AAA Video Games are no longer games. They are now video toys. We'll have some limited addition video action figures coming up real soon. Hurry up and get yours while supplies last.
I think this whole Star Wars:Battlefront II thing is a classic example of the snowball effect. I think there were people that were really interested in this game and felt shafted by the system in EA had put in place. However I think people are just laying it on because it is EA and their business practices in the past have also reeked of such shenanigans.
AAA Video Games are no longer games. They are now video toys. We'll have some limited addition video action figures coming up real soon. Hurry up and get yours while supplies last.
You mean amiibo?
I learn something new everyday
Amiibo's are in the physical realm, I'm talking pixel power.
I'm going to buy 10 copies just to make the MT whiners cringe.
That'll show em. You'll definitely get in an invite to The Skulls for this.
I know right! It's kind of like boycotting. Video game development costs are getting higher and higher as consumer demands for higher fidelity graphics and better gaming experiences continue to grow. However, if you ask for $100 for the game, people complain (actually, they complained about a $10 hike with the release of the PS4, so it doesn't even need to be $100). So they offset that cost by monetizing the 1%. The 99% who aren't actually going to buy anything, anyway, complain. Sooooooo, the message that is being sent here is what? Oh yeah! They already told us! It's not worth making single player experiences anymore
See, there is an error in logic in not buying the game. First of all, there isn't enough people NOT buying the game to make a difference. Secondly, when half the revenue for the game is coming from microtransactions, 50,000, 100,000, shit 500,000 copies probably doesn't amount to a hill of beans. There are 2 things that make boycotts work. 1) Affect their bottom line. That rarely happens because there is never enough support for the boycott to have an impact. 2) Affect their reputation. Very effective..... unless we're talking about EA, in which case they are already the most hated in the industry, so you can't actually impact them at all with a boycott. From an industry standpoint, this whole microtransaction fight needs to be handled like a civil war, among the community. It needs to be socially unacceptable to do this, to the point that nobody actually wants to buy anything because they will be shunned. That way, you actually make microtransactions less appealing to the 1%, or whatever small percentage, who do actually use them.
Yeah, I bet game development costs are getting real fucking high as high quality standard engines become more affordable, manufacturing costs become almost non existent as digital continues to increase its dominance of the market, and offshore tax havens are used to avoid paying taxes.
No one in the industry actually uses this argument. Only corporate shills and fanboys. Want to know why? Because it's patently false. It's a convenient lie to hide behind.
They release multiple special editions because they want to. They nickel and dime us with microtransactions because they want to. They introduce fucking gambling mechanics because they want to. Want to. Not need to.
Similar to how you believe these are convenient excuses made up by fan boys, if you took the time to actually look at their financials, you'd understand that without microtransactions, subscriptions, and subscriptions, they would be losing money. That's right! The boxed game doesn't actually make the company money. Could they reduce costs? Probably. However, you also need to remember that companies like EA NEED to market because they are talking to casuals.
Please! PLEASE.... give me a lesson on industry finances and how things need to run. I'm sure that there are lots of companies eagerly awaiting your guidance! Lol.
As far as people in the industry not using this argument, I've seen no less than 3 articles about this subject at gamespot, from interviews with people in the industry, in the past month. All support the idea that game costs are rising and they need additional monetization to justify development.
Damn Bethesda must have lost their shirts selling that single player game Wolfenstein 2 with no mts.
Are you saying they haven't? First of all, the scope is much different. Second of all, they haven't even broken 200k sales on steam. You're referencing a game, in jest, stating that the developer must have lost their shirts, but there has been ACTUAL discussion (industry news articles) that Wolfenstein 2 may flop as a high fidelity game like this without multiplayer just doesn't work.
Maybe you've got some information I've been missing, though. Feel free to send it my way.
I was searching for the flop articles, but have as of yet found any. Can you send those my way?
I don't doubt it won't sell as well as a multiplayer title, because there's inherently more replay value in multiplayer than anstory-drive singleplayer game, but that has nothing to do with a chosen revenue model. That's about the initial box price and the longevity a player can expect. But I'm interested in reading the articles you mention.
EDIT- food for thought, as many as 4 years ago, the value of PvP in engaging and retaining players was already being established. Singleplayer lack this.
Linked article references a Kongregate analysis showing how PvP engagement helps boost player engagement. Has this trend of multiplayer boosting retention somehow been mitigated or reversed since then?
I'm going to buy 10 copies just to make the MT whiners cringe.
That'll show em. You'll definitely get in an invite to The Skulls for this.
I know right! It's kind of like boycotting. Video game development costs are getting higher and higher as consumer demands for higher fidelity graphics and better gaming experiences continue to grow. However, if you ask for $100 for the game, people complain (actually, they complained about a $10 hike with the release of the PS4, so it doesn't even need to be $100). So they offset that cost by monetizing the 1%. The 99% who aren't actually going to buy anything, anyway, complain. Sooooooo, the message that is being sent here is what? Oh yeah! They already told us! It's not worth making single player experiences anymore
See, there is an error in logic in not buying the game. First of all, there isn't enough people NOT buying the game to make a difference. Secondly, when half the revenue for the game is coming from microtransactions, 50,000, 100,000, shit 500,000 copies probably doesn't amount to a hill of beans. There are 2 things that make boycotts work. 1) Affect their bottom line. That rarely happens because there is never enough support for the boycott to have an impact. 2) Affect their reputation. Very effective..... unless we're talking about EA, in which case they are already the most hated in the industry, so you can't actually impact them at all with a boycott. From an industry standpoint, this whole microtransaction fight needs to be handled like a civil war, among the community. It needs to be socially unacceptable to do this, to the point that nobody actually wants to buy anything because they will be shunned. That way, you actually make microtransactions less appealing to the 1%, or whatever small percentage, who do actually use them.
Yeah, I bet game development costs are getting real fucking high as high quality standard engines become more affordable, manufacturing costs become almost non existent as digital continues to increase its dominance of the market, and offshore tax havens are used to avoid paying taxes.
No one in the industry actually uses this argument. Only corporate shills and fanboys. Want to know why? Because it's patently false. It's a convenient lie to hide behind.
They release multiple special editions because they want to. They nickel and dime us with microtransactions because they want to. They introduce fucking gambling mechanics because they want to. Want to. Not need to.
Similar to how you believe these are convenient excuses made up by fan boys, if you took the time to actually look at their financials, you'd understand that without microtransactions, subscriptions, and subscriptions, they would be losing money. That's right! The boxed game doesn't actually make the company money. Could they reduce costs? Probably. However, you also need to remember that companies like EA NEED to market because they are talking to casuals.
Please! PLEASE.... give me a lesson on industry finances and how things need to run. I'm sure that there are lots of companies eagerly awaiting your guidance! Lol.
As far as people in the industry not using this argument, I've seen no less than 3 articles about this subject at gamespot, from interviews with people in the industry, in the past month. All support the idea that game costs are rising and they need additional monetization to justify development.
Damn Bethesda must have lost their shirts selling that single player game Wolfenstein 2 with no mts.
Are you saying they haven't? First of all, the scope is much different. Second of all, they haven't even broken 200k sales on steam. You're referencing a game, in jest, stating that the developer must have lost their shirts, but there has been ACTUAL discussion (industry news articles) that Wolfenstein 2 may flop as a high fidelity game like this without multiplayer just doesn't work.
Maybe you've got some information I've been missing, though. Feel free to send it my way.
I was searching for the flop articles, but have as of yet found any. Can you send those my way?
I don't doubt it won't sell as well as a multiplayer title, because there's inherently more replay value in multiplayer than anstory-drive singleplayer game, but that has nothing to do with a chosen revenue model. That's about the initial box price and the longevity a player can expect. But I'm interested in reading the articles you mention.
EDIT- food for thought, as many as 4 years ago, the value of PvP in engaging and retaining players was already being established. Singleplayer lack this.
Linked article references a Kongregate analysis showing how PvP engagement helps boost player engagement. Has this trend of multiplayer boosting retention somehow been mitigated or reversed since then?
I haven't seen a flop article, but an article discussing it as a possibility. I can't find it right now, but I thought it was Polygon around the 27th of October? The only flop talk I've seen is speculation on 4chan. So nothing concrete, but the steam sales seem to be very light. Maybe Xmas? I'm a single player guy, so I really don't want it to flop, just seemed like an odd example to use. Why not Divinity?
Are you saying they haven't? First of all, the scope is much different. Second of all, they haven't even broken 200k sales on steam. You're referencing a game, in jest, stating that the developer must have lost their shirts, but there has been ACTUAL discussion (industry news articles) that Wolfenstein 2 may flop as a high fidelity game like this without multiplayer just doesn't work.
Maybe you've got some information I've been missing, though. Feel free to send it my way.
I was searching for the flop articles, but have as of yet found any. Can you send those my way?
I don't doubt it won't sell as well as a multiplayer title, because there's inherently more replay value in multiplayer than anstory-drive singleplayer game, but that has nothing to do with a chosen revenue model. That's about the initial box price and the longevity a player can expect. But I'm interested in reading the articles you mention.
EDIT- food for thought, as many as 4 years ago, the value of PvP in engaging and retaining players was already being established. Singleplayer lack this.
Linked article references a Kongregate analysis showing how PvP engagement helps boost player engagement. Has this trend of multiplayer boosting retention somehow been mitigated or reversed since then?
I haven't seen a flop article, but an article discussing it as a possibility. I can't find it right now, but I thought it was Polygon around the 27th of October? The only flop talk I've seen is speculation on 4chan. So nothing concrete, but the steam sales seem to be very light. Maybe Xmas? I'm a single player guy, so I really don't want it to flop, just seemed like an odd example to use. Why not Divinity?
Sorry I just pulled the first one to come to mind that released recently that I thought was getting good reviews (well I seen a good review here at least).
Hopefully CDPR doesn't fall to the dark side with Cyberpunk 2077.
I'm going to buy 10 copies just to make the MT whiners cringe.
That'll show em. You'll definitely get in an invite to The Skulls for this.
I know right! It's kind of like boycotting. Video game development costs are getting higher and higher as consumer demands for higher fidelity graphics and better gaming experiences continue to grow. However, if you ask for $100 for the game, people complain (actually, they complained about a $10 hike with the release of the PS4, so it doesn't even need to be $100). So they offset that cost by monetizing the 1%. The 99% who aren't actually going to buy anything, anyway, complain. Sooooooo, the message that is being sent here is what? Oh yeah! They already told us! It's not worth making single player experiences anymore
See, there is an error in logic in not buying the game. First of all, there isn't enough people NOT buying the game to make a difference. Secondly, when half the revenue for the game is coming from microtransactions, 50,000, 100,000, shit 500,000 copies probably doesn't amount to a hill of beans. There are 2 things that make boycotts work. 1) Affect their bottom line. That rarely happens because there is never enough support for the boycott to have an impact. 2) Affect their reputation. Very effective..... unless we're talking about EA, in which case they are already the most hated in the industry, so you can't actually impact them at all with a boycott. From an industry standpoint, this whole microtransaction fight needs to be handled like a civil war, among the community. It needs to be socially unacceptable to do this, to the point that nobody actually wants to buy anything because they will be shunned. That way, you actually make microtransactions less appealing to the 1%, or whatever small percentage, who do actually use them.
Yeah, I bet game development costs are getting real fucking high as high quality standard engines become more affordable, manufacturing costs become almost non existent as digital continues to increase its dominance of the market, and offshore tax havens are used to avoid paying taxes.
No one in the industry actually uses this argument. Only corporate shills and fanboys. Want to know why? Because it's patently false. It's a convenient lie to hide behind.
They release multiple special editions because they want to. They nickel and dime us with microtransactions because they want to. They introduce fucking gambling mechanics because they want to. Want to. Not need to.
Similar to how you believe these are convenient excuses made up by fan boys, if you took the time to actually look at their financials, you'd understand that without microtransactions, subscriptions, and subscriptions, they would be losing money. That's right! The boxed game doesn't actually make the company money. Could they reduce costs? Probably. However, you also need to remember that companies like EA NEED to market because they are talking to casuals.
Please! PLEASE.... give me a lesson on industry finances and how things need to run. I'm sure that there are lots of companies eagerly awaiting your guidance! Lol.
As far as people in the industry not using this argument, I've seen no less than 3 articles about this subject at gamespot, from interviews with people in the industry, in the past month. All support the idea that game costs are rising and they need additional monetization to justify development.
Damn Bethesda must have lost their shirts selling that single player game Wolfenstein 2 with no mts.
Are you saying they haven't? First of all, the scope is much different. Second of all, they haven't even broken 200k sales on steam. You're referencing a game, in jest, stating that the developer must have lost their shirts, but there has been ACTUAL discussion (industry news articles) that Wolfenstein 2 may flop as a high fidelity game like this without multiplayer just doesn't work.
Maybe you've got some information I've been missing, though. Feel free to send it my way.
I was searching for the flop articles, but have as of yet found any. Can you send those my way?
I don't doubt it won't sell as well as a multiplayer title, because there's inherently more replay value in multiplayer than anstory-drive singleplayer game, but that has nothing to do with a chosen revenue model. That's about the initial box price and the longevity a player can expect. But I'm interested in reading the articles you mention.
EDIT- food for thought, as many as 4 years ago, the value of PvP in engaging and retaining players was already being established. Singleplayer lack this.
Linked article references a Kongregate analysis showing how PvP engagement helps boost player engagement. Has this trend of multiplayer boosting retention somehow been mitigated or reversed since then?
I haven't seen a flop article, but an article discussing it as a possibility. I can't find it right now, but I thought it was Polygon around the 27th of October? The only flop talk I've seen is speculation on 4chan. So nothing concrete, but the steam sales seem to be very light. Maybe Xmas? I'm a single player guy, so I really don't want it to flop, just seemed like an odd example to use. Why not Divinity?
Now I wanna play OS2. Yea, just mentioning the franchise makes me fiend to play. That game is ridiculous good.
The old adage may apply more so today than ever before. Gaming is no longer for you, so good by.
It's a rich man's world, that has no room for the poor or cheap. No One Gives a Sxxt what the poor have to say or think. Boycotts, and ranting at an AMA, all just meaningless noise.
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
I want(ed) to play this game so bad, my head still spinning because DICE here (again) has made a great game. You get to play as the empire (a black female lead too) when they were dealt a huge blow, the story -just- has to be good.
Then here comes EA again, creeping up ready to do no good and stand there to suggest that 'it's best for the community'. I just can't support a full priced game and micro-transactions on top of it, others shouldn't either (IMO) just to send a message to the big wigs that this is not acceptable.
Unfortunately I know it won't change a thing, EA has been a plague on the gaming community for a very long time. It's pretty much what I'd expect hell to be like. Ran by EA, giving you AMAZING things but then saying "oh wait there is also this" then shooting you in the hands.
The old adage may apply more so today than ever before. Gaming is no longer for you, so good by.
It's a rich man's world, that has no room for the poor or cheap. No One Gives a Sxxt what the poor have to say or think. Boycotts, and ranting at an AMA, all just meaningless noise.
ROFL
Thats gotta be one of the funniest things I have ever read on these forums.
Anyone who wastes their life away, is a poor soul indeed.
I want(ed) to play this game so bad, my head still spinning because DICE here (again) has made a great game. You get to play as the empire (a black female lead too) when they were dealt a huge blow, the story -just- has to be good.
Then here comes EA again, creeping up ready to do no good and stand there to suggest that 'it's best for the community'. I just can't support a full priced game and micro-transactions on top of it, others shouldn't either (IMO) just to send a message to the big wigs that this is not acceptable.
Unfortunately I know it won't change a thing, EA has been a plague on the gaming community for a very long time. It's pretty much what I'd expect hell to be like. Ran by EA, giving you AMAZING things but then saying "oh wait there is also this" then shooting you in the hands.
If you skip a good game over rhetoric you're just screwing yourself over. Why not play and enjoy the game with whomever you want.
How very presumptuous of you to act as if he didn't come to his conclusion based on his on consumer values and his own research into the game systems, and instead simply listened to others' "rhetoric" and based his decision solely upon the opinions of others.
I want(ed) to play this game so bad, my head still spinning because DICE here (again) has made a great game. You get to play as the empire (a black female lead too) when they were dealt a huge blow, the story -just- has to be good.
Then here comes EA again, creeping up ready to do no good and stand there to suggest that 'it's best for the community'. I just can't support a full priced game and micro-transactions on top of it, others shouldn't either (IMO) just to send a message to the big wigs that this is not acceptable.
Unfortunately I know it won't change a thing, EA has been a plague on the gaming community for a very long time. It's pretty much what I'd expect hell to be like. Ran by EA, giving you AMAZING things but then saying "oh wait there is also this" then shooting you in the hands.
If you skip a good game over rhetoric you're just screwing yourself over. Why not play and enjoy the game with whomever you want.
How very presumptuous of you to act as if he didn't come to his conclusion based on his on consumer values and his own research into the game systems, and instead simply listened to others' "rhetoric" and based his decision solely upon the opinions of others.
I did presume a bit because common sense says it's very unlikely that anyone arrived at this place in a vacuum. Are you suggesting otherwise? It's very presumptuous of you to assume someone didn't.
I never said he based his decision solely on what others have said. I implied that "noise" is an influencing factor and my position being that if so then he's the only one losing out. Talk about presumptuous and putting words in others mouths. You twisted my words to fit your agenda again.
Your bias is showing. It's not at all far-fetched to think he simply agreed with those who feel as if the monetization practices inflict harm on his gameplay experience. You're the only one attempting to presume anything here; better if maybe you asked why he came to the conclusion?
Your point here basically seems to amount to: "That opinion seems to be popular around here, so I'm assuming you're just parroting it and didn't assess the situation for yourself."
I have to ask, do you guys actually think this game would be good if the price points where different? I dont think the price points are the issue, it sounds more like how they do it that is in quesiton.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I want(ed) to play this game so bad, my head still spinning because DICE here (again) has made a great game. You get to play as the empire (a black female lead too) when they were dealt a huge blow, the story -just- has to be good.
Then here comes EA again, creeping up ready to do no good and stand there to suggest that 'it's best for the community'. I just can't support a full priced game and micro-transactions on top of it, others shouldn't either (IMO) just to send a message to the big wigs that this is not acceptable.
Unfortunately I know it won't change a thing, EA has been a plague on the gaming community for a very long time. It's pretty much what I'd expect hell to be like. Ran by EA, giving you AMAZING things but then saying "oh wait there is also this" then shooting you in the hands.
If you skip a good game over rhetoric you're just screwing yourself over. Why not play and enjoy the game with whomever you want.
How very presumptuous of you to act as if he didn't come to his conclusion based on his on consumer values and his own research into the game systems, and instead simply listened to others' "rhetoric" and based his decision solely upon the opinions of others.
I did presume a bit because common sense says it's very unlikely that anyone arrived at this place in a vacuum. Are you suggesting otherwise? It's very presumptuous of you to assume someone didn't.
I never said he based his decision solely on what others have said. I implied that "noise" is an influencing factor and my position being that if so then he's the only one losing out. Talk about presumptuous and putting words in others mouths. You twisted my words to fit your agenda again.
Your bias is showing. It's not at all far-fetched to think he simply agreed with those who feel as if the monetization practices inflict harm on his gameplay experience. You're the only one attempting to presume anything here; better if maybe you asked why he came to the conclusion?
Your point here basically seems to amount to: "That opinion seems to be popular around here, so I'm assuming you're just parroting it and didn't assess the situation for yourself."
I can explain my own points. I don't need or want your lame help. Once again you love to put words into my mouth. Why don't just speak for yourself. Do you even have your own point and opinion in this? I said and implied nothing of the sort, but you infer what you want to hear. You do that a lot, rephrase what other people say how you want it framed.
So stop pretending like you know what I think and give an opinion why he shouldn't take that advice. I've already explained what I meant.
I don't need to give him an opinion on why he should or shouldn't take any advice. I trust he can make his own decisions like a big boy.
You can backtrack all you like, what you can't do is act as if your post wasn't presumptuous in its tone.
And the reason I chimed in is how incredibly hostile you got with other posters attempting to tell others how they should or shouldn't feel about the situation, only to chime in later in the same thread and imply someone's missing out, presuming (by your own phrasing) that they weren't coming to their conclusion based on their own assessment of the product's value to them, but based upon others' "rhetoric".
Not everyone assesses a purchase the same way you do. You're quick to point that out when you wanna berate someone else, but the point seems totally lost on you now.
I am simply never going to spend $60 on any computer game. But then, I think people are crazy for what they pay to watch sports live, too. Or the money some put into "F2P" games so they can have their virtual goodies, castles and empires. The whole world seems to be going crazy in a lot of different ways.
erm, have you been following the news lately? I wouldn't be asking anyone to go sitting on any laps ....
You mean Santa too? I always knew that old man was dirty as hell. Telling me to sit on his lap, asking Rudolph if I had been a baaad boy or not!!
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
I appreciate MikeB's balanced review here, it's good to support the titles you genuinely enjoy. That said at some point I need to give up on certain things(games or otherwise) due to the nature of the company behind them. Luckily for me my distaste with EA was further backed up with the progression system and loot boxes in this title. I hope the game sales under perform and whomever is steering the "Let's milk them for all they are worth" push is replaced.. whether that be one or many. A FPS with not only the ability to pay to win but a progression system built from the ground up to steer people to swipe should never be acceptable.
erm, have you been following the news lately? I wouldn't be asking anyone to go sitting on any laps ....
You mean Santa too? I always knew that old man was dirty as hell. Telling me to sit on his lap, asking Rudolph if I had been a baaad boy or not!!
Santa with a woody?
Damn it, you've been drinking again tonight
He said it was his good boy / bad boy detector! ;(
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Had I been able to buy the game and get the WHOLE game I would have purchased it. Microtransactions are meant for free to play games not games you pay a full price on.
Saw the words, "Defect to the Republic", and immediately lost what little interest I had. If I wanted that crap I'd play just about any other Star Wars game available. I'm tired of playing as a bunch of terrorists. Screw the cliched bullshit, screw the microtransactions, and screw EA.
I rooted for the Empire, and I cheered when Starkiller Base destroyed the New Republic. Just ONCE I'd like a game to give the point of view of the Empire / First Order the fair shake it deserves. I guess for now I'll just have to settle with playing through TIE Fighter again.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
I'm a big fan of Star Wars but I refuse to buy games from Electronic Arts in general as they are always a disappointment. With the lootbox / mt drama, there is even less chance with this game.
I also get curious about reviews like this. This was a very glowing review of the game, yet the majority of reviews I've read have basically called it mediocre rubbish. Whilst EA have given us a campaign this time and fleshed out some other bits, the core gameplay still seems to be over simplified and dull. The card mechanics introduced power gaps to a pvp game which is retarded. Levels that include heroes also seem to be shit as heroes are so imbalanced. I've also read on many sites that the levels themselves are crap - each seems to funnel everyone into one or two key areas, resulting in endless random killing as everyone just spams grenades and blind fires.
What confuses me even more is the review scores this game is getting. I played the last Battlefront on my brother's xbone. It was pretty mediocre. Sure, the maps look great and the graphics are pretty awesome, but the actual gameplay was dull and repetitive. It wasn't even as good as the original.
I can understand making the game for nostalgia's sake, but when you ignore a decade's worth of improvments to the FPS genre, it should not be getting high review scores.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Comments
Amiibo's are in the physical realm, I'm talking pixel power.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBattlefront/comments/7cji8a/i_work_in_electronic_media_pr_ill_tell_you_what/
I don't doubt it won't sell as well as a multiplayer title, because there's inherently more replay value in multiplayer than anstory-drive singleplayer game, but that has nothing to do with a chosen revenue model. That's about the initial box price and the longevity a player can expect. But I'm interested in reading the articles you mention.
EDIT- food for thought, as many as 4 years ago, the value of PvP in engaging and retaining players was already being established. Singleplayer lack this.
http://www.gamedonia.com/blog/pvp-increase-game-revenue
Linked article references a Kongregate analysis showing how PvP engagement helps boost player engagement. Has this trend of multiplayer boosting retention somehow been mitigated or reversed since then?
I haven't seen a flop article, but an article discussing it as a possibility. I can't find it right now, but I thought it was Polygon around the 27th of October? The only flop talk I've seen is speculation on 4chan. So nothing concrete, but the steam sales seem to be very light. Maybe Xmas? I'm a single player guy, so I really don't want it to flop, just seemed like an odd example to use. Why not Divinity?
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Hopefully CDPR doesn't fall to the dark side with Cyberpunk 2077.
It's a rich man's world, that has no room for the poor or cheap. No One Gives a Sxxt what the poor have to say or think. Boycotts, and ranting at an AMA, all just meaningless noise.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Then here comes EA again, creeping up ready to do no good and stand there to suggest that 'it's best for the community'. I just can't support a full priced game and micro-transactions on top of it, others shouldn't either (IMO) just to send a message to the big wigs that this is not acceptable.
Unfortunately I know it won't change a thing, EA has been a plague on the gaming community for a very long time. It's pretty much what I'd expect hell to be like. Ran by EA, giving you AMAZING things but then saying "oh wait there is also this" then shooting you in the hands.
Thats gotta be one of the funniest things I have ever read on these forums.
Anyone who wastes their life away, is a poor soul indeed.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Your point here basically seems to amount to: "That opinion seems to be popular around here, so I'm assuming you're just parroting it and didn't assess the situation for yourself."
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You can backtrack all you like, what you can't do is act as if your post wasn't presumptuous in its tone.
And the reason I chimed in is how incredibly hostile you got with other posters attempting to tell others how they should or shouldn't feel about the situation, only to chime in later in the same thread and imply someone's missing out, presuming (by your own phrasing) that they weren't coming to their conclusion based on their own assessment of the product's value to them, but based upon others' "rhetoric".
Not everyone assesses a purchase the same way you do. You're quick to point that out when you wanna berate someone else, but the point seems totally lost on you now.
Damn it, you've been drinking again tonight
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I rooted for the Empire, and I cheered when Starkiller Base destroyed the New Republic. Just ONCE I'd like a game to give the point of view of the Empire / First Order the fair shake it deserves. I guess for now I'll just have to settle with playing through TIE Fighter again.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
#IStandWithVic
I also get curious about reviews like this. This was a very glowing review of the game, yet the majority of reviews I've read have basically called it mediocre rubbish. Whilst EA have given us a campaign this time and fleshed out some other bits, the core gameplay still seems to be over simplified and dull. The card mechanics introduced power gaps to a pvp game which is retarded. Levels that include heroes also seem to be shit as heroes are so imbalanced. I've also read on many sites that the levels themselves are crap - each seems to funnel everyone into one or two key areas, resulting in endless random killing as everyone just spams grenades and blind fires.
What confuses me even more is the review scores this game is getting. I played the last Battlefront on my brother's xbone. It was pretty mediocre. Sure, the maps look great and the graphics are pretty awesome, but the actual gameplay was dull and repetitive. It wasn't even as good as the original.
I can understand making the game for nostalgia's sake, but when you ignore a decade's worth of improvments to the FPS genre, it should not be getting high review scores.