This response and these questions are testimony to cultural differences.
let me help you out and explain what he said.
i add together two pharaphrased quotes.
'console gamers will not like subscriptions, I am more like a console gamer in that I do not like tricky monentary schemes like DLC'..
I am trying to understand this but my head is starting to explode
it was interpreted that dlc is tricky, that is a misinterpretation, when one achieves an understanding of what they are purchasing, there are no "tricks" involved. I will say it more clearly, dlc is a scheme but dlc is not tricky. F2p is tricky because it's not static like dlc. I view it as a scheme though and Destiny is testimony to that, look at the core game, it has clearly been stripped of what should have been parts of the base game for the sake of dlc.
So it appears you agree with me that console gamers would not have a problem with subscriptions then? that is the point I am trying to understand not dlc which I personally dont give two fucks about.
I believe console culture does not accept sub fee with respect to individual games. The Playstation culture barely accepts a sub fee for psn, having an additional sub fee will push them over the edge.
let me make sure I understand.
console gamers are not for subs but they are for DLC?
I am not a console gamer so I am not aware of any game that is a sub on consoles let alone one that failed BECAUSE it was a sub. Sounds like a bit of a silly attitude to have (about subs that is)
It is a sweeping generalization. My first MMORPG was on a console and came with a sub FFXI for PS2. I later upgraded it to the xbox 360 and had to pay a sub plus xbox live subscription and never complained because I got return in value for what I was shelling out (2 subs for one game). I have since subbed to a couple of games on console though not for long as they were not that great and I do much more gaming from PC these days.
All of this is kind of a moot point since Destiny isn't worthy of a sub in its current state, and the DLC practices are shady as hell considering the content available currently. I pay a sub for online gaming via XBox live, so paying an additional sub for an individual game means the game better provide value or it doesn't receive that fee. But then again, the developers have to understand this since they chose to release this for consoles only knowing said consoles already charge a sub fee to play their systems online so that is on them to figure out how/what to charge to turn a profit and deal with the consequences if they don't deliver.
This response and these questions are testimony to cultural differences.
let me help you out and explain what he said.
i add together two pharaphrased quotes.
'console gamers will not like subscriptions, I am more like a console gamer in that I do not like tricky monentary schemes like DLC'..
I am trying to understand this but my head is starting to explode
it was interpreted that dlc is tricky, that is a misinterpretation, when one achieves an understanding of what they are purchasing, there are no "tricks" involved. I will say it more clearly, dlc is a scheme but dlc is not tricky. F2p is tricky because it's not static like dlc. I view it as a scheme though and Destiny is testimony to that, look at the core game, it has clearly been stripped of what should have been parts of the base game for the sake of dlc.
So it appears you agree with me that console gamers would not have a problem with subscriptions then? that is the point I am trying to understand not dlc which I personally dont give two fucks about.
I believe console culture does not accept sub fee with respect to individual games. The Playstation culture barely accepts a sub fee for psn, having an additional sub fee will push them over the edge.
let me make sure I understand.
console gamers are not for subs but they are for DLC?
I am not a console gamer so I am not aware of any game that is a sub on consoles let alone one that failed BECAUSE it was a sub. Sounds like a bit of a silly attitude to have (about subs that is)
There are actually a few, and actually some dating back a while. I can't remember when Phantasy Star Online came out, but it was the first one I remember as being a sub. I think it might have been PS2, actually. That's just the point, though, console games haven't proven the model can work. HOWEVER, we do have enough games coming that could.
Either way, I think that they probably were trying to target a community who is more used to having DLC fed to them instead of a sub. Implementation was poor, though, so it left a bad taste in their mouth, no pun intended.
Honestly, I'll have no problem paying for updates for Destiny. We're, really, talking about a $5 / month subscription. As long as they continue with regular content updates (which have been fairly regular so far) to progress the story and expand the gameplay, I think it'll be fine. I don't see it as something that youre run-of-the-mill FPS fan will like, though. I hear them constantly talking about repetitiveness and how it's grindy, but then they go off an load up COD to play multiplayer for hours on end. Lol. Just crazy.
This response and these questions are testimony to cultural differences.
let me help you out and explain what he said.
i add together two pharaphrased quotes.
'console gamers will not like subscriptions, I am more like a console gamer in that I do not like tricky monentary schemes like DLC'..
I am trying to understand this but my head is starting to explode
it was interpreted that dlc is tricky, that is a misinterpretation, when one achieves an understanding of what they are purchasing, there are no "tricks" involved. I will say it more clearly, dlc is a scheme but dlc is not tricky. F2p is tricky because it's not static like dlc. I view it as a scheme though and Destiny is testimony to that, look at the core game, it has clearly been stripped of what should have been parts of the base game for the sake of dlc.
So it appears you agree with me that console gamers would not have a problem with subscriptions then? that is the point I am trying to understand not dlc which I personally dont give two fucks about.
I believe console culture does not accept sub fee with respect to individual games. The Playstation culture barely accepts a sub fee for psn, having an additional sub fee will push them over the edge.
let me make sure I understand.
console gamers are not for subs but they are for DLC?
I am not a console gamer so I am not aware of any game that is a sub on consoles let alone one that failed BECAUSE it was a sub. Sounds like a bit of a silly attitude to have (about subs that is)
There are actually a few, and actually some dating back a while. I can't remember when Phantasy Star Online came out, but it was the first one I remember as being a sub. I think it might have been PS2, actually. That's just the point, though, console games haven't proven the model can work. HOWEVER, we do have enough games coming that could.
Either way, I think that they probably were trying to target a community who is more used to having DLC fed to them instead of a sub. Implementation was poor, though, so it left a bad taste in their mouth, no pun intended.
Honestly, I'll have no problem paying for updates for Destiny. We're, really, talking about a $5 / month subscription. As long as they continue with regular content updates (which have been fairly regular so far) to progress the story and expand the gameplay, I think it'll be fine. I don't see it as something that youre run-of-the-mill FPS fan will like, though. I hear them constantly talking about repetitiveness and how it's grindy, but then they go off an load up COD to play multiplayer for hours on end. Lol. Just crazy.
I would agree that when you're talking about the console community you're talking about a community that expects to purchase DLC vs. paying a monthly sub. On top of that, DLC, unless released on a monthly basis, winds up being significantly less expensive vs. paying a sub over the course of a year. Bungie has been talking about quarterly DLC releases for Destiny, so we're looking at 4 per year, even at $20 per quarter it's still $100 cheaper per year than a sub.
So the game was released incomplete because management was afraid to release a more involved story driven game. So to make big money in games you have to DUMB them down to appease today's ADD gamer.
Pathetic in on many levels, but of course not all the blame can be placed on them can it? Don't we play a major part in creating such market trends?
So the game was released incomplete because management was afraid to release a more involved story driven game. So to make big money in games you have to DUMB them down to appease today's ADD gamer.
Pathetic in on many levels, but of course not all the blame can be placed on them can it? Don't we play a major part in creating such market trends?
more than likely simply because they knew the gamers would consume all content quicker than they could create new content.
Which is yet another reason why game devs really should try to move away from story driven gaming. Just one of about 3 reasons I can think of.
Speaking as someone who has managed large, complex, multi-million dollar contracts you expect compromises and changes. The number of projects that slip - whether its building a house extension or a cruise liner is phenomenal. And when it comes to mmos WAR slipped several times; SWTOR slipped; the console version of TESO was launched .... exactly. And if you don't bite the bullet design cycles can be - 9 years for WS; and as a result games become very, very expensive.
Bungie did a deal with Activision. They will have a) agreed a price b) a timetable c) an outline of what they would deliver.
Bungie have subsequently delivered a highly polished quality product (imo) - unlike ArchAge, WS, TESO, SWTOR, TSW, BF4, the last SimCity ......
That it doesn't have some stuff that people would like - different issue. Whether it is money - different issue. We all have our own ideas. On one level though it takes longer to level in Destiny than it does in most recent mmos - and don't thonk for a moment that mmos don't have grind. The first level 30 in Destiny took quite a while.
As for DLC if someone had asked Bungie on launch day how they were getting on with it and they had said "just about to start" my reaction - and others I am sure - would have been wtf this stuff is supposed to release in December.
So - in my opinion - Bungie probably had a difficult final year but came through it. And we would be far better served if other game developments adopted the same professional approach - because many sure don't give that impression.
So the game was released incomplete because management was afraid to release a more involved story driven game. So to make big money in games you have to DUMB them down to appease today's ADD gamer.
Pathetic in on many levels, but of course not all the blame can be placed on them can it? Don't we play a major part in creating such market trends?
Ummm... they didn't dumb the game down to appease gamers. The issue is many feel they chopped content and gave us a smaller product for the sake of withholding the content to sell it back to us later and I mean shortly after release. As someone who is not apposed to DLC, I am apposed to this practice when considering the content now and the timetable they are releasing these "expansions". I think your rant is off the mark but I get what you are saying.
So the game was released incomplete because management was afraid to release a more involved story driven game. So to make big money in games you have to DUMB them down to appease today's ADD gamer.
Pathetic in on many levels, but of course not all the blame can be placed on them can it? Don't we play a major part in creating such market trends?
Actually, no. Not at all. It's been confirmed through the Internet, through real Bungie employees, that this is completely false. Lock thread. Internet prevails again as a source of truth and justice.
So the game was released incomplete because management was afraid to release a more involved story driven game. So to make big money in games you have to DUMB them down to appease today's ADD gamer.
Pathetic in on many levels, but of course not all the blame can be placed on them can it? Don't we play a major part in creating such market trends?
Actually, no. Not at all. It's been confirmed through the Internet, through real Bungie employees, that this is completely false. Lock thread. Internet prevails again as a source of truth and justice.
Yep they have stated that the DLC is not finished yet.
As I said above if it wasn't well on its way to being finished when they launched the game however I would have been seriously concerned. Decent content takes time. Now we don't know whether the DLC will be decent but if they had only just started ....
In case anyone missed it - all this info is false. Bungee comfirmed this is not a former employee and when Reddit mods asked for proof to substantiate his claims the user declined. His answers are pretty generic too. you or me could probably do just as well in the same circumstances.
*It would be nice if MMORPG.com edited the original article to reflect this. I feel like I wasted my time even bothering to read all the info only to find out it's blatantly false.
Originally posted by Nephaerius In case anyone missed it - all this info is false. Bungee comfirmed this is not a former employee and when Reddit mods asked for proof to substantiate his claims the user declined. His answers are pretty generic too. you or me could probably do just as well in the same circumstances.
Sure it's possible, but there's cutscenes from Alpha and content that has been completely cut out and disappeared for launch if you do enough research.
Also, why would Bungie say that any of this true? And why would they give up their identity only to ruin their chances of getting hired elsewhere in such a tight knit community that's only managed by PR and money hungry scumbags?
When all is said and done, more is always said than done.
Originally posted by Nephaerius In case anyone missed it - all this info is false. Bungee comfirmed this is not a former employee and when Reddit mods asked for proof to substantiate his claims the user declined. His answers are pretty generic too. you or me could probably do just as well in the same circumstances.
Sure it's possible, but there's cutscenes from Alpha and content that has been completely cut out and disappeared for launch if you do enough research.
Also, why would Bungie say that any of this true? And why would they give up their identity only to ruin their chances of getting hired elsewhere in such a tight knit community that's only managed by PR and money hungry scumbags?
First, because it's Alpha. They do stuff like that. I've actually played plenty an Alpha that's changed when it hit the shelves.
Why wouldn't Bungie say anything? You know, for YEARS Brittany Spears didn't even have a career. She shaved her head, showed her privates, went insane, and yet she never really fell out of the limelight. Why? People were talking about her. They say that there's no such thing as bad press. Who's to say that this isn't all a big PR scheme? Who's to say they didn't put that content there on purpose to be found. I mean there were millions of people in Alpha and Beta. Who's to say that the person on reddit actually WASN'T a Bungie employee just spreading rumours so they could later deny it officially. Oh wow, I think I better hide, I just uncovered their entire plot.
Originally posted by Nephaerius In case anyone missed it - all this info is false. Bungee comfirmed this is not a former employee and when Reddit mods asked for proof to substantiate his claims the user declined. His answers are pretty generic too. you or me could probably do just as well in the same circumstances.
Sure it's possible, but there's cutscenes from Alpha and content that has been completely cut out and disappeared for launch if you do enough research.
Also, why would Bungie say that any of this true? And why would they give up their identity only to ruin their chances of getting hired elsewhere in such a tight knit community that's only managed by PR and money hungry scumbags?
I didn't say that the conclusions people had drawn about missing Destiny content were false. Merely that the support for that evidence is false.
Of course Bungee disavowed this posting but if you are even remotely familiar with AMA's there are way worse things that have been posted or reported about by in house staff where they have been able to confirm their identities without being fired. The fact that the poster refused to confirm their identity is pretty much a red flag that this is fake to anyone that's familiar with these sorts of things.
You're obviously welcome to draw your own conclusions though. I'm no fan of Bungee (I don't own Destiny and haven't even watched a video of it) but there's no conspiracy case here. At least not based on the information presented here.
In case anyone missed it - all this info is false. Bungee comfirmed this is not a former employee and when Reddit mods asked for proof to substantiate his claims the user declined. His answers are pretty generic too. you or me could probably do just as well in the same circumstances.
*It would be nice if MMORPG.com edited the original article to reflect this. I feel like I wasted my time even bothering to read all the info only to find out it's blatantly false.
which of course makes bungie look just as bad or worse because the game was released exactly as they had planned
In case anyone missed it - all this info is false. Bungee comfirmed this is not a former employee and when Reddit mods asked for proof to substantiate his claims the user declined. His answers are pretty generic too. you or me could probably do just as well in the same circumstances.
*It would be nice if MMORPG.com edited the original article to reflect this. I feel like I wasted my time even bothering to read all the info only to find out it's blatantly false.
which of course makes bungie look just as bad or worse because the game was released exactly as they had planned
In case anyone missed it - all this info is false. Bungee comfirmed this is not a former employee and when Reddit mods asked for proof to substantiate his claims the user declined. His answers are pretty generic too. you or me could probably do just as well in the same circumstances.
*It would be nice if MMORPG.com edited the original article to reflect this. I feel like I wasted my time even bothering to read all the info only to find out it's blatantly false.
which of course makes bungie look just as bad or worse because the game was released exactly as they had planned
You don't like the game - fine.
When it comes to the cost of the DLC anyone who paid extra to buy the upgraded copy of TESO probably paid more (for the upgarde) than both DLC packs will cost. And you could only play for 30 days!
In case anyone missed it - all this info is false. Bungee comfirmed this is not a former employee and when Reddit mods asked for proof to substantiate his claims the user declined. His answers are pretty generic too. you or me could probably do just as well in the same circumstances.
*It would be nice if MMORPG.com edited the original article to reflect this. I feel like I wasted my time even bothering to read all the info only to find out it's blatantly false.
which of course makes bungie look just as bad or worse because the game was released exactly as they had planned
You don't like the game - fine.
When it comes to the cost of the DLC though anyone who bought an upgraded copy of TESO probably paid more than both DLC packs will cost. And you could only play for 30 days!
Pretty weak argument... And what's with the probably?
In case anyone missed it - all this info is false. Bungee comfirmed this is not a former employee and when Reddit mods asked for proof to substantiate his claims the user declined. His answers are pretty generic too. you or me could probably do just as well in the same circumstances.
*It would be nice if MMORPG.com edited the original article to reflect this. I feel like I wasted my time even bothering to read all the info only to find out it's blatantly false.
which of course makes bungie look just as bad or worse because the game was released exactly as they had planned
You don't like the game - fine.
When it comes to the cost of the DLC though anyone who bought an upgraded copy of TESO probably paid more than both DLC packs will cost. And you could only play for 30 days!
Pretty weak argument... And what's with the probably?
Why probably? Because some people may well have bought TESO at a discount.
Today, here and now:
cost of two Destiny DLC packs (bought together) $35
cost of upgrading from standard (digital) TESO to Imperial (digital) TESO: $40.
Amount of extra content in Destiny: unknown. Amount of extra content in TESO: nothing.
In case anyone missed it - all this info is false. Bungee comfirmed this is not a former employee and when Reddit mods asked for proof to substantiate his claims the user declined. His answers are pretty generic too. you or me could probably do just as well in the same circumstances.
*It would be nice if MMORPG.com edited the original article to reflect this. I feel like I wasted my time even bothering to read all the info only to find out it's blatantly false.
which of course makes bungie look just as bad or worse because the game was released exactly as they had planned
You don't like the game - fine.
When it comes to the cost of the DLC though anyone who bought an upgraded copy of TESO probably paid more than both DLC packs will cost. And you could only play for 30 days!
Pretty weak argument... And what's with the probably?
Why probably? Because some people may well have bought TESO at a discount.
Today, here and now:
cost of two Destiny DLC packs (bought together) $35
cost of upgrading from standard (digital) TESO to Imperial (digital) TESO: $40.
Amount of extra content in Destiny: unknown. Amount of extra content in TESO: nothing.
What kind of a bullshit argument is that? Just because your Butt Hurt you got to try to bring other games down? Seriously? you are going to base your argument on quantity of content?
This response and these questions are testimony to cultural differences.
let me help you out and explain what he said.
i add together two pharaphrased quotes.
'console gamers will not like subscriptions, I am more like a console gamer in that I do not like tricky monentary schemes like DLC'..
I am trying to understand this but my head is starting to explode
it was interpreted that dlc is tricky, that is a misinterpretation, when one achieves an understanding of what they are purchasing, there are no "tricks" involved. I will say it more clearly, dlc is a scheme but dlc is not tricky. F2p is tricky because it's not static like dlc. I view it as a scheme though and Destiny is testimony to that, look at the core game, it has clearly been stripped of what should have been parts of the base game for the sake of dlc.
So it appears you agree with me that console gamers would not have a problem with subscriptions then? that is the point I am trying to understand not dlc which I personally dont give two fucks about.
I believe console culture does not accept sub fee with respect to individual games. The Playstation culture barely accepts a sub fee for psn, having an additional sub fee will push them over the edge.
let me make sure I understand.
console gamers are not for subs but they are for DLC? Yes
I am not a console gamer so I am not aware of any game that is a sub on consoles let alone one that failed BECAUSE it was a sub. Sounds like a bit of a silly attitude to have (about subs that is) - see below
I see some others have chimmed in here, but since you're not a console gamer, here is some background on top of what the others had mentioned.
- Xbox live had a sub with the xbox 360 - they had and still have the most stable online service - users appreciated it and still do today
- ps3 on the flip side also had an online service, it was arguably not as reliable as xbox live, but..... it was free no sub fee attached
- as the others mentioned, there wasn't much available on console that had a sub fee attached and the games there were available were not that popular
- today ps4 and xbox live both require sub fees and there is one game FFARR that has a sub fee attached, there is some cross platform going on with that game and it is Final Fantasy, it is the exception to the rules. However considering it is the exception, it still is not that popular on the console, the pc carriers the load for FFARR.
- considering ESO - ESO is coming to console, console players are going to be loaded with expectations, psn users are already ticked about a sub for for online services, and xbox live users are like wtf? I already pay for online services, and both platforms have gamers who played and loved oblivion and skyrim to death. They will enter ESO and reject it immediately, it's got the single player rpg expectations with it and the attached sub fee, it will be rejected. ESO has tried to smooth this over by saying a sub to xbl or psn is not required, but come one who has an xbox one or ps4 and does not have the online service? That like of requirement is a piss poor attempt to push the blame to the consoles.
- ESO would do exceptionally well however if marketed appropriately (ie remove all the skyrim expectations and let people know it's multiplayer and compromises are made in the name of multiplayer, benificial additions like having the ability to play with your friends now and meet new friends online and that the compromises are a result of that, but from those compromises we are getting the Elder Scrolls based game we can enjoy with our friends now and actively play together. Marketing this way will keep people playing after the first month.
- Secondly they should make it buy to play and just launch dlc content once a year. If they did that, the game would have a nice healthy life on consoles especially considering the competition. Performing this action will get more people to purchase the game and keep them playing beyond the first month and make them excited to buy the dlc's.
This response and these questions are testimony to cultural differences.
let me help you out and explain what he said.
i add together two pharaphrased quotes.
'console gamers will not like subscriptions, I am more like a console gamer in that I do not like tricky monentary schemes like DLC'..
I am trying to understand this but my head is starting to explode
it was interpreted that dlc is tricky, that is a misinterpretation, when one achieves an understanding of what they are purchasing, there are no "tricks" involved. I will say it more clearly, dlc is a scheme but dlc is not tricky. F2p is tricky because it's not static like dlc. I view it as a scheme though and Destiny is testimony to that, look at the core game, it has clearly been stripped of what should have been parts of the base game for the sake of dlc.
So it appears you agree with me that console gamers would not have a problem with subscriptions then? that is the point I am trying to understand not dlc which I personally dont give two fucks about.
I believe console culture does not accept sub fee with respect to individual games. The Playstation culture barely accepts a sub fee for psn, having an additional sub fee will push them over the edge.
let me make sure I understand.
console gamers are not for subs but they are for DLC? Yes
I am not a console gamer so I am not aware of any game that is a sub on consoles let alone one that failed BECAUSE it was a sub. Sounds like a bit of a silly attitude to have (about subs that is) - see below
I see some others have chimmed in here, but since you're not a console gamer, here is some background on top of what the others had mentioned.
- Xbox live had a sub with the xbox 360 - they had and still have the most stable online service - users appreciated it and still do today
- ps3 on the flip side also had an online service, it was arguably not as reliable as xbox live, but..... it was free no sub fee attached
- as the others mentioned, there wasn't much available on console that had a sub fee attached and the games there were available were not that popular
- today ps4 and xbox live both require sub fees and there is one game FFARR that has a sub fee attached, there is some cross platform going on with that game and it is Final Fantasy, it is the exception to the rules. However considering it is the exception, it still is not that popular on the console, the pc carriers the load for FFARR.
- considering ESO - ESO is coming to console, console players are going to be loaded with expectations, psn users are already ticked about a sub for for online services, and xbox live users are like wtf? I already pay for online services, and both platforms have gamers who played and loved oblivion and skyrim to death. They will enter ESO and reject it immediately, it's got the single player rpg expectations with it and the attached sub fee, it will be rejected. ESO has tried to smooth this over by saying a sub to xbl or psn is not required, but come one who has an xbox one or ps4 and does not have the online service? That like of requirement is a piss poor attempt to push the blame to the consoles.
- ESO would do exceptionally well however if marketed appropriately (ie remove all the skyrim expectations and let people know it's multiplayer and compromises are made in the name of multiplayer, benificial additions like having the ability to play with your friends now and meet new friends online and that the compromises are a result of that, but from those compromises we are getting the Elder Scrolls based game we can enjoy with our friends now and actively play together. Marketing this way will keep people playing after the first month.
- Secondly they should make it buy to play and just launch dlc content once a year. If they did that, the game would have a nice healthy life on consoles especially considering the competition. Performing this action will get more people to purchase the game and keep them playing beyond the first month and make them excited to buy the dlc's.
Oh, and let's not forget, talking about services, how many people bitched and complained that you had to have an active XBL or PS+ subscription in order to play any sort of multiplayer or group content, despite the fact that gamers were told long before console release that a subscription to their gaming services would be MANDATORY for many games. This is just the first time this was really enforced.
So, yeah, just more fodder for the "console gamers won't like subscriptions" argument.
Comments
It is a sweeping generalization. My first MMORPG was on a console and came with a sub FFXI for PS2. I later upgraded it to the xbox 360 and had to pay a sub plus xbox live subscription and never complained because I got return in value for what I was shelling out (2 subs for one game). I have since subbed to a couple of games on console though not for long as they were not that great and I do much more gaming from PC these days.
All of this is kind of a moot point since Destiny isn't worthy of a sub in its current state, and the DLC practices are shady as hell considering the content available currently. I pay a sub for online gaming via XBox live, so paying an additional sub for an individual game means the game better provide value or it doesn't receive that fee. But then again, the developers have to understand this since they chose to release this for consoles only knowing said consoles already charge a sub fee to play their systems online so that is on them to figure out how/what to charge to turn a profit and deal with the consequences if they don't deliver.
RIP Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan and Paul Gray.
There are actually a few, and actually some dating back a while. I can't remember when Phantasy Star Online came out, but it was the first one I remember as being a sub. I think it might have been PS2, actually. That's just the point, though, console games haven't proven the model can work. HOWEVER, we do have enough games coming that could.
Either way, I think that they probably were trying to target a community who is more used to having DLC fed to them instead of a sub. Implementation was poor, though, so it left a bad taste in their mouth, no pun intended.
Honestly, I'll have no problem paying for updates for Destiny. We're, really, talking about a $5 / month subscription. As long as they continue with regular content updates (which have been fairly regular so far) to progress the story and expand the gameplay, I think it'll be fine. I don't see it as something that youre run-of-the-mill FPS fan will like, though. I hear them constantly talking about repetitiveness and how it's grindy, but then they go off an load up COD to play multiplayer for hours on end. Lol. Just crazy.
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
----------------
I would agree that when you're talking about the console community you're talking about a community that expects to purchase DLC vs. paying a monthly sub. On top of that, DLC, unless released on a monthly basis, winds up being significantly less expensive vs. paying a sub over the course of a year. Bungie has been talking about quarterly DLC releases for Destiny, so we're looking at 4 per year, even at $20 per quarter it's still $100 cheaper per year than a sub.
Actually you are missing out as everyone that is playing the game is having a lot of fun.
Personally I play over 8 hours a day but I'm off from work at the moment as well.
I was not into Halo games before as I had always Sony instead of Xbox and I actually see why so many loved Halo back then.
So the game was released incomplete because management was afraid to release a more involved story driven game. So to make big money in games you have to DUMB them down to appease today's ADD gamer.
Pathetic in on many levels, but of course not all the blame can be placed on them can it? Don't we play a major part in creating such market trends?
more than likely simply because they knew the gamers would consume all content quicker than they could create new content.
Which is yet another reason why game devs really should try to move away from story driven gaming. Just one of about 3 reasons I can think of.
Hell I remember when Tabula Rasa was originally announced as a fantasy game.
As to if any of this information is true, no idea. Though it would certainly go a long way in explaining why Destiny is such a mediocre game.
Sounds like the real world to me.
Speaking as someone who has managed large, complex, multi-million dollar contracts you expect compromises and changes. The number of projects that slip - whether its building a house extension or a cruise liner is phenomenal. And when it comes to mmos WAR slipped several times; SWTOR slipped; the console version of TESO was launched .... exactly. And if you don't bite the bullet design cycles can be - 9 years for WS; and as a result games become very, very expensive.
Bungie did a deal with Activision. They will have a) agreed a price b) a timetable c) an outline of what they would deliver.
Bungie have subsequently delivered a highly polished quality product (imo) - unlike ArchAge, WS, TESO, SWTOR, TSW, BF4, the last SimCity ......
That it doesn't have some stuff that people would like - different issue. Whether it is money - different issue. We all have our own ideas. On one level though it takes longer to level in Destiny than it does in most recent mmos - and don't thonk for a moment that mmos don't have grind. The first level 30 in Destiny took quite a while.
As for DLC if someone had asked Bungie on launch day how they were getting on with it and they had said "just about to start" my reaction - and others I am sure - would have been wtf this stuff is supposed to release in December.
So - in my opinion - Bungie probably had a difficult final year but came through it. And we would be far better served if other game developments adopted the same professional approach - because many sure don't give that impression.
Ummm... they didn't dumb the game down to appease gamers. The issue is many feel they chopped content and gave us a smaller product for the sake of withholding the content to sell it back to us later and I mean shortly after release. As someone who is not apposed to DLC, I am apposed to this practice when considering the content now and the timetable they are releasing these "expansions". I think your rant is off the mark but I get what you are saying.
RIP Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan and Paul Gray.
Actually, no. Not at all. It's been confirmed through the Internet, through real Bungie employees, that this is completely false. Lock thread. Internet prevails again as a source of truth and justice.
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
----------------
Yep they have stated that the DLC is not finished yet.
As I said above if it wasn't well on its way to being finished when they launched the game however I would have been seriously concerned. Decent content takes time. Now we don't know whether the DLC will be decent but if they had only just started ....
In case anyone missed it - all this info is false. Bungee comfirmed this is not a former employee and when Reddit mods asked for proof to substantiate his claims the user declined. His answers are pretty generic too. you or me could probably do just as well in the same circumstances.
*It would be nice if MMORPG.com edited the original article to reflect this. I feel like I wasted my time even bothering to read all the info only to find out it's blatantly false.
Steam: Neph
Sure it's possible, but there's cutscenes from Alpha and content that has been completely cut out and disappeared for launch if you do enough research.
Also, why would Bungie say that any of this true? And why would they give up their identity only to ruin their chances of getting hired elsewhere in such a tight knit community that's only managed by PR and money hungry scumbags?
First, because it's Alpha. They do stuff like that. I've actually played plenty an Alpha that's changed when it hit the shelves.
Why wouldn't Bungie say anything? You know, for YEARS Brittany Spears didn't even have a career. She shaved her head, showed her privates, went insane, and yet she never really fell out of the limelight. Why? People were talking about her. They say that there's no such thing as bad press. Who's to say that this isn't all a big PR scheme? Who's to say they didn't put that content there on purpose to be found. I mean there were millions of people in Alpha and Beta. Who's to say that the person on reddit actually WASN'T a Bungie employee just spreading rumours so they could later deny it officially. Oh wow, I think I better hide, I just uncovered their entire plot.
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
----------------
I didn't say that the conclusions people had drawn about missing Destiny content were false. Merely that the support for that evidence is false.
Of course Bungee disavowed this posting but if you are even remotely familiar with AMA's there are way worse things that have been posted or reported about by in house staff where they have been able to confirm their identities without being fired. The fact that the poster refused to confirm their identity is pretty much a red flag that this is fake to anyone that's familiar with these sorts of things.
You're obviously welcome to draw your own conclusions though. I'm no fan of Bungee (I don't own Destiny and haven't even watched a video of it) but there's no conspiracy case here. At least not based on the information presented here.
Steam: Neph
which of course makes bungie look just as bad or worse because the game was released exactly as they had planned
HAH! Agreed.
RIP Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan and Paul Gray.
You don't like the game - fine.
When it comes to the cost of the DLC anyone who paid extra to buy the upgraded copy of TESO probably paid more (for the upgarde) than both DLC packs will cost. And you could only play for 30 days!
Pretty weak argument... And what's with the probably?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Why probably? Because some people may well have bought TESO at a discount.
Today, here and now:
What kind of a bullshit argument is that? Just because your Butt Hurt you got to try to bring other games down? Seriously? you are going to base your argument on quantity of content?
As for your $40 statement
https://account.elderscrollsonline.com/store/product/eso_imperial_upgrade?_ga=1.152372409.1864594710.1396453619&q=064f8736-520d-4a95-994c-7cb726e69035&p=82993559-909a-400e-9916-8b948b98a0c8&ts=1412198771&c=zenimaxonline&e=live&rt=Safetynet&h=234d6c1806e5ed42e777a28bb872dba5
Sure can take your word for it
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The fact that they took a game hacked it into pieces and are going to sell it as DLC should not make you want to keep buying this product.
Its like paying full price for a pack of hot dogs,but only getting 1 hot dog.
I see some others have chimmed in here, but since you're not a console gamer, here is some background on top of what the others had mentioned.
- Xbox live had a sub with the xbox 360 - they had and still have the most stable online service - users appreciated it and still do today
- ps3 on the flip side also had an online service, it was arguably not as reliable as xbox live, but..... it was free no sub fee attached
- as the others mentioned, there wasn't much available on console that had a sub fee attached and the games there were available were not that popular
- today ps4 and xbox live both require sub fees and there is one game FFARR that has a sub fee attached, there is some cross platform going on with that game and it is Final Fantasy, it is the exception to the rules. However considering it is the exception, it still is not that popular on the console, the pc carriers the load for FFARR.
- considering ESO - ESO is coming to console, console players are going to be loaded with expectations, psn users are already ticked about a sub for for online services, and xbox live users are like wtf? I already pay for online services, and both platforms have gamers who played and loved oblivion and skyrim to death. They will enter ESO and reject it immediately, it's got the single player rpg expectations with it and the attached sub fee, it will be rejected. ESO has tried to smooth this over by saying a sub to xbl or psn is not required, but come one who has an xbox one or ps4 and does not have the online service? That like of requirement is a piss poor attempt to push the blame to the consoles.
- ESO would do exceptionally well however if marketed appropriately (ie remove all the skyrim expectations and let people know it's multiplayer and compromises are made in the name of multiplayer, benificial additions like having the ability to play with your friends now and meet new friends online and that the compromises are a result of that, but from those compromises we are getting the Elder Scrolls based game we can enjoy with our friends now and actively play together. Marketing this way will keep people playing after the first month.
- Secondly they should make it buy to play and just launch dlc content once a year. If they did that, the game would have a nice healthy life on consoles especially considering the competition. Performing this action will get more people to purchase the game and keep them playing beyond the first month and make them excited to buy the dlc's.
Hypemonster = 1
You guys = 0
Oh, and let's not forget, talking about services, how many people bitched and complained that you had to have an active XBL or PS+ subscription in order to play any sort of multiplayer or group content, despite the fact that gamers were told long before console release that a subscription to their gaming services would be MANDATORY for many games. This is just the first time this was really enforced.
So, yeah, just more fodder for the "console gamers won't like subscriptions" argument.
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
----------------