This was my thinking as well. I have no real interest in the game myself, but these type of games rarely make it out of the gate without a bit of a stumble.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The Gaming Industry: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
- Thread starter Mike S
- Start date
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
And that is really by plan. You invest in making the base game first. Once released you then use the revenue stream that this type of game was designed for, to "finish" the game and expand content. All of these style games are a different game from launch to a year or so later.
I agree, but it seems to be the way of things these days.
As I understand it, the bean counters want that influx of cash from when the game goes gold. That also starts the revenue stream while they essentially fix the game over the next year.
Call me old fashioned but the game that ships on day one should be the finished game. Everything later should be an expansion to an experience that already felt complete and worth your $60.
The current model is really just to their own detriment as first impressions still mean a lot.
While I would agree, the prevalence of the "release it and fix it later" model makes me wonder if the studios have numbers that say the opposite.
I know I personally don't care about day one updates or down the line fixes especially to a game like Destiny or Anthem where they will continuously evolve even if they were near perfect at launch.
When this trend first started sure the numbers maybe looked good. As time went on though people wised up. It wasn’t that long ago that stories of Destiny 2 rapidly losing players were going around. Then of course we saw the flops of Battlefield V and Fallout 76 last year that were so bad the games were on sale a week after release. This year it appears Anthem will be another flop.
There is a way to make games like this (release now, finish later) very successful though but publishers don’t want to do it because they want to have their cake and eat it too.
Make the game free to play.
Also stick to one game and don’t release constant sequels that make the predecessors obsolete. It goes completely against the whole idea of a “live service” if you have to start over every 2 or so years.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately online has also played a part in all this as well. All too often developers use it as a crutch to release a broken product with the attitude that "we can just patch it." Hopefully the gaming community continues to vote with their wallets. I have never bought a shared world persistent online game at launch and I never will. Actually I can't remember the last game I bought at launch. Typically I wait until they drop to the $35 to $40 range at the earliest.
Exactly. Free to play is the way to go but like you said, they want their cake. I have no problems with anything fortnite does, or the issues it had in the beginning because it was FREE. How many people are complaining about Apex? Not many that I can see.
Scrooged
Well-Known Member
As I’ve said before- give the people a KOTOR sequel and they will make bank. Hell, just remaster KOTOR 1 and they’ll make a mint. They’ve got a gold mine, but EA is too wrapped up in investor perception to let any one of their studios try and develop a good product.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
At this point I think Disney/Lucasfilm has something to do with it as well. Obsidian went to them and they said no to a KOTOR sequel. It leads me to believe that whatever Benioff and Weiss are doing, its set in the old republic. And since everything that gets produced has to be "canon", I don't think they wan to worry about story conflicts. I can also also see a scenario that Disney is afraid of another company developing a better story than they can. Kotor 1 is oone of the best star wars stories of all time.
Scrooged
Well-Known Member
It is one of the best stories of all time, but they set it 3000 years before anything for a reason. The fact that they are afraid to integrate anything having to do with Revan is laughable. But still.... there may be a hidden rights issue as well. I'm almost certain it's not as easy as it looks. When it comes to SW canon consistency nothing is easy as it seems.
I think one of the best scenarios to show where we are as a gaming community is the overwhelmingly positive and understanding reaction the huge delay of a highly anticipated title like Metroid Prime 4 received. Nintendo came out and basically said, “listen, this game isn’t where we want it to be so we regretfully have to start all over.” I think the positive reaction this got had a lot to do with recent releases of other high profile games being either buggy, broken, disappointing, or all of the above. People saw how bad games can be when just rushed out and essentially thanked Nintendo for delaying such an anticipated release.
Scrooged
Well-Known Member
I'd rather wait another six months/year for them to re-tool Star Wars Battlefront than to go through the terrible release and poor support that BFII has received. I'm all for it. Especially if they want my $60+ dollars.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
That's why I didn't buy it until it hit 19.99. The single player story was worth that much. I haven't really played too much else with it, just a few multiplayer games, but it's no $60 game. But unfortunately $60 games with $20 of content is all too much the norm now a days.
Scrooged
Well-Known Member
I finally dived into Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey. Wow!
I mean, yes there’s downloadable content, but the sheer size of the open world and content available at release is really a welcome change. I’m about 40 hours in and I’ve not yet uncovered the whole map. Say what you will about Ubisoft (“The Division” and “For Honor” could have been much much better), they do know how to put out a good release day game and make it worth your money.
Jimmy Thick
Well-Known Member
Anthem has some moments of magical greatness and mostly moments of MMO rpg style grinding. 30 hours in and I'm waiting for the next content patch because I'm sick of it. Its a looter shooter for sure with some stunning 4K graphics of you have a pretty cutting edge PC, like 2080 ti minimum, otherwise its around 40-70 fps at 1080 on lesser cards. Personally I've moved on, I like my games as service to be a little more game. I hope they don't kill Dragon Age 4 because of this flop.
Have you tried Star Wars The Old Republic MMO? The character stories, specifically the Jedi Knight one was supposed to be part of the story arc for KOTOR 3. There was a whole expansion dedicated to Revan and he's there throughout the game in several areas. HK- 47 is there as well. The closest thing to KOTOR 3 is the mmo, and all the character stories are totally worth your time if you are a fan of the series. On top of all of that the game is set up now so you don't even need to team up with anyone to actually do anything, you can play with computer companions. They took the MMO out of it.
Scrooged
Well-Known Member
Yes- I’ve played through the whole single player campaign (if you can call it that) and done two of the extra story arcs. For a F2P MMO it’s definitely worth someone’s time. I can’t complain- I paid 10 bucks for one month of espedited XP to get through the core experience and it was worth my time. It’s a slowly dying game though. Overall, it is a nice substitute for a KOTOR sequel without it being an official “sequel.”
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
I guess it depends on what you define as "kill". Could I see them shut down bioware? Sure. I don't see them not making another dragon age though. It's a pretty valuable IP so I can see them shifting development to a different studio. If I had to guess, I think dragon age is biowares possible strike 3, you're out, scenario. If the game is mediocre, look out bioware. Dragon age 4 needs to hit BIG for bioware to continue at EA.
Have I mentioned how much I love Nintendo?
mynintendonews.com
Nintendo’s Mobile Partner Complains That Nintendo Doesn’t Want To Take Too Much Revenue From Customers
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that a Nintendo mobile partner has complained that the Kyoto-based company doesn't want to make consumers waste too much money on their range of mobile games.
mynintendonews.com
Scrooged
Well-Known Member
Have I mentioned how much I love Nintendo?
Nintendo’s Mobile Partner Complains That Nintendo Doesn’t Want To Take Too Much Revenue From Customers
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that a Nintendo mobile partner has complained that the Kyoto-based company doesn't want to make consumers waste too much money on their range of mobile games.
I always wondered how they would do in a mobile market. I kind of think after their experience with the Mario Run game they might strike out on their own- create or buy into a mobile division instead of third party it out. Especially since they see the drop off in sales is much higher on mobile devices than on switch consoles/ Nintendo services. They are a good company- willing to press the envelope and fail. Which is a good thing in this industry- and as a consumer I respect that they are up front with what to expect/when to expect their products.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
Maybe because they don't plan to do enough in that space to make owning your own mobile developer worth it. They don't want to chance hurting their DS/switch business so they aren't releasing anything that would be competing against themselves. So come up with some basic mobile ideas, farm it out to the 3rd party, and very little effort makes you some profit. If they ever end up like sega, then I could see them developing in house.