Global Hardware 29 June 2019

[Ganoncrotch]

Replicant said:

Ganoncrotch said: 

1: I think he was more suggesting that companies like EA who are focused on Live services shit like Anthem have spent a great deal of the last 5 years trying to convince gamers that what we want to be playing is online social interaction always online ever changing type games with no single player element whatsoever,

2: so then the Switch rolls around with Mario Ody and Breath of the Wild which are basically 2 massive middle fingers to the idea that a massive single player game can't be amazing and isn't exactly what millions of gamers are willing to throw money at, there was a time when the attach rate of breath of the wild was greater than 1:1 because while people couldn't get the system to play it... everyone wanted what is one of the best and biggest single player games of all times.

1+2: It would be better for companies like EA to keep their fans away from systems where options other than always online yearly purchased trash was in the minority alongside games which came out 2 years ago and are still pumping out great gameplay all this time, heck even in terms of online shooters, if you bought Splatoon 2 around Switch launch you could still be playing that game today and enjoying new free map and weapon packs which have been steadily dropping into the game over the last 24 months,

3: it completely goes against a call of duty or battlefield where you could buy the game two years ago but if you didn't buy the season pass you would be completely outta the loop in terms of what type of game people have today.... if the servers for online were still even up given that when a sequel appears often those older titles are shut down and forgotten.

1: Anthem is not the best example as nobody wanted to play that game. Even though EA and Bioware promised a 10 year journey of new content, Anthem was quickly abandoned by gamers and most likely by Bioware as well. This is not a first for EA though as Mass Effect: Andromeda, Star Wars: Battlefront 2 and Battlefield V failed to meet expectations as well. That you and Rol claim that publishers are biased against Nintendo because Nintendo owners are the only ones who'd say no to loot box riddled games is kinda dumb (VGC being a Nintendo hivemind, I'm not that surprised though). Have you not been following gaming news for the past 2 years? EA has been heavily criticized for their monetization in e.g. Star Wars: Battlefront 2 and is now under criminal investigation in Europe and the US for promoting gambling. EA's stock value has decreased 38% in just a year.

2: I agree. 10 days ago, I voted for Breath of the Wild as the greatest launch title of all time. God of War, Spider-Man, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Uncharted 4, etc. are also massive middle fingers to the idea that a massive single player game can't be amazing. But that didn't stop publishers from releasing their multiplayer games on e.g. the PS4. Again, you and Rol's logic is flawed (I wonder why).

3: It's scary to find myself defending games that I haven't had any interest in since iterations released in 2005 (Battlefield 2) and 2009 (COD: Modern Warfare 2), respectively. But Battlefield V's maps are indeed added for free and all maps in this year's COD: Modern Warfare will be free as well.

3 - Took me a few google searches to find out how that would be possible, Okay so going from the previous game where maps had an upfront cost they were released each 4 months in packs of 4 maps each, Battlefield V has a roadmap which adds 1 map per 5month cycle on average, conversely the games live services now pump out cosmetics and weapons at a far faster rate because those.... are of course sold for premium currency a la free to play model. If that modern warfare thing is yet to release and especially as it's a game from activision I would realllllly wait and see what comes of any offers of free dlc or free updates to their games because history should teach you not to trust them to not monetize the absolute shit outta games in every way they can.

1 - Anthem was indeed a complete travesty from jump, with EA going on stage and shouting GET HYPED while gamers shouted back... "why bioware, why" but that games failing wasn't due to the loot boxes being present in it, the failing was because EA took a studio known for single player RPG glory and threw them a handful of scuffed ideas about what the game was to be, up until 9 months prior to launch the fact that you can or cannot fly freely in the game was still completely up in the air and came and left the table on a per management meeting basis, the game failed because there was a complete lack of communication within the 2 studios who were making it along with the management team relying on the fact that Bioware had previously finished off a product in shambles using "Bioware magic" rather than actually managing the project in a meaningful way, the games story was cut to ribbons to make a "finished product" which didn't in any way live up to the hype packages that EA were on stage multiple times pointing to and screaming for people to get hyped for.... but also the game had loot boxes so I guess that's why it failed huh? Because your logic isn't flawed in the slightest!

As for following game news for the last 2 years being a counter to the fact that EA's stock has fallen and a sword is over the head of lootboxes from a court point of view.... yes the Stock has gone down because people are getting out before that sword comes down and severs that monitization head, however regarding how popular lootbox's/gambling mechanics are in titles right now the last figures I can find directly for live services were from 2017 year end which was 1billion+ from services and less than 600m from game sales, which means for every 60dollar game sold they actually take in 100dollars worth of micro transactions and that figure Forbes was predicting would only increase at the time, again, stock prices are down now but also as I said there is a massive sword hanging over their heads about controls to be put in place on a billion dollars of revenue which you will see them fight tooth and nail for because they will have to make that somewhere and having gambling in games with a 3+ rating is by far the easiest way of doing that.

2 - The games you mentioned all dropped around 3-4 years into the PS4 life cycle, by which stage massive amounts of work had been done already bringing a (horrific) Star Wars Battlefront as well as other titles laden with live services to the platform, having already mastered the game engines on the platform as well as the lesser work required for yearly sequels of said franchises then it's fairly easy to see why a company would of course bring a Fifa 20XX and Call of duty X Black Ops Y to the system, because half the work is done and yearly additions are rarely built from the ground up full games when it comes to titles in the same consoles lifecycle.

- If I see a reply with so much as a hint that any part of the above post is based on the fact that "I like the Nintendo Switch" I won't be replying to you on here again, because it's boring if I'm honest, Switch is a great machine, as is the PS4, the X1 is a system which should never have been released and anyone buying it today I think would be better off hiring a taxi to drive them in circles for 2 hours and drop them off back at home to play their ps4/switch, that said, my "loyalty" to platforms is based on which one is best at any one time, X360 was one of the greatest consoles of all times and had imo the greatest leap in tech and best library for any machine (I had to go through multiples of the thing because of RROD, but MS handled that great and it never cost me a cent), the WiiU was a travesty which again... like the X1 should never have been released. I like good games on good machines, if they come from Sony, Ms, Nintendo or your mother, I don't care.