Can anyone else confirm (Preferably the Author) about the validity of the following line:
"The game forces me to play Freeplay with three other players..."
I've got a friend that claims this is an outright lie. He has played by himself in Freeplay or with 1 other person.
This in depth look shows more issues than anyone is discussing here, some of them the game having time paradoxes on NPCs meeting you which proves that content was cutt and re-arranged. There were armor pieces shown in dev streams which are nowhere to be found in the game (same with emotes) and the completely broken loot system which can give you broken stats and mods because (it seems at this point) they are totally random on their nature.
It's crazy really. I enjoyed playing the game, mostly due to the combat. When I got to endgame, and had spent around 30 hours there, I literally came to almost all the same conclusions that they discuss here.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I still have a hard time considering 30 hours particularly good for a paid title, especially one that competes with games that I've personally accrued thousands of hours in.
To each their own I guess, I never understood the more is better stance. Some titles greatly benefit from a shorter length, others don’t. But panning it out for the sake of value has never benefited a game. Lets just agree to disagree.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
That requires it to be worth the cost. Each Mass Efect title, for the same cost, gave me at least double that play time with a solid story.
Anthem gave a more generic experience in half the time, but same cost. The value per dollar just does not add up well.
And you have to account for the type of game this is. Bioware released this game with a plan to keep supporting post release as a live service.
A live service is meant to be played ongoing, not for 30 hours and dropped. I can understand those agreeing with you not knowing this, as at least one of them showed they were unaware of genes before, but you at least should understand that a genre meant to be persistent requires a persistent user experience.
Can't wait for them to slander gamers on social media again. hahahahaha
WTF you talking about?
Really? This has been going on for years. Maybe you should look into it before giving them more of your money. That's if you have any self-respect, I guess.
Just because they don't report on it here, doesn't mean that it's not happening and that the more popular sites have hundreds of articles and videos on this topic over the years.
I didn't even mention the racist tweets EA employees made sounding like a bunch of cat ladies (all fired now). Maybe they can get jobs at Starbucks with their pink hair and nose piercings lol.
Oh well, they are getting PUNISHED for it where it matters, in the wallet.
I guess I'll be the odd one out...I like the game. First of all the game world is just amazing looking. This is one of the best looking games I've seen in a while. Second the flight and combat mechanics are really fun and work well.
Now I'll be the first to admit this game has issues. Load times are obnoxious. The menus are a bit confusing. Why is there no way to set a way point in a group oriented game? Loot's a bit stale.
Overall though this is a game that has a ton of potential if people would just be patient. I guess I'm just over people expecting games to be spot on the second they hit.
I guess I'll be the odd one out...I like the game. First of all the game world is just amazing looking. This is one of the best looking games I've seen in a while. Second the flight and combat mechanics are really fun and work well.
Now I'll be the first to admit this game has issues. Load times are obnoxious. The menus are a bit confusing. Why is there no way to set a way point in a group oriented game? Loot's a bit stale.
Overall though this is a game that has a ton of potential if people would just be patient. I guess I'm just over people expecting games to be spot on the second they hit.
It's not like those that are being critical haven't said they enjoy at least some aspect of it. It's more so the fact that there are not just minor problems with the game, there's some big ones. And this is on top of the problem that the game we got lacks the scope of what they had prior demonstrated. The game had more than potential that went missing, like elemental weapons just outright disappeared, a bunch of loot rolls are broken, instability in game event triggers and queueing, etc.
It's not about being "spot on", it's about the standards just not being there and the baseline for a full-price paid release not being met.
I still have a hard time considering 30 hours particularly good for a paid title, especially one that competes with games that I've personally accrued thousands of hours in.
To each their own I guess, I never understood the more is better stance. Some titles greatly benefit from a shorter length, others don’t. But panning it out for the sake of value has never benefited a game. Lets just agree to disagree.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
That requires it to be worth the cost. Each Mass Efect title, for the same cost, gave me at least double that play time with a solid story.
Anthem gave a more generic experience in half the time, but same cost. The value per dollar just does not add up well.
And you have to account for the type of game this is. Bioware released this game with a plan to keep supporting post release as a live service.
A live service is meant to be played ongoing, not for 30 hours and dropped. I can understand those agreeing with you not knowing this, as at least one of them showed they were unaware of genes before, but you at least should understand that a genre meant to be persistent requires a persistent user experience.
Thanks for the explanation. You could also say that the ME games offer an insane amount of fun for the money, unless you don’t like them, then they offer very little. What I am trying to say is that value is personal. I bought Hellblade for 40 bucks, finished it in 10 hours and enjoyed myself more then I did with the entire ME trilogy for instance.
A live service means a company keeps supporting and adding to the game, it doesn’t mean it needs to have X hours of content to qualify. Its all about expectations and personal preference, its almost impossible to objectively tell others if something is worth it.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
ME1 was good, in my opinion. Very flawed, but good.
ME2 was a masterpiece.
ME3 was a mixed bag. It felt good to play and suitably epic, but I also hated its new squad members, considering James and EDI to be among the worst in any Bioware game. It also felt like they were making Mass Effect fanfiction at a few points.
ME Andromeda is an actual joke. Like, everything good about it is done better in Anthem, and everything bad about it was basically scrapped for Anthem.
That doesn't make Anthem better than Mass Effect 2 by any means, but it certainly handles ... everything... better than Andromeda did. Andromeda's combat (its one saving grace) is improved upon for Anthem, as is its combo system and flight. And if they fix the 0 rolls and mis-matched modifiers, the loot will also be better. Facial animations are also improved upon, and while Anthem's story and characters certainly aren't winning any Pulitzers, they are a step up from Andromeda's.
I still have a hard time considering 30 hours particularly good for a paid title, especially one that competes with games that I've personally accrued thousands of hours in.
To each their own I guess, I never understood the more is better stance. Some titles greatly benefit from a shorter length, others don’t. But panning it out for the sake of value has never benefited a game. Lets just agree to disagree.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
That requires it to be worth the cost. Each Mass Efect title, for the same cost, gave me at least double that play time with a solid story.
Anthem gave a more generic experience in half the time, but same cost. The value per dollar just does not add up well.
And you have to account for the type of game this is. Bioware released this game with a plan to keep supporting post release as a live service.
A live service is meant to be played ongoing, not for 30 hours and dropped. I can understand those agreeing with you not knowing this, as at least one of them showed they were unaware of genes before, but you at least should understand that a genre meant to be persistent requires a persistent user experience.
Thanks for the explanation. You could also say that the ME games offer an insane amount of fun for the money, unless you don’t like them, then they offer very little. What I am trying to say is that value is personal. I bought Hellblade for 40 bucks, finished it in 10 hours enjoyed myself more then I did with the entire ME trilogy for instance.
A live service means a company keeps supporting and adding to the game, it doesn’t mean it needs to have X hours of content to qualify. Its all about expectations and personal preference, its almost impossible to objectively tell others if something is worth it.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
That ignored the non-subjective factor. Cost per hour. A game that costs $60 and returns 30 hours vs a game that costs $60 and returns 60 hours. One is simply the more effective title. Then you contrast that to other live services that run for considerably more hours.
And it's to that end on live services as well. The game doesn't need everything in it at release, it needs to be functional as a live service. IE, where's the replayability and cause for investment. Given the broken nature of the loot and many other standing bugs in the game and inability to replay missions outside of queuing for quick play which dominantly results in broken missions, there is a distinct lack.
It does need the ability to persist as a live service, otherwise you play it and drop it and the "live service" means absolutely nothing.
I still have a hard time considering 30 hours particularly good for a paid title, especially one that competes with games that I've personally accrued thousands of hours in.
To each their own I guess, I never understood the more is better stance. Some titles greatly benefit from a shorter length, others don’t. But panning it out for the sake of value has never benefited a game. Lets just agree to disagree.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
That requires it to be worth the cost. Each Mass Efect title, for the same cost, gave me at least double that play time with a solid story.
Anthem gave a more generic experience in half the time, but same cost. The value per dollar just does not add up well.
And you have to account for the type of game this is. Bioware released this game with a plan to keep supporting post release as a live service.
A live service is meant to be played ongoing, not for 30 hours and dropped. I can understand those agreeing with you not knowing this, as at least one of them showed they were unaware of genes before, but you at least should understand that a genre meant to be persistent requires a persistent user experience.
Thanks for the explanation. You could also say that the ME games offer an insane amount of fun for the money, unless you don’t like them, then they offer very little. What I am trying to say is that value is personal. I bought Hellblade for 40 bucks, finished it in 10 hours enjoyed myself more then I did with the entire ME trilogy for instance.
A live service means a company keeps supporting and adding to the game, it doesn’t mean it needs to have X hours of content to qualify. Its all about expectations and personal preference, its almost impossible to objectively tell others if something is worth it.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
That ignored the non-subjective factor. Cost per hour. A game that costs $60 and returns 30 hours vs a game that costs $60 and returns 60 hours. One is simply the more effective title. Then you contrast that to other live services that run for considerably more hours.
And it's to that end on live services as well. The game doesn't need everything in it at release, it needs to be functional as a live service. IE, where's the replayability and cause for investment. Given the broken nature of the loot and many other standing bugs in the game and inability to replay missions outside of queuing for quick play which dominantly results in broken missions, there is a distinct lack.
It does need the ability to persist as a live service, otherwise you play it and drop it and the "live service" means absolutely nothing.
I definitely agree with the second part of your post, I have no clue about how broken or buggy Anthem is, I haven’t played it yet.
I really can’t agree with the first part though, it isn’t about length of a game versus costs, its about enjoyment versus costs, length means nothing if the enjoyment isn’t there and that enjoyment is personal. Like I said before, lets just agree to disagree, I get what you are saying, I just don’t think you are right.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
ME1 was good, in my opinion. Very flawed, but good.
ME2 was a masterpiece.
ME3 was a mixed bag. It felt good to play and suitably epic, but I also hated its new squad members, considering James and EDI to be among the worst in any Bioware game. It also felt like they were making Mass Effect fanfiction at a few points.
ME Andromeda is an actual joke. Like, everything good about it is done better in Anthem, and everything bad about it was basically scrapped for Anthem.
That doesn't make Anthem better than Mass Effect 2 by any means, but it certainly handles ... everything... better than Andromeda did. Andromeda's combat (its one saving grace) is improved upon for Anthem, as is its combo system and flight. And if they fix the 0 rolls and mis-matched modifiers, the loot will also be better. Facial animations are also improved upon, and while Anthem's story and characters certainly aren't winning any Pulitzers, they are a step up from Andromeda's.
ME3 and Andromeda had a change in lead writers, which cascaded to changes in character writers and other narrative roles. Anthem had that on top of it being a newer team.
Anthem, to that end, at least had one of the older teams on main development. This doesn't pan out to accommodate the development of a new type of game the studio simply hadn't done before, but the core competency in basic development was just better.
Though, that makes for a poor situation to try and justify some of the bugs and errors in design that leave you wondering how they made it into the game. Like why there aren't loot tables for gear bonuses in the first place. Bethesda's games are riddled with bugs and they still manage to implement that.
I guess I'll be the odd one out...I like the game. First of all the game world is just amazing looking. This is one of the best looking games I've seen in a while. Second the flight and combat mechanics are really fun and work well.
Now I'll be the first to admit this game has issues. Load times are obnoxious. The menus are a bit confusing. Why is there no way to set a way point in a group oriented game? Loot's a bit stale.
Overall though this is a game that has a ton of potential if people would just be patient. I guess I'm just over people expecting games to be spot on the second they hit.
It's not like those that are being critical haven't said they enjoy at least some aspect of it. It's more so the fact that there are not just minor problems with the game, there's some big ones. And this is on top of the problem that the game we got lacks the scope of what they had prior demonstrated. The game had more than potential that went missing, like elemental weapons just outright disappeared, a bunch of loot rolls are broken, instability in game event triggers and queueing, etc.
It's not about being "spot on", it's about the standards just not being there and the baseline for a full-price paid release not being met.
its always about everything with is good agaisnt what is bad, and to add to mix what was done before, if you have a game who is almost egual to another game older, that is chipped agaisnt your new game, so you need to make more good things then bad things, and make it engaging enough for people to come back after they leave for sleep/ eating/ work /school, most game today don't give you that nice curiosity of what will happen after, or I want to finish that missions or even I wans such loot, when a game there is nothing to add to it it will lose space to something else
that is what is happening, a lot of people are even saying they will try to comeback in 6 months to see how the game is, and we kno in 6 months most will be busy with something else and will not even remember this. plus there is the saturation of destiny 1 and 2 and hell gonna put MHW since most system looks like copy of it
if you are ok with anthem now it means the saturation still not get to you, but if you did play older games who did the same then saturation is in and you will not waste time again in a game who the bads are annoying and others game do the same and better
I still have a hard time considering 30 hours particularly good for a paid title, especially one that competes with games that I've personally accrued thousands of hours in.
To each their own I guess, I never understood the more is better stance. Some titles greatly benefit from a shorter length, others don’t. But panning it out for the sake of value has never benefited a game. Lets just agree to disagree.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
That requires it to be worth the cost. Each Mass Efect title, for the same cost, gave me at least double that play time with a solid story.
Anthem gave a more generic experience in half the time, but same cost. The value per dollar just does not add up well.
And you have to account for the type of game this is. Bioware released this game with a plan to keep supporting post release as a live service.
A live service is meant to be played ongoing, not for 30 hours and dropped. I can understand those agreeing with you not knowing this, as at least one of them showed they were unaware of genes before, but you at least should understand that a genre meant to be persistent requires a persistent user experience.
Thanks for the explanation. You could also say that the ME games offer an insane amount of fun for the money, unless you don’t like them, then they offer very little. What I am trying to say is that value is personal. I bought Hellblade for 40 bucks, finished it in 10 hours enjoyed myself more then I did with the entire ME trilogy for instance.
A live service means a company keeps supporting and adding to the game, it doesn’t mean it needs to have X hours of content to qualify. Its all about expectations and personal preference, its almost impossible to objectively tell others if something is worth it.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
That ignored the non-subjective factor. Cost per hour. A game that costs $60 and returns 30 hours vs a game that costs $60 and returns 60 hours. One is simply the more effective title. Then you contrast that to other live services that run for considerably more hours.
And it's to that end on live services as well. The game doesn't need everything in it at release, it needs to be functional as a live service. IE, where's the replayability and cause for investment. Given the broken nature of the loot and many other standing bugs in the game and inability to replay missions outside of queuing for quick play which dominantly results in broken missions, there is a distinct lack.
It does need the ability to persist as a live service, otherwise you play it and drop it and the "live service" means absolutely nothing.
I definitely agree with the second part of your post, I have no clue about how broken or buggy Anthem is, I haven’t played it yet.
I really can’t agree with the first part though, it isn’t about length of a game versus costs, its about enjoyment versus costs, length means nothing if the enjoyment isn’t there and that enjoyment is personal. Like I said before, lets just agree to disagree, I get what you are saying, I just don’t think you are right.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
This is basically just you saying you prefer to use a subjective metric over an objective one.
Time/cost gives a clear point on the value for how much that time cost the consumer to experience. It's certainly better if you enjoyed it, but fact is, they still paid for it. The longer something plays for, the lower that cost ratio tends to be, and you'd also generally be safe to assume they are entertained if they are willing to stick with it like that.
A game being short, but costly, still makes it costly even if you enjoyed it. Only then, do you factor in if your enjoyment was great enough versus the time vs cost to make that worth it.
That's rather the point right there. Having a blast for five minutes at $60 a pop is not generally considered sustainable entertainment. something that's relatively fun for five minutes at $0.25 a pop is.
If the return per those five minutes, or hour/whatever time scale is too dragged out, then the cost ratio is broken any ways. If it's too high, then it's not worth the cost regardless of being fun.
Hence where people like me sit with Andromeda. We can soundly say we find the game is fun, but it is simply not worth the current price point because the cost over time for the content delivered is currently not in balance.
Dollars/hour is a subjective metric in and of itself for multiple reasons.
One is that quality can't be measured through quantity. Dynasty Warriors 9 is an enormous game with over a hundred characters with campaigns that can last 100+ hours each. But it's also a terrible excuse of a game. On the flip side, The Last of Us is considered a work of art despite not being an especially long game.
Dollars/hour is usually a metric valued by a player who can only afford a few games each year, because they want to ensure that each purchase stretches until their next.
Someone who can afford more games is more concerned with the quality of the experience. Hell, if they are employed and typically only have a few hours or less to spare for games per day, they may actually PREFER games with shorter campaigns, as their mindset switches from wanting to spend as long as possible in one universe to wanting to experience as many stories as possible. I certainly fall into this camp, as I've increasingly dropped MMOs and large open world games in favor of shorter, more linear story games.
Dollars/hour is a subjective metric in and of itself for multiple reasons.
One is that quality can't be measured through quantity. Dynasty Warriors 9 is an enormous game with over a hundred characters with campaigns that can last 100+ hours each. But it's also a terrible excuse of a game. On the flip side, The Last of Us is considered a work of art despite not being an especially long game.
Dollars/hour is usually a metric valued by a player who can only afford a few games each year, because they want to ensure that each purchase stretches until their next.
Someone who can afford more games is more concerned with the quality of the experience. Hell, if they are employed and typically only have a few hours or less to spare for games per day, they may actually PREFER games with shorter campaigns, as their mindset switches from wanting to spend as long as possible in one universe to wanting to experience as many stories as possible. I certainly fall into this camp, as I've increasingly dropped MMOs and large open world games in favor of shorter, more linear story games.
shorter games are more annoying then anything if you ask me I like long campaigns.
and I find it strange, really I read some people already asking for the last boss, I know some people take days off to play but that is.... a lot hardcore, or really short...
It isn't that I've dropped long games entirely. Hell, I'm on my second playthrough of Persona 5, a 130+ hour game. However, even for a game like that, I don't enjoy it because it offers a lot of playtime. I enjoy it because of the story, characters, gameplay, music, and artstyle. The fact that I've spent 150 hours doesn't even register while I'm playing it, as I'm more concerned with its smooth perfection of turn-based JRPG combat and addictive acid jazz soundtrack.
I still have a hard time considering 30 hours particularly good for a paid title, especially one that competes with games that I've personally accrued thousands of hours in.
To each their own I guess, I never understood the more is better stance. Some titles greatly benefit from a shorter length, others don’t. But panning it out for the sake of value has never benefited a game. Lets just agree to disagree.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
That requires it to be worth the cost. Each Mass Efect title, for the same cost, gave me at least double that play time with a solid story.
Anthem gave a more generic experience in half the time, but same cost. The value per dollar just does not add up well.
And you have to account for the type of game this is. Bioware released this game with a plan to keep supporting post release as a live service.
A live service is meant to be played ongoing, not for 30 hours and dropped. I can understand those agreeing with you not knowing this, as at least one of them showed they were unaware of genes before, but you at least should understand that a genre meant to be persistent requires a persistent user experience.
Thanks for the explanation. You could also say that the ME games offer an insane amount of fun for the money, unless you don’t like them, then they offer very little. What I am trying to say is that value is personal. I bought Hellblade for 40 bucks, finished it in 10 hours enjoyed myself more then I did with the entire ME trilogy for instance.
A live service means a company keeps supporting and adding to the game, it doesn’t mean it needs to have X hours of content to qualify. Its all about expectations and personal preference, its almost impossible to objectively tell others if something is worth it.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
That ignored the non-subjective factor. Cost per hour. A game that costs $60 and returns 30 hours vs a game that costs $60 and returns 60 hours. One is simply the more effective title. Then you contrast that to other live services that run for considerably more hours.
And it's to that end on live services as well. The game doesn't need everything in it at release, it needs to be functional as a live service. IE, where's the replayability and cause for investment. Given the broken nature of the loot and many other standing bugs in the game and inability to replay missions outside of queuing for quick play which dominantly results in broken missions, there is a distinct lack.
It does need the ability to persist as a live service, otherwise you play it and drop it and the "live service" means absolutely nothing.
I definitely agree with the second part of your post, I have no clue about how broken or buggy Anthem is, I haven’t played it yet.
I really can’t agree with the first part though, it isn’t about length of a game versus costs, its about enjoyment versus costs, length means nothing if the enjoyment isn’t there and that enjoyment is personal. Like I said before, lets just agree to disagree, I get what you are saying, I just don’t think you are right.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
This is basically just you saying you prefer to use a subjective metric over an objective one.
Time/cost gives a clear point on the value for how much that time cost the consumer to experience. It's certainly better if you enjoyed it, but fact is, they still paid for it. The longer something plays for, the lower that cost ratio tends to be, and you'd also generally be safe to assume they are entertained if they are willing to stick with it like that.
A game being short, but costly, still makes it costly even if you enjoyed it. Only then, do you factor in if your enjoyment was great enough versus the time vs cost to make that worth it.
That's rather the point right there. Having a blast for five minutes at $60 a pop is not generally considered sustainable entertainment. something that's relatively fun for five minutes at $0.25 a pop is.
If the return per those five minutes, or hour/whatever time scale is too dragged out, then the cost ratio is broken any ways. If it's too high, then it's not worth the cost regardless of being fun.
Hence where people like me sit with Andromeda. We can soundly say we find the game is fun, but it is simply not worth the current price point because the cost over time for the content delivered is currently not in balance.
I enjoy very, very long games too, or average games for a decent price. I simply can´t agree with the rest though, you try to shoehorn objectitvity into an entertainment product, I can´t rhyme that. We are in danger of trying to keep explaining our views to each other without us getting any closer but I´ll give you one final example of why I can´t agree with you.
I own Asura´s Wrath on the PS3. Its a 60 bucks game that only lasts 7 hours, an anime power fantasy full of nonsense. I have loved every minute of it and that means I spent roughly 8,5 bucks an hour for pure quality (imho of course). I also own Eve Online, which I bought for 20 bucks and came with a free month offering hundreds of hours of entertainment. I lasted 1 hour and found it a horrible game. So I spent 20 bucks an hour even though the game was cheaper AND offered more content. So, which one offers more value? Its a personal thing.
Don't assume I think you are wrong btw, you just see it differently then I do, nothing wrong with that.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Dollars/hour is a subjective metric in and of itself for multiple reasons.
One is that quality can't be measured through quantity. Dynasty Warriors 9 is an enormous game with over a hundred characters with campaigns that can last 100+ hours each. But it's also a terrible excuse of a game. On the flip side, The Last of Us is considered a work of art despite not being an especially long game.
Dollars/hour is usually a metric valued by a player who can only afford a few games each year, because they want to ensure that each purchase stretches until their next.
Someone who can afford more games is more concerned with the quality of the experience. Hell, if they are employed and typically only have a few hours or less to spare for games per day, they may actually PREFER games with shorter campaigns, as their mindset switches from wanting to spend as long as possible in one universe to wanting to experience as many stories as possible. I certainly fall into this camp, as I've increasingly dropped MMOs and large open world games in favor of shorter, more linear story games.
And you won't play those 100 hours if there's no reason to. That was already addressed in relation to scale being offset by purpose.
Same point to address Lahnmar's statement, as it seems his argument has become mostly just a matter of the same statement from a different perspective, I can restate this;
Just because you can afford more games does not make the value analysis of how much time you've played it versus how much that time played has cost you stop existing. That is an objective metric regardless of anything else that happens.
Your Dynasty Warriors example does exactly that. You played 1 hour for $60. Lahnmar's example was EVE with 1 hour for 20$.
His Asura example also sits in the situation where he has 1 hour for $8.5, which given the enjoyment he claims to have had could potentially be replayed to drive that cost down further while maintaining a positive entertainment value.
The example was a point in case to the measure of time vs cost. Even with a short game, the time played versus cost put it remains lower than that of a larger title.
Which then cycles right back to my point. Anthem is not intended to be a short game by the devs/publisher. Hence the "live service" moniker. You enjoying short campaigns does not mean much in regards to the fact that the devs intend this to be a title people play over a long term. That's the point of them having road maps and plans for regular content updates. They want players to stick around.
But there simply is not enough there for that to happen. When the first real addition of content and gear is ~ a month out, people are going to be playing the waiting game for something new to consume.
It isn't that I've dropped long games entirely. Hell, I'm on my second playthrough of Persona 5, a 130+ hour game. However, even for a game like that, I don't enjoy it because it offers a lot of playtime. I enjoy it because of the story, characters, gameplay, music, and artstyle. The fact that I've spent 150 hours doesn't even register while I'm playing it, as I'm more concerned with its smooth perfection of turn-based JRPG combat and addictive acid jazz soundtrack.
$0.40 an hour then. You'd still be able to objectively note the cost of the game is low for the value returned in time played.
Which goes right against your Dynasty Warriors example of 1 hour for `$60, which proves out a high return for time played.
Your examples are reductive because they rely on hyperbole.
5 minutes for 60 dollars is not something that any game offers, unless you drop it within 5 minutes.
Furthermore, dollars per hour assumes that you play a game for its full length in one playthrough. It isn't about dropping a game within an hour or replaying a game many times.
If Persona 5 has a 130 hour campaign (it could be more or less, but let's go with that number), it's value is 130/60. This does not change if you play it for one hour and never touched it again or play the entire campaign ten times. What they offered was 130 hours of content.
That applies to other mediums as well. Game of Thrones doesn't suddenly become 5 minutes long because you watched up until the first sex scene and got offended, nor does its length double if you rewatch the entire show.
Furthermore, if we use your own metric, Anthems dollar/hr value is also going to be subjective. You could play for 3 hours and get bored, 30 hours and get bored, or 300 hours and keep playing. There are, after all, people who still play Diablo 3 for thousands of hours when it only has a few hours of content, not counting the minor differences brought on by procedural generation.
So not only is enjoyment a subjective metric, but dollars/hr is as well. You can't have it both ways. Is dollars/hr based on unique content, or does replaying the same content increase the value ratio?
Your examples are reductive because they rely on hyperbole.
5 minutes for 60 dollars is not something that any game offers, unless you drop it within 5 minutes.
Furthermore, dollars per hour assumes that you play a game for its full length in one playthrough. It isn't about dropping a game within an hour or replaying a game many times.
If Persona 5 has a 130 hour campaign (it could be more or less, but let's go with that number), it's value is 130/60. This does not change if you play it for one hour and never touched it again or play the entire campaign ten times. What they offered was 130 hours of content.
That applies to other mediums as well. Game of Thrones doesn't suddenly become 5 minutes long because you watched up until the first sex scene and got offended, nor does its length double if you rewatch the entire show.
Furthermore, if we use your own metric, Anthems dollar/hr value is also going to be subjective. You could play for 3 hours and get bored, 30 hours and get bored, or 300 hours and keep playing. There are, after all, people who still play Diablo 3 for thousands of hours when it only has a few hours of content, not counting the minor differences brought on by procedural generation.
So not only is enjoyment a subjective metric, but dollars/hr is as well. You can't have it both ways. Is dollars/hr based on unique content, or does replaying the same content increase the value ratio?
An example taking two extremes to display the extremes of a value is not reductive. I used your own examples to prove the point as well, which themselves offered similar disparity in value as the things you claimed were hyperbole, would you call those examples of your reductive or hyperbole? Were you lying about how much you played them?
And no, dollars per hour is how much time you played versus the cost. That was stated clearly several times now. You changing the rules to fit your opinion means you are not even making an argument for the same subject.
So if you want to argue something entirely different than what's actually been discussed, then fine, but do understand you are actively trying to shift the argument instead of address the one that was actually posed. The statement was based on "time played", not "might be played".
And so, stating on track instead of participating in your tangent. Anthem's dollar value is relative to the individual at a granular level, yes, but that is not a subjective result. It was also the point of bringing up the average time played for most consumers, and that if that average is stopping at 30 hours, then it's cost to time played is not a good ratio.
Some people can enjoy a game for a long time while it's overall objective scoring remains low, there are still people playing APB:Reloaded for example. Per-individual you can then claim the game scores great. For the actual overall time invested of the playerbase though, then reality kicks in. You need enough people averaging a higher ratio for a live service to sustain it's existence.
So not only is it still an objective metric, you have had to try and change the subject of it to make it fit your opinion, which it still doesn't. Only one way was being explained here, I have on interest in dancing around these arguments where you are just going to change things.
Dollars per hour, by your own definition is literally not an objective metric precisely because that time will vary by player based on replayability and personal enjoyment.
The only way you can even have a pretense of objectivity is by taking the average of all players. The problem with this, however, and the reason why this is a bad metric of value, is because games, especially live games, find their long term success in their more dedicated players, while a majority of day one players will drop the game shortly after launch. So, the game's dollar/hr average in your definition is being defined more by players who do not play it than those who do.
Furthermore, do DLC purchases lower the value ratio being offered? If I buy a skin in Anthem, does my dollar/hr ratio go down, even though that skin is not content and was not mandatory? If I bought that skin, I clearly like the game and I am clearly gaining enjoyment out of that skin, but this does not directly elongate my experience and does increase the cost.
There are so many reasons why dollars/hr is not and cannot be objective. And it also assumes that all enjoyment is equal.
Dollars per hour, by your own definition is literally not an objective metric precisely because that time will vary by player based on replayability and personal enjoyment.
The only way you can even have a pretense of objectivity is by taking the average of all players. The problem with this, however, and the reason why this is a bad metric of value, is because games, especially live games, find their long term success in their more dedicated players, while a majority of day one players will drop the game shortly after launch. So, the game's dollar/hr average in your definition is being defined more by players who do not play it than those who do.
Furthermore, do DLC purchases lower the value ratio being offered? If I buy a skin in Anthem, does my dollar/hr ratio go down, even though that skin is not content and was not mandatory? If I bought that skin, I clearly like the game and I am clearly gaining enjoyment out of that skin, but this does not directly elongate my experience and does increase the cost.
There are so many reasons why dollars/hr is not and cannot be objective. And it also assumes that all enjoyment is equal.
Variance in time still results in an objectively calculable number. Relativity, not subjectivity. You really need to learn the difference.
This relates to how any live service like an MMO has had to track their numbers for a long time now. You do it by accounting for active users over a specific period of time. There is no magic here, we've done analytics like this internally for decades. From the business side of things we refer to it as "Customer Lifetime Value". Essentially, how much time a user invests into a title as compared to their monetary input. This is in parallel to sessions per user, session duration, and dropoff rates.
It's excessively valuable data because it's an indication of what the trend of your overall game is, and where the recurring value (if any) in your game is for you to identify and work on.
Problem with your arguments has been that while , yes, a short game can still be a good value, it is not good value if that's not what that game is meant to be. Consequently that low retention leads to loss of expected financial gains over time from recurring users simply not existing. From the user side this is reflected in a high dollar value versus for the developer it being a low one, but the core logic is consistent between both.
And DLC and skins are content. They are literally an asset in the game you have put down money for, for one reason or another.
There are actually many reasons dollars/hr is actually a very important and objective metric. It's been an important element of data analytics for live services for many years. It's a part of player retention. And no, it does not assume anything about enjoyment, it is simply agnostic to that outside the general logic that the longer a person plays something, the more likely it is they enjoy it (exception being sunk cost fallacy).
I know as a gamer this is not something you or others like you are likely to be aware of, but it is an industry standard for data analytics and part of the many numbers reviewed for financials.
I also don't think that time played needs to be high to justify a purchase. If I have a good time that is all that matters. Doesn't matter if I spent 20 hours on the game or 100+. I think there is way more to it than time.
It's not like time is the only thing being counted against the game currently any ways. I mentioned it as a factor because most other parts were already part of discussions. And it remains a point that if there is not sufficient content to sustain a game meant to be keep a title afloat for a long time, then that remains a problem.
People consuming a live service as a short/isolated experience, means it is not operating as the intended live service. Simple as that.
Comments
"The game forces me to play Freeplay with three other players..."
I've got a friend that claims this is an outright lie. He has played by himself in Freeplay or with 1 other person.
Anthem gave a more generic experience in half the time, but same cost. The value per dollar just does not add up well.
And you have to account for the type of game this is. Bioware released this game with a plan to keep supporting post release as a live service.
A live service is meant to be played ongoing, not for 30 hours and dropped. I can understand those agreeing with you not knowing this, as at least one of them showed they were unaware of genes before, but you at least should understand that a genre meant to be persistent requires a persistent user experience.
Just because they don't report on it here, doesn't mean that it's not happening and that the more popular sites have hundreds of articles and videos on this topic over the years.
EA: "Don't buy the game."
https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/271407-ea-on-the-battlefield-v-backlash-accept-it-or-dont-buy-the-game
EA blaming Mass Effect failure on gamers
EA blaming Microtransactions on gamers
EA blaming Battlefield V failure on gamers
I didn't even mention the racist tweets EA employees made sounding like a bunch of cat ladies (all fired now). Maybe they can get jobs at Starbucks with their pink hair and nose piercings lol.
Oh well, they are getting PUNISHED for it where it matters, in the wallet.
Get woke, go broke.
Warms my heart. lol
Now I'll be the first to admit this game has issues. Load times are obnoxious. The menus are a bit confusing. Why is there no way to set a way point in a group oriented game? Loot's a bit stale.
Overall though this is a game that has a ton of potential if people would just be patient. I guess I'm just over people expecting games to be spot on the second they hit.
It's not about being "spot on", it's about the standards just not being there and the baseline for a full-price paid release not being met.
A live service means a company keeps supporting and adding to the game, it doesn’t mean it needs to have X hours of content to qualify. Its all about expectations and personal preference, its almost impossible to objectively tell others if something is worth it.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
ME1 was good, in my opinion. Very flawed, but good.
ME2 was a masterpiece.
ME3 was a mixed bag. It felt good to play and suitably epic, but I also hated its new squad members, considering James and EDI to be among the worst in any Bioware game. It also felt like they were making Mass Effect fanfiction at a few points.
ME Andromeda is an actual joke. Like, everything good about it is done better in Anthem, and everything bad about it was basically scrapped for Anthem.
That doesn't make Anthem better than Mass Effect 2 by any means, but it certainly handles ... everything... better than Andromeda did. Andromeda's combat (its one saving grace) is improved upon for Anthem, as is its combo system and flight. And if they fix the 0 rolls and mis-matched modifiers, the loot will also be better. Facial animations are also improved upon, and while Anthem's story and characters certainly aren't winning any Pulitzers, they are a step up from Andromeda's.
And it's to that end on live services as well. The game doesn't need everything in it at release, it needs to be functional as a live service. IE, where's the replayability and cause for investment. Given the broken nature of the loot and many other standing bugs in the game and inability to replay missions outside of queuing for quick play which dominantly results in broken missions, there is a distinct lack.
It does need the ability to persist as a live service, otherwise you play it and drop it and the "live service" means absolutely nothing.
I really can’t agree with the first part though, it isn’t about length of a game versus costs, its about enjoyment versus costs, length means nothing if the enjoyment isn’t there and that enjoyment is personal. Like I said before, lets just agree to disagree, I get what you are saying, I just don’t think you are right.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Anthem, to that end, at least had one of the older teams on main development. This doesn't pan out to accommodate the development of a new type of game the studio simply hadn't done before, but the core competency in basic development was just better.
Though, that makes for a poor situation to try and justify some of the bugs and errors in design that leave you wondering how they made it into the game. Like why there aren't loot tables for gear bonuses in the first place. Bethesda's games are riddled with bugs and they still manage to implement that.
Time/cost gives a clear point on the value for how much that time cost the consumer to experience. It's certainly better if you enjoyed it, but fact is, they still paid for it. The longer something plays for, the lower that cost ratio tends to be, and you'd also generally be safe to assume they are entertained if they are willing to stick with it like that.
A game being short, but costly, still makes it costly even if you enjoyed it. Only then, do you factor in if your enjoyment was great enough versus the time vs cost to make that worth it.
That's rather the point right there. Having a blast for five minutes at $60 a pop is not generally considered sustainable entertainment. something that's relatively fun for five minutes at $0.25 a pop is.
If the return per those five minutes, or hour/whatever time scale is too dragged out, then the cost ratio is broken any ways. If it's too high, then it's not worth the cost regardless of being fun.
Hence where people like me sit with Andromeda. We can soundly say we find the game is fun, but it is simply not worth the current price point because the cost over time for the content delivered is currently not in balance.
One is that quality can't be measured through quantity. Dynasty Warriors 9 is an enormous game with over a hundred characters with campaigns that can last 100+ hours each. But it's also a terrible excuse of a game. On the flip side, The Last of Us is considered a work of art despite not being an especially long game.
Dollars/hour is usually a metric valued by a player who can only afford a few games each year, because they want to ensure that each purchase stretches until their next.
Someone who can afford more games is more concerned with the quality of the experience. Hell, if they are employed and typically only have a few hours or less to spare for games per day, they may actually PREFER games with shorter campaigns, as their mindset switches from wanting to spend as long as possible in one universe to wanting to experience as many stories as possible. I certainly fall into this camp, as I've increasingly dropped MMOs and large open world games in favor of shorter, more linear story games.
I own Asura´s Wrath on the PS3. Its a 60 bucks game that only lasts 7 hours, an anime power fantasy full of nonsense. I have loved every minute of it and that means I spent roughly 8,5 bucks an hour for pure quality (imho of course). I also own Eve Online, which I bought for 20 bucks and came with a free month offering hundreds of hours of entertainment. I lasted 1 hour and found it a horrible game. So I spent 20 bucks an hour even though the game was cheaper AND offered more content. So, which one offers more value? Its a personal thing.
Don't assume I think you are wrong btw, you just see it differently then I do, nothing wrong with that.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Same point to address Lahnmar's statement, as it seems his argument has become mostly just a matter of the same statement from a different perspective, I can restate this;
"That's rather the point right there. Having a blast for five minutes at $60 a pop is not generally considered sustainable entertainment. something that's relatively fun for five minutes at $0.25 a pop is.
Read more at https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/479592/anthem-review-here-we-go-again-mmorpg-com/p10#edVA17QkDEv0EFok.99"
Just because you can afford more games does not make the value analysis of how much time you've played it versus how much that time played has cost you stop existing. That is an objective metric regardless of anything else that happens.
Your Dynasty Warriors example does exactly that. You played 1 hour for $60. Lahnmar's example was EVE with 1 hour for 20$.
His Asura example also sits in the situation where he has 1 hour for $8.5, which given the enjoyment he claims to have had could potentially be replayed to drive that cost down further while maintaining a positive entertainment value.
The example was a point in case to the measure of time vs cost. Even with a short game, the time played versus cost put it remains lower than that of a larger title.
Which then cycles right back to my point. Anthem is not intended to be a short game by the devs/publisher. Hence the "live service" moniker. You enjoying short campaigns does not mean much in regards to the fact that the devs intend this to be a title people play over a long term. That's the point of them having road maps and plans for regular content updates. They want players to stick around.
But there simply is not enough there for that to happen. When the first real addition of content and gear is ~ a month out, people are going to be playing the waiting game for something new to consume.
Which goes right against your Dynasty Warriors example of 1 hour for `$60, which proves out a high return for time played.
You play Persona 5 more and that cost will go down more, which as I noted;
"The longer something plays for, the lower that cost ratio tends to be, and you'd also generally be safe to assume they are entertained if they are willing to stick with it like that."
Read more at https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/479592/anthem-review-here-we-go-again-mmorpg-com/p10#xtULIdIjfMWMY2xy.99
5 minutes for 60 dollars is not something that any game offers, unless you drop it within 5 minutes.
Furthermore, dollars per hour assumes that you play a game for its full length in one playthrough. It isn't about dropping a game within an hour or replaying a game many times.
If Persona 5 has a 130 hour campaign (it could be more or less, but let's go with that number), it's value is 130/60. This does not change if you play it for one hour and never touched it again or play the entire campaign ten times. What they offered was 130 hours of content.
That applies to other mediums as well. Game of Thrones doesn't suddenly become 5 minutes long because you watched up until the first sex scene and got offended, nor does its length double if you rewatch the entire show.
Furthermore, if we use your own metric, Anthems dollar/hr value is also going to be subjective. You could play for 3 hours and get bored, 30 hours and get bored, or 300 hours and keep playing. There are, after all, people who still play Diablo 3 for thousands of hours when it only has a few hours of content, not counting the minor differences brought on by procedural generation.
So not only is enjoyment a subjective metric, but dollars/hr is as well. You can't have it both ways. Is dollars/hr based on unique content, or does replaying the same content increase the value ratio?
And no, dollars per hour is how much time you played versus the cost. That was stated clearly several times now. You changing the rules to fit your opinion means you are not even making an argument for the same subject.
So if you want to argue something entirely different than what's actually been discussed, then fine, but do understand you are actively trying to shift the argument instead of address the one that was actually posed. The statement was based on "time played", not "might be played".
And so, stating on track instead of participating in your tangent. Anthem's dollar value is relative to the individual at a granular level, yes, but that is not a subjective result. It was also the point of bringing up the average time played for most consumers, and that if that average is stopping at 30 hours, then it's cost to time played is not a good ratio.
Some people can enjoy a game for a long time while it's overall objective scoring remains low, there are still people playing APB:Reloaded for example. Per-individual you can then claim the game scores great. For the actual overall time invested of the playerbase though, then reality kicks in. You need enough people averaging a higher ratio for a live service to sustain it's existence.
So not only is it still an objective metric, you have had to try and change the subject of it to make it fit your opinion, which it still doesn't. Only one way was being explained here, I have on interest in dancing around these arguments where you are just going to change things.
The only way you can even have a pretense of objectivity is by taking the average of all players. The problem with this, however, and the reason why this is a bad metric of value, is because games, especially live games, find their long term success in their more dedicated players, while a majority of day one players will drop the game shortly after launch. So, the game's dollar/hr average in your definition is being defined more by players who do not play it than those who do.
Furthermore, do DLC purchases lower the value ratio being offered? If I buy a skin in Anthem, does my dollar/hr ratio go down, even though that skin is not content and was not mandatory? If I bought that skin, I clearly like the game and I am clearly gaining enjoyment out of that skin, but this does not directly elongate my experience and does increase the cost.
There are so many reasons why dollars/hr is not and cannot be objective. And it also assumes that all enjoyment is equal.
Which compounds with the point that was made regarding APB. Your own argument lacks this revelation;
"You need enough people averaging a higher ratio for a live service to sustain it's existence."
Read more at https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/479592/anthem-review-here-we-go-again-mmorpg-com/p10#77sXwtqOjvirpvt1.99
This relates to how any live service like an MMO has had to track their numbers for a long time now. You do it by accounting for active users over a specific period of time. There is no magic here, we've done analytics like this internally for decades. From the business side of things we refer to it as "Customer Lifetime Value". Essentially, how much time a user invests into a title as compared to their monetary input. This is in parallel to sessions per user, session duration, and dropoff rates.
It's excessively valuable data because it's an indication of what the trend of your overall game is, and where the recurring value (if any) in your game is for you to identify and work on.
Problem with your arguments has been that while , yes, a short game can still be a good value, it is not good value if that's not what that game is meant to be. Consequently that low retention leads to loss of expected financial gains over time from recurring users simply not existing. From the user side this is reflected in a high dollar value versus for the developer it being a low one, but the core logic is consistent between both.
And DLC and skins are content. They are literally an asset in the game you have put down money for, for one reason or another.
There are actually many reasons dollars/hr is actually a very important and objective metric. It's been an important element of data analytics for live services for many years. It's a part of player retention. And no, it does not assume anything about enjoyment, it is simply agnostic to that outside the general logic that the longer a person plays something, the more likely it is they enjoy it (exception being sunk cost fallacy).
I know as a gamer this is not something you or others like you are likely to be aware of, but it is an industry standard for data analytics and part of the many numbers reviewed for financials.
People consuming a live service as a short/isolated experience, means it is not operating as the intended live service. Simple as that.
Shows how much changing syntax a little can change an opinion I guess.