I have no doubts about the "A Team" at Bioware being able to make a great game. Then it's up to EA to not treat the customers as dumb rubes with infinite wallets.
Watching and waiting...
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I have very little faith in any game flying the EA banner.
EA have done a pretty good job over the years of beating it out of people, if there is any left its probably cowering in the corner waiting for the next blow.
When you say "beating it out of people" are you also referring to their money?
"The folks at BioWare are some of the best storytellers in the videogame business..."
I was 100% with you until this. I even liked the rest of the article. If we could change that verb tense to "The folks at BioWare WERE some of the best storytellers in the videogame business" then I could get back on board with this. ME1 and ME2 were good but ME3 was not. DAO and DA2 (to a much lesser extent) were good but I uninstalled DA3 about 30 hours in because I just simply couldn't care about that story. I haven't checked out MEA yet (waiting for a $10 or less sale due to declining story quality) but I think the best writing has happened at EA and we'll be lucky to see an occasional glimmer of scene-level brilliance now.
After i played FFX i laugh at most of these games stories.Even inside of FFXI i found the stories to be quite good but for Anthem,i do not see it being a STORY type game,so is a meaningless push to being positive. It is a gimmick game,people love flying around,yes atmosphere,sounds,graphics,effects all look good but game play,i don't see it having enough depth.The only depth as i see it is the suits to which i imagine will carry dlc's and micro transactions to boost and upgrade them.
I also have not see much in way of the OPEN world they claim,i see lanes through the jungle and lanes even under water.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Give warframe a try if you haven't. They do F2P right. EA will make a P2W game for sure.
Warframe is P2W so do you mean EA will make it more P2W? Does that make WFs P2W acceptable? What's the acceptable P2W threshold?
Warframe WOULD be pay to win completely out of context. If grind was unrealistic, it would be pay to win. If the game were difficult, it would be pay to win. If this was a PvP game, it would be pay to win. But none of these are the case. Every individual gear piece in Warframe can be earned realistically, even quickly, and traded with other players. The game is so easy that there is no cause to pay for gear or to discriminate against others for not having gear. The atmosphere is purely cooperative and everyone can earn anything they desire at a fast, set rate. The cash shop does not interfere with the game's design in any meaningful way.
I just see you excusing a game you like but applying the criticism to games you don't care about. Maybe we could agree to disagree on this one.
I don't want to be discriminated against for having a low score. I want to be grouped with other player around my general GS and competency level. The game should measure more than GS to match players. Time played, performance metrics, and GS are just three factors I can think of off the top of my head that matter.
This really just comes down to how one defines pay to win.
My definition for pay to win is simple. If a game allows a player to buy a statistical/performance advantage over another player at the same character level, that game is pay to win.
Star Wars: Battlefront II, for example, allows players to purchase objective statistical advantages immediately that other players cannot realistically or reliably obtain at that player level. If the matchmaking only matched the whale with others of a similar gear score, we'd possibly (POSSIBLY) have an argument for the game not being pay to win, but this not the case (and such a matchmaking system would inherently render the gear scale pointless in the first place).
The reason why I do not consider Warframe's model to be egregious is that there is no significant barrier between a player and the highest tier gear for their current account level. That's pretty important. At every point in the game, the player can quickly obtain best in stat gear and mods for their current level. From extensive past experience with the game, I never struggled in powering myself up.
The way these two games handle equipment requirements is also an important factor. In Warframe, one can only equip higher level gear by leveling up enough lower level gear to reach a high enough account level to equip the higher level gear. In Battlefront II, player level is based on the cards that the player owns. In Warframe's system, the whale cannot immediately equip the best gear in the game immediately through purchase. In Battlefront II, the whale can do so.
This is also entirely ignoring the philosophical differences in how their cash shops work. Warframe allows for direct transactions that do not attempt to cheat the player; Warframe's cash shop is transparent and well priced. Star War's Battlefront II's is locked entirely behind RNG; there is no set value for Star War's items and no transparency on chance or value. And this philosophical difference reflects the games as a whole. Star Wars Battlefront II is a mess that builds its entire system around obfuscating the value of its items and making individual goals impossible to pursue. Warframe is a game in which individual goals and player choice are everything; everything can be earned or bought realistically and the player has complete control over their own experience.
After the latest Mass Effect Andromeda I don't think anyone who is fairly educated will take their products seriously.
Yeah that game was a abomination but supposedly the team that made it is long gone. Politics were put above talent , Hopefully EA has learned from their past mistakes.
No profits were put above talent. The game was rushed out and important parts were handed to companies on the cheap who couldn't deliver. The only "politics" are corporate politics.
EA works in mysterious ways. What's true to one man, a wonder and a marvel, might not seem so to another, as EA didn't intend it for him. The world he thinks he knows has become an odd thing, twisting time and purpose. But it remains an unfair universe in the end.
EA's design is to set up their own worship, abolish all the fairness in development, to fall next upon Bioware and so go through all of Anthem.
So heed these words and pick up your pitchforks and torches! Do not fret, when change cometh, peace and wisdom will ride on her back.
Since being taken over by EA, they've shown that their ability to tell good stories has dramatically diminished and they've never been good at anything else. So, right from the start we have sub-standard game developers entering a genre completely new to them. It doesn't bode well, lets just hope it doesn't end up as bad as SW:TOR.
Then, we have EA publishing.
This means no risks will be taken. So, core gameplay will probably be solid and work well, but be shallow as fuck. We'll end up with a great looking world and some OK shooting, but that will be the end of it. As with all other EA games ever, you'll just start getting into the game, just start to enjoy the mechanics, when all of a sudden you realise that's it, there's nothing else to learn, nowhere else to progress, no more content. Inevitable disappointment will kick in, because you can see the potential of the game and realise it will never be met, because EA is in charge.
Then you have the business model. EA specifically want to move into long lasting multiplayer games so that they can milk you for money for long periods of time. They might learn a bit from SWBF2, but I would still expect overpriced DLCs, lootboxes and generally shit value for money.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
It's a shame Bioware isn't the bioware it used to be. I expect this to be another EA money grab like the rest of them. Hope bioware sinks after this they're long overdue.
I think that Anthem's only hope is that it is a new IP. Maybe, just maybe, there is an off chance that EA will want to establish a successful IP before systematically fucking it and everyone who supported it.
My goodness the amount of bitching on this thread in as high as the stacks. I wonder if some of you even enjoy video games
Most do, they just don't enjoy getting wallet-fucked at every turn.
This. I love video games. That doesn't mean that I love slot machines. I love the Witcher 3 immensely. That doesn't mean I would love it if CDProjeckt suddenly decided to lock Gwent cards in randomized chests.
My goodness the amount of bitching on this thread in as high as the stacks. I wonder if some of you even enjoy video games
Most do, they just don't enjoy getting wallet-fucked at every turn.
That's true, but I think it's the random and subjective nature that makes it look so odd. People bitch about cosmetic loot crates in Destiny 2 because the game costs $90. Warframe and Path of Exile are "free" with pay to win and bundles that cost hundreds of dollars, but that's okay because there is no up front cost. ESO gets a pass becasue even though it has a box feel, a sub, loot crates, and a cash shop the $125 Clockwork house is okay because it's not in a loot crate. The "all over the map" nature and inconsistency of complaints is the problem.
In one breath someone tells me all the P2W in Warframe isn't that bad because they think so but the non-p2w loot crates in D2 are bad even though they drop like rain just like the Warframes. The idea that the pig that rolls in "your" mud being just as dirty as the pig that rolls in mine, is a difficult concept for many gamers to wrap their heads around.
Perhaps, and this is a crazy suggestion, business models aren't equivalent and goodwill or the lack thereof is something that builds off of everything the game has to offer.
Your "non-pay to win" lootcrates in Destiny 2 represent an overwhelming quantity of the game's total rewards (in a game that is all about rewards). There is discussion to be had there. How much developer time and focus was pulled away from the game that people paid for to make a huge number of cosmetics for those boxes? Given how sparse the content of Curse of Osiris is and how many new items were implemented in said loot boxes, I would ask that you question whether such a system is for the benefit of the player.
Perhaps instead of trying to create a false equivalence, you should instead inquire as to why Warframe and Path of Exile are so frequently hailed as champions of ethical f2p games. Popular sentiment tends to arise for an observable reason.
My goodness the amount of bitching on this thread in as high as the stacks. I wonder if some of you even enjoy video games
Most do, they just don't enjoy getting wallet-fucked at every turn.
That's true, but I think it's the random and subjective nature that makes it look so odd. People bitch about cosmetic loot crates in Destiny 2 because the game costs $90. Warframe and Path of Exile are "free" with pay to win and bundles that cost hundreds of dollars, but that's okay because there is no up front cost. ESO gets a pass becasue even though it has a box feel, a sub, loot crates, and a cash shop the $125 Clockwork house is okay because it's not in a loot crate. The "all over the map" nature and inconsistency of complaints is the problem.
In one breath someone tells me all the P2W in Warframe isn't that bad because they think so but the non-p2w loot crates in D2 are bad even though they drop like rain just like the Warframes. The idea that the pig that rolls in "your" mud being just as dirty as the pig that rolls in mine, is a difficult concept for many gamers to wrap their heads around.
I agree with your overall point. From my perspective, F2P titles do get more leeway because the barrier to entry is so low and without aggressive microtransactions, they would make no money. Games with full box prices or extensive DLC purchases get less leeway because they already have a large revenue stream. All of that is independent of the effect microtransaction prevalence has on design philosophy (resulting, in at least a couple high-profile titles, in deceptive or overtly predatory practices). It irks me when I see folks who take the pushback and try to claim that gamers want everything for nothing or don't like gaming. Nothing about the current landscape tells me that.
Revenue has consistently grown within the industry, that doesn't happen if players are too fickle to spend a dime. And gaming has seen revolutionary changes in monetization over a relatively short span. Pushback against it should've been expected from the industry. It doesn't mean folks don't like playing games: to them, paying a box price was a "ain't broke don't fix it" thing. But investors aren't interested in what works, but what works best for them. Consumers rightly should push back, as investors will take it as far as consumers allow. That's the nature of such an inherently adversarial relationship.
I disagree that means someone dislikes gaming. I disagree that it's a sign of a consumer base who wants everything for nothing. It's a consumer base who wants to defend their position in the relationship against what seems to be a sad focus on innovating mainly monetization, not gameplay.
Perhaps, and this is a crazy suggestion, business models aren't equivalent and goodwill is something that reflects on an entire series.
You would have to willfully ignore the details specific to each game to see all cash shop transactions and all loot crate implementations as equally egregious and not have a separate and distinct reaction to each different spin on the same theme.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
This article nails it, nice write-up, as you mentioned, the only debatable point for me is focus away from PvP. I get that we don't want a shallow Destiny-esque PvE environment where everything is gained too quickly/easily and the game is over before you know it. BUT, the only reason there even is a Destiny 2 is because Destiny 1's PvP was engaging and fun. This was botched in 2 but I believe that the PvP in the original Destiny is what held that community together, I know I played it for hundreds of hours (something that unfortunately cannot be said about it's successor).
I think they need to have solid PvP. Good game modes, interesting weapons/interactions, maybe even go the Division route if you don't want to create a BG-like environment. Either way, it's gottta be there and it's gotta be solid if they want to stay in the game imo. Great article though, everything else I agree with 1000 percent.
Comments
Watching and waiting...
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I was 100% with you until this. I even liked the rest of the article. If we could change that verb tense to "The folks at BioWare WERE some of the best storytellers in the videogame business" then I could get back on board with this. ME1 and ME2 were good but ME3 was not. DAO and DA2 (to a much lesser extent) were good but I uninstalled DA3 about 30 hours in because I just simply couldn't care about that story. I haven't checked out MEA yet (waiting for a $10 or less sale due to declining story quality) but I think the best writing has happened at EA and we'll be lucky to see an occasional glimmer of scene-level brilliance now.
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
It is a gimmick game,people love flying around,yes atmosphere,sounds,graphics,effects all look good but game play,i don't see it having enough depth.The only depth as i see it is the suits to which i imagine will carry dlc's and micro transactions to boost and upgrade them.
I also have not see much in way of the OPEN world they claim,i see lanes through the jungle and lanes even under water.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
P.S. Can't wait for this to be on the MMO of the Year List in 2018. XD
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
My definition for pay to win is simple. If a game allows a player to buy a statistical/performance advantage over another player at the same character level, that game is pay to win.
Star Wars: Battlefront II, for example, allows players to purchase objective statistical advantages immediately that other players cannot realistically or reliably obtain at that player level. If the matchmaking only matched the whale with others of a similar gear score, we'd possibly (POSSIBLY) have an argument for the game not being pay to win, but this not the case (and such a matchmaking system would inherently render the gear scale pointless in the first place).
The reason why I do not consider Warframe's model to be egregious is that there is no significant barrier between a player and the highest tier gear for their current account level. That's pretty important. At every point in the game, the player can quickly obtain best in stat gear and mods for their current level. From extensive past experience with the game, I never struggled in powering myself up.
The way these two games handle equipment requirements is also an important factor. In Warframe, one can only equip higher level gear by leveling up enough lower level gear to reach a high enough account level to equip the higher level gear. In Battlefront II, player level is based on the cards that the player owns. In Warframe's system, the whale cannot immediately equip the best gear in the game immediately through purchase. In Battlefront II, the whale can do so.
This is also entirely ignoring the philosophical differences in how their cash shops work. Warframe allows for direct transactions that do not attempt to cheat the player; Warframe's cash shop is transparent and well priced. Star War's Battlefront II's is locked entirely behind RNG; there is no set value for Star War's items and no transparency on chance or value. And this philosophical difference reflects the games as a whole. Star Wars Battlefront II is a mess that builds its entire system around obfuscating the value of its items and making individual goals impossible to pursue. Warframe is a game in which individual goals and player choice are everything; everything can be earned or bought realistically and the player has complete control over their own experience.
I believe it goes, hope for the best but expect the worst, you have it backwards :P
No profits were put above talent. The game was rushed out and important parts were handed to companies on the cheap who couldn't deliver. The only "politics" are corporate politics.
EA's design is to set up their own worship, abolish all the fairness in development, to fall next upon Bioware and so go through all of Anthem.
So heed these words and pick up your pitchforks and torches! Do not fret, when change cometh, peace and wisdom will ride on her back.
Since being taken over by EA, they've shown that their ability to tell good stories has dramatically diminished and they've never been good at anything else. So, right from the start we have sub-standard game developers entering a genre completely new to them. It doesn't bode well, lets just hope it doesn't end up as bad as SW:TOR.
Then, we have EA publishing.
This means no risks will be taken. So, core gameplay will probably be solid and work well, but be shallow as fuck. We'll end up with a great looking world and some OK shooting, but that will be the end of it. As with all other EA games ever, you'll just start getting into the game, just start to enjoy the mechanics, when all of a sudden you realise that's it, there's nothing else to learn, nowhere else to progress, no more content. Inevitable disappointment will kick in, because you can see the potential of the game and realise it will never be met, because EA is in charge.
Then you have the business model. EA specifically want to move into long lasting multiplayer games so that they can milk you for money for long periods of time. They might learn a bit from SWBF2, but I would still expect overpriced DLCs, lootboxes and generally shit value for money.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
What I expect EA to deliver: SW:BFII in ME-like skins, minimal story campaign and loot crates everywhere because no Disney to stop them.
I wouldn't hold my breath.
Man I loved Andromeda! What did you hate so much about it?
Your "non-pay to win" lootcrates in Destiny 2 represent an overwhelming quantity of the game's total rewards (in a game that is all about rewards). There is discussion to be had there. How much developer time and focus was pulled away from the game that people paid for to make a huge number of cosmetics for those boxes? Given how sparse the content of Curse of Osiris is and how many new items were implemented in said loot boxes, I would ask that you question whether such a system is for the benefit of the player.
Perhaps instead of trying to create a false equivalence, you should instead inquire as to why Warframe and Path of Exile are so frequently hailed as champions of ethical f2p games. Popular sentiment tends to arise for an observable reason.
Revenue has consistently grown within the industry, that doesn't happen if players are too fickle to spend a dime. And gaming has seen revolutionary changes in monetization over a relatively short span. Pushback against it should've been expected from the industry. It doesn't mean folks don't like playing games: to them, paying a box price was a "ain't broke don't fix it" thing. But investors aren't interested in what works, but what works best for them. Consumers rightly should push back, as investors will take it as far as consumers allow. That's the nature of such an inherently adversarial relationship.
I disagree that means someone dislikes gaming. I disagree that it's a sign of a consumer base who wants everything for nothing. It's a consumer base who wants to defend their position in the relationship against what seems to be a sad focus on innovating mainly monetization, not gameplay.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I think they need to have solid PvP. Good game modes, interesting weapons/interactions, maybe even go the Division route if you don't want to create a BG-like environment. Either way, it's gottta be there and it's gotta be solid if they want to stay in the game imo. Great article though, everything else I agree with 1000 percent.