Quantcast
Dragon Age 4 rumours, might be another 'game as a service'...

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Dragon Age 4 rumours, might be another 'game as a service'...

Surely they wouldn't GAAS Dragon Age?



Around the Network
OlfinBedwere said:
vivster said:
I'm not worried at all. Now that Anthem failed so spectacularly everything will be fine. Unless DA4 becomes a full on MMO we'll be fine.

Honestly, I'd prefer it if Dragon Age 4 were an actual MMO, as that's at least a tried and true genre. The Games as Service thing is basically the worst of both worlds.

GAAS is not a genre, it's a concept. A concept that doesn't really mean anything. Most online games since the beginning of time are GAAS. Every MMO ever is a GAAS. If you're wishing for an MMO you're wishing for a GAAS.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:
OlfinBedwere said:

Honestly, I'd prefer it if Dragon Age 4 were an actual MMO, as that's at least a tried and true genre. The Games as Service thing is basically the worst of both worlds.

GAAS is not a genre, it's a concept. A concept that doesn't really mean anything. Most online games since the beginning of time are GAAS. Every MMO ever is a GAAS. If you're wishing for an MMO you're wishing for a GAAS.

The idea is who it works. To 'keep people playing'. That's what they are after, your time but I don't see how making all these games about continued play encourages you to spend money? Only thing it means is that your time is split between 2 or 3 games, instead of buying 7 or 8 over the year.

League of Legends is F2P, people can spend numerous hours playing and not spend a penny but then if you get enough players because it's free, there will be enough people to spend money on small transactions to make it worth while. Fortnite, Apex and many other MMOs are like this.

Then there is WoW, which is subscription and it's success come from getting people to pay for continued play. Which works in MMO settings as they are ever expanding games with ongoing events and things to do.

But for what should be single player RPGs/Shooters on consoles that you pay once for the game? I've played Destiny and while it was fine the game lost it's appeal to me once I realised I was no longer their target as I was never going to buy DLC or the expansions. I had my fun and moved on. Destiny 2 was the same, got it on PS+, played it, enjoyed my time with it but then stopped as the idea of constant grind is not fun. Infact with Destiny 1, I think I spent more time playing the story over and over than actually doing what they wanted me to do which is grind dungeons. 

The problem is, Anthem's failure might be too late. If EA's mind is set on making DA a MP online game 1.5 years ago, do the developers have the resources and time to scrap that? as they've done it once already. What then when DA4 only sells it's normal amount of 5 million or so and EA expected 10 million because of the time and investment?... oh wait. RIP Bioware.



Hmm, pie.

If true, it saddens me that I won't be playing Dragon age again.



 

The Fury said:

How many of you read this article? (I couldn't see a thread on this btw).

https://kotaku.com/the-past-and-present-of-dragon-age-4-1833913351

What are your thoughts on it?

Personally, this is everything I fear about the next DA game. I always wondered why it was taking so long to release DA4 when the development team finished DA:I in 2015 with the last DLC. They had the resources to and knowledge to improved on what they knew and heard from feedback from gamers. What were they working on? Seems they were working on DA4 but it all got ditched as EA's new mandate came in.

According to this article, a developer said "We were working towards something very cool, a hugely reactive game, smaller in scope than Dragon Age: Inquisition but much larger in player choice, followers, reactivity, and depth,” they said. “I’m sad that game will never get made.”"

This sounds exactly what people wanted, something more grounded, no big scope and more personal and no online crap.

But times change and EA see $ signs in front of their faces 24/7. So in 2017 they apparently ditched this for a different more online approach. The 'Games as a service' shtick instead. The development team has been chopped and moved around as they have have had to help on Andromeda and Anthem. Rumours from Bioware's development of Anthem and treatment of employees, it's reception both critical and fan based and it's goals in general of an ongoing game with 'future' updates to improve it. 

I've wanted Dragon Age 4 for years, playing through DA:I over and over (I did that my PS4 life thing and it came in at 500+ hours), different characters, builds, decisions (never a Dwarf...though weirdly) and pine for a new one but I don't think this new one will meet my expectations if all EA has in mind is "Buy in game gold so you can level up quicker." or "Play this dungeon over and over because this is all we have as gameplay."

Of course it could all change and we could get a game we do want in 4 years time when they finally finish development.

(Also, side note, I think I've been watching too much Jim Sterling).

It's from EA, so the risk was a given, even though it's a different team than the ones that made Anthem.

Also keep in mind that Dragon Age had been shamelessy monetized to hell and back right from the start of first game (Warden's Keep Questgiver, anyone?) and nobody complained, so no small wonder they want to push the limits further and further.

@bolded: That's as impossible as having enough Dakka.



Around the Network
The Fury said:
vivster said:

GAAS is not a genre, it's a concept. A concept that doesn't really mean anything. Most online games since the beginning of time are GAAS. Every MMO ever is a GAAS. If you're wishing for an MMO you're wishing for a GAAS.

The idea is who it works. To 'keep people playing'. That's what they are after, your time but I don't see how making all these games about continued play encourages you to spend money? Only thing it means is that your time is split between 2 or 3 games, instead of buying 7 or 8 over the year.

League of Legends is F2P, people can spend numerous hours playing and not spend a penny but then if you get enough players because it's free, there will be enough people to spend money on small transactions to make it worth while. Fortnite, Apex and many other MMOs are like this.

Then there is WoW, which is subscription and it's success come from getting people to pay for continued play. Which works in MMO settings as they are ever expanding games with ongoing events and things to do.

But for what should be single player RPGs/Shooters on consoles that you pay once for the game? I've played Destiny and while it was fine the game lost it's appeal to me once I realised I was no longer their target as I was never going to buy DLC or the expansions. I had my fun and moved on. Destiny 2 was the same, got it on PS+, played it, enjoyed my time with it but then stopped as the idea of constant grind is not fun. Infact with Destiny 1, I think I spent more time playing the story over and over than actually doing what they wanted me to do which is grind dungeons. 

The problem is, Anthem's failure might be too late. If EA's mind is set on making DA a MP online game 1.5 years ago, do the developers have the resources and time to scrap that? as they've done it once already. What then when DA4 only sells it's normal amount of 5 million or so and EA expected 10 million because of the time and investment?... oh wait. RIP Bioware.

Worst case I expect a cross between Borderlands and AC. Online multiplayer PVE with weekly challenges and micro transactions, as well as regular expansions. It's gonna be fine.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Random_Matt said:

there are probably very few developers who are given complete freedom aside from Sony ones.

The only time a dev can have complete freedom is if they are completely self-funded, and they just partner with someone for distribution.  The only big example I can think of this recently is CDPR with TW3.  Anybody that invests money in a game is going to get some say in that project.  That's how it works everywhere, including Sony.  And, even with CDPR, they are ultimately controlled by someone, or a small group of major investors.  That person(s) control the purse strings, so they decide what game will get made, and they certainly apply some amount of oversight to make sure the game is developing into something likely to be profitable.  

This stuff is big business.  In AAA, AA, and even A level game development, there is a profit motive driving everything.  These things are products, not art projects.