and fanboys. Want to know why? Because it's patently false. It's a convenient lie to hide behind. 

    They release multiple special editions because they want to. They nickel and dime us with microtransactions because they want to. They introduce fucking gambling mechanics because they want to. Want to. Not need to. 

    Similar to how you believe these are convenient excuses made up by fan boys, if you took the time to actually look at their financials, you'd understand that without microtransactions, subscriptions, and subscriptions, they would be losing money. That's right! The boxed game doesn't actually make the company money. Could they reduce costs? Probably. However, you also need to remember that companies like EA NEED to market because they are talking to casuals. 

    Please! PLEASE.... give me a lesson on industry finances and how things need to run. I'm sure that there are lots of companies eagerly awaiting your guidance! Lol. 

    As far as people in the industry not using this argument, I've seen no less than 3 articles about this subject at gamespot, from interviews with people in the industry, in the past month. All support the idea that game costs are rising and they need additional monetization to justify development. 
    Damn Bethesda must have lost their shirts selling that single player game Wolfenstein 2 with no mts.


    Are you saying they haven't? First of all, the scope is much different. Second of all, they haven't even broken 200k sales on steam. You're referencing a game, in jest, stating that the developer must have lost their shirts, but there has been ACTUAL discussion (industry news articles) that Wolfenstein 2 may flop as a high fidelity game like this without multiplayer just doesn't work. 

    Maybe you've got some information I've been missing, though. Feel free to send it my way. 
    I was searching for the flop articles, but have as of yet found any.  Can you send those my way?

    I don't doubt it won't sell as well as a multiplayer title, because there's inherently more replay value in multiplayer than anstory-drive singleplayer game, but that has nothing to do with a chosen revenue model.  That's about the initial box price and the longevity a player can expect.  But I'm interested in reading the articles you mention.

    EDIT- food for thought, as many as 4 years ago, the value of PvP in engaging and retaining players was already being established.  Singleplayer lack this.  

    http://www.gamedonia.com/blog/pvp-increase-game-revenue

    Linked article references a Kongregate analysis showing how PvP engagement helps boost player engagement.  Has this trend of multiplayer boosting retention somehow been mitigated or reversed since then?

    I haven't seen a flop article, but an article discussing it as a possibility. I can't find it right now, but I thought it was Polygon around the 27th of October? The only flop talk I've seen is speculation on 4chan. So nothing concrete, but the steam sales seem to be very light. Maybe Xmas? I'm a single player guy, so I really don't want it to flop, just seemed like an odd example to use. Why not Divinity? 
    Now I wanna play OS2.  Yea, just mentioning the franchise makes me fiend to play. That game is ridiculous good.

    image
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 14,781
    Aeander said:
    laserit said:
    There you have it folks

    AAA Video Games are no longer games. They are now video toys. We'll have some limited addition video action figures coming up real soon. Hurry up and get yours while supplies last. 
    You mean amiibo?

    Or this. How cool is this!
    https://www.gamespace.com/all-articles/news/bioshock-anniversary-edition/

    If I could burn 200 bones on that I would in a heartbeat just for the Big Daddy and Little Sister. :heart: And no I've never harvested a little sister no matter how many times I've tried. I'm on my third full play through.

    I wonder if I can buy the alternate ending Steam achievements. :lol: just kidding!
    blueturtle13
    The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: The Plugz, The Burning Sensations
    Album: Repo Man Soundtrack
    Featured Tracks: Hombre Secreto [Plugz], Pablo Picasso [Burning Sensations]
  • KonfessKonfess Dallas, TXMember RarePosts: 1,614
    The old adage may apply more so today than ever before. Gaming is no longer for you, so good by.

    It's a rich man's world, that has no room for the poor or cheap. No One Gives a Sxxt what the poor have to say or think. Boycotts, and ranting at an AMA, all just meaningless noise.
    IselinunfilteredJW

    Pardon any spelling errors
    Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven
    Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
    Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
    As if it could exist, without being payed for.
    F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
    Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.

  • HeretiqueHeretique Member UncommonPosts: 1,400
    I want(ed) to play this game so bad, my head still spinning because DICE here (again) has made a great game. You get to play as the empire (a black female lead too) when they were dealt a huge blow, the story -just- has to be good.

    Then here comes EA again, creeping up ready to do no good and stand there to suggest that 'it's best for the community'. I just can't support a full priced game and micro-transactions on top of it, others shouldn't either (IMO) just to send a message to the big wigs that this is not acceptable.

    Unfortunately I know it won't change a thing, EA has been a plague on the gaming community for a very long time. It's pretty much what I'd expect hell to be like. Ran by EA, giving you AMAZING things but then saying "oh wait there is also this" then shooting you in the hands.
    Gdemami

    Originally posted by salsa41
    are you have problem ?

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 14,781
    Heretique said:
    I want(ed) to play this game so bad, my head still spinning because DICE here (again) has made a great game. You get to play as the empire (a black female lead too) when they were dealt a huge blow, the story -just- has to be good.

    Then here comes EA again, creeping up ready to do no good and stand there to suggest that 'it's best for the community'. I just can't support a full priced game and micro-transactions on top of it, others shouldn't either (IMO) just to send a message to the big wigs that this is not acceptable.

    Unfortunately I know it won't change a thing, EA has been a plague on the gaming community for a very long time. It's pretty much what I'd expect hell to be like. Ran by EA, giving you AMAZING things but then saying "oh wait there is also this" then shooting you in the hands.
    If you skip a good game over rhetoric you're just screwing yourself over. Why not play and enjoy the game with whomever you want.
    blueturtle13
    The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: The Plugz, The Burning Sensations
    Album: Repo Man Soundtrack
    Featured Tracks: Hombre Secreto [Plugz], Pablo Picasso [Burning Sensations]
  • laseritlaserit Vancouver, BCMember EpicPosts: 5,027
    Konfess said:
    The old adage may apply more so today than ever before. Gaming is no longer for you, so good by.

    It's a rich man's world, that has no room for the poor or cheap. No One Gives a Sxxt what the poor have to say or think. Boycotts, and ranting at an AMA, all just meaningless noise.
    ROFL

    Thats gotta be one of the funniest things I have ever read on these forums.

    Anyone who wastes their life away, is a poor soul indeed.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,799
    edited November 15
    Torval said:
    Heretique said:
    I want(ed) to play this game so bad, my head still spinning because DICE here (again) has made a great game. You get to play as the empire (a black female lead too) when they were dealt a huge blow, the story -just- has to be good.

    Then here comes EA again, creeping up ready to do no good and stand there to suggest that 'it's best for the community'. I just can't support a full priced game and micro-transactions on top of it, others shouldn't either (IMO) just to send a message to the big wigs that this is not acceptable.

    Unfortunately I know it won't change a thing, EA has been a plague on the gaming community for a very long time. It's pretty much what I'd expect hell to be like. Ran by EA, giving you AMAZING things but then saying "oh wait there is also this" then shooting you in the hands.
    If you skip a good game over rhetoric you're just screwing yourself over. Why not play and enjoy the game with whomever you want.
    How very presumptuous of you to act as if he didn't come to his conclusion based on his on consumer values and his own research into the game systems, and instead simply listened to others' "rhetoric" and based his decision solely upon the opinions of others.
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on
    IselinGdemami

    image
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 14,781
    Torval said:
    Heretique said:
    I want(ed) to play this game so bad, my head still spinning because DICE here (again) has made a great game. You get to play as the empire (a black female lead too) when they were dealt a huge blow, the story -just- has to be good.

    Then here comes EA again, creeping up ready to do no good and stand there to suggest that 'it's best for the community'. I just can't support a full priced game and micro-transactions on top of it, others shouldn't either (IMO) just to send a message to the big wigs that this is not acceptable.

    Unfortunately I know it won't change a thing, EA has been a plague on the gaming community for a very long time. It's pretty much what I'd expect hell to be like. Ran by EA, giving you AMAZING things but then saying "oh wait there is also this" then shooting you in the hands.
    If you skip a good game over rhetoric you're just screwing yourself over. Why not play and enjoy the game with whomever you want.
    How very presumptuous of you to act as if he didn't come to his conclusion based on his on consumer values and his own research into the game systems, and instead simply listened to others' "rhetoric" and based his decision solely upon the opinions of others.
    I did presume a bit because common sense says it's very unlikely that anyone arrived at this place in a vacuum.  Are you suggesting otherwise? It's very presumptuous of you to assume someone didn't.

    I never said he based his decision solely on what others have said. I implied that "noise" is an influencing factor and my position being that if so then he's the only one losing out. Talk about presumptuous and putting words in others mouths. You twisted my words to fit your agenda again.
    unfilteredJW
    The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: The Plugz, The Burning Sensations
    Album: Repo Man Soundtrack
    Featured Tracks: Hombre Secreto [Plugz], Pablo Picasso [Burning Sensations]
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,799
    Torval said:
    Torval said:
    Heretique said:
    I want(ed) to play this game so bad, my head still spinning because DICE here (again) has made a great game. You get to play as the empire (a black female lead too) when they were dealt a huge blow, the story -just- has to be good.

    Then here comes EA again, creeping up ready to do no good and stand there to suggest that 'it's best for the community'. I just can't support a full priced game and micro-transactions on top of it, others shouldn't either (IMO) just to send a message to the big wigs that this is not acceptable.

    Unfortunately I know it won't change a thing, EA has been a plague on the gaming community for a very long time. It's pretty much what I'd expect hell to be like. Ran by EA, giving you AMAZING things but then saying "oh wait there is also this" then shooting you in the hands.
    If you skip a good game over rhetoric you're just screwing yourself over. Why not play and enjoy the game with whomever you want.
    How very presumptuous of you to act as if he didn't come to his conclusion based on his on consumer values and his own research into the game systems, and instead simply listened to others' "rhetoric" and based his decision solely upon the opinions of others.
    I did presume a bit because common sense says it's very unlikely that anyone arrived at this place in a vacuum.  Are you suggesting otherwise? It's very presumptuous of you to assume someone didn't.

    I never said he based his decision solely on what others have said. I implied that "noise" is an influencing factor and my position being that if so then he's the only one losing out. Talk about presumptuous and putting words in others mouths. You twisted my words to fit your agenda again.
    Your bias is showing.  It's not at all far-fetched to think he simply agreed with those who feel as if the monetization practices inflict harm on his gameplay experience.  You're the only one attempting to presume anything here; better if maybe you asked why he came to the conclusion?

    Your point here basically seems to amount to: "That opinion seems to be popular around here, so I'm assuming you're just parroting it and didn't assess the situation for yourself."
    Gdemami

    image
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,098
    I have to ask, do you guys actually think this game would be good if the price points where different? I dont think the price points are the issue, it sounds more like how they do it that is in quesiton.


    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 14,781
    Torval said:
    Torval said:
    Heretique said:
    I want(ed) to play this game so bad, my head still spinning because DICE here (again) has made a great game. You get to play as the empire (a black female lead too) when they were dealt a huge blow, the story -just- has to be good.

    Then here comes EA again, creeping up ready to do no good and stand there to suggest that 'it's best for the community'. I just can't support a full priced game and micro-transactions on top of it, others shouldn't either (IMO) just to send a message to the big wigs that this is not acceptable.

    Unfortunately I know it won't change a thing, EA has been a plague on the gaming community for a very long time. It's pretty much what I'd expect hell to be like. Ran by EA, giving you AMAZING things but then saying "oh wait there is also this" then shooting you in the hands.
    If you skip a good game over rhetoric you're just screwing yourself over. Why not play and enjoy the game with whomever you want.
    How very presumptuous of you to act as if he didn't come to his conclusion based on his on consumer values and his own research into the game systems, and instead simply listened to others' "rhetoric" and based his decision solely upon the opinions of others.
    I did presume a bit because common sense says it's very unlikely that anyone arrived at this place in a vacuum.  Are you suggesting otherwise? It's very presumptuous of you to assume someone didn't.

    I never said he based his decision solely on what others have said. I implied that "noise" is an influencing factor and my position being that if so then he's the only one losing out. Talk about presumptuous and putting words in others mouths. You twisted my words to fit your agenda again.
    Your bias is showing.  It's not at all far-fetched to think he simply agreed with those who feel as if the monetization practices inflict harm on his gameplay experience.  You're the only one attempting to presume anything here; better if maybe you asked why he came to the conclusion?

    Your point here basically seems to amount to: "That opinion seems to be popular around here, so I'm assuming you're just parroting it and didn't assess the situation for yourself."
    I can explain my own points. I don't need or want your lame help. Once again you love to put words into my mouth. Why don't just speak for yourself. Do you even have your own point and opinion in this? I said and implied nothing of the sort, but you infer what you want to hear. You do that a lot, rephrase what other people say how you want it framed.

    So stop pretending like you know what I think and give an opinion why he shouldn't take that advice. I've already explained what I meant.
    The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: The Plugz, The Burning Sensations
    Album: Repo Man Soundtrack
    Featured Tracks: Hombre Secreto [Plugz], Pablo Picasso [Burning Sensations]
Sign In or Register to comment.