https://www.pcgamer.com/electronic-arts-says-the-old-way-of-releasing-games-doesnt-work-anymore/
QuoteElectronic Arts says the old way of releasing games doesn't work anymore
The Anthem experience has apparently led EA to reconsider how it launches large-scale online games.
Electronic Arts acknowledged during its Q4 2019 financial results conference call that Anthem, which it expected to be one of its biggest releases of the year, did not live up to expectations. Despite all its problems, EA reaffirmed support for both the game and developer BioWare, but it also said that the experience has led it to realize that it needs to start handling large, live-service game releases differently than it has in the past.
"The reality is, it's not just an EA challenge, it's an industry-wide challenge," CEO Andrew Wilson said during the call, referencing the difficulties of creating and operating large-scale open-world games like Anthem. "You're moving from what was initially a BioWare game which would be somewhere between 40 and 80 hours of offline play to 40 to 80 hours of offline play plus 100 or 200, 300 hours of elder game that happens with millions of other players at scale, online."
That obviously has an impact on development and QA processes, but EA is also examining how it presents new games to potential audiences, with an eye toward managing expectations. Wilson said that in Asia, major online games generally go through a soft launch and multiple community tests before everything goes live, which enables EA to get a better idea of how they'll behave at scale. In the West, however, major publishers have stuck with older conventions: A "drip-feed approach" to marketing to "build up the appetite and excitement for the game," that leads straight into release.
"As games have gotten bigger that system isn't working as as well as it has done in years gone by. So what you should expect from us is that it's not just about changing the development processes in the game, it's not just about changing the QA process in the game—although both of those things are being changed dramatically inside our organization right now—but it also comes down to changing how we launch games," Wilson said.
"You should expect that we'll start to test things like soft launches—the same things that you see in the mobile space right now. And it also comes down to changing how we communicate with players. Our entire marketing organization now is moving out of presentation mode and into conversation mode, and changing how we interact with players over time."
Wilson believes that change in approach should help ensure that games run better and more reliably when they go fully live, and will also help players "understand exactly what it is that they're going to be playing, and how they're going to be playing both on the day of launch and over time."
"We think that we're in a really good position for this—I think this gets really hard if you don't have scale to do this, and so we feel very good about it ," Wilson said. "And over time we hope that we can lead from the front and help other developers and publishers change the way they do things as well."
So Apex managed to hit the motherload with the surprise launch and now they want to ape it, but put an idelogy around it?
Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2019, 06:02:17 AM
So Apex managed to hit the motherload with the surprise launch and now they want to ape it, but put an idelogy around it?
... but:
https://www.pcgamer.com/the-pressure-to-constantly-update-games-is-pushing-the-industry-to-a-breaking-point/
Quote[...]
For a counter-example, there's Apex Legends. A game in the same genre as Fortnite, one that couldn't be any more "game as a service" unless it had a Marvel movie tie-in event. And yet, creators Respawn responded to a remarkably successful launch by saying they weren't going to change their plans and were in fact happy to update it slowly.
[...]
And what's been the reaction to this sensible approach? Analyzing the reduction in its Twitch viewership and dozens of YouTube videos declaring that four-months-old Apex Legends is dying.
It's true that Apex Legends had an average of 200,000 concurrent viewers for its first couple of weeks versus about 30,000 now. But when it launched some of the biggest and most influential streamers in the world were being paid to play it. Once those streamers went back to Fortnite (and its $100M World Cup) or onto another craze, which for many has been GTA Online roleplay, of course the viewer count went down. But when a game doesn't do its damnedest to maintain momentum by any means possible, it's punished.
[...]
It's changed how we talk about games because conversations around new games are crowded by what's being renewed, and there's only so much attention to go around. If a game like Apex Legends isn't immediately the biggest thing in its genre, naturally shrinking player counts are heralded as a sign of doom.
On the design side the effect on multiplayer games is obvious—everything about games as a service and how manipulative they can seem comes down to their need to maintain momentum. Singleplayer games aren't immune. Some of the biggest, like Assassin's Creed Odyssey, have a calculated drip-feed of progression to keep players coming back and talking about the game for months instead of weeks, only speeding up if you drop money on an XP booster.
[...]
None of this is new, but it is escalating. In 2013, EA released 13 big-budget games, not counting the likes of FIFA Manager 14 or Ultima Forever: Quest for the Avatar. Just including the tentpole releases there were six sports games in their respective annual series, a new Battlefield, Crysis, Dead Space, Army of Two, and Need for Speed, as well as a SimCity reboot and Fuse. In 2018, EA would only release seven games of comparable budgets—six annualized sports games and another new Battlefield. And yet its annual revenue has grown from $3.797 billion in 2013 to $5.15 billion in 2018.
[...]
Interesting, thanks Syt.
Without reading the entire article yet, the opening premise "Live service games have trained players to expect a constant stream of new content, and only constant work can deliver it" doesn't seem that dramatic for me. Sure, if a company's structure isn't built do deal with a constant stream of content that's an issue, but otherwise mixing that with a SaaS approach surely would be a good way to make money? I mean, that's how MMOs used to operate
Quote from: Tamas on May 08, 2019, 06:22:02 AM
Without reading the entire article yet, the opening premise "Live service games have trained players to expect a constant stream of new content, and only constant work can deliver it" doesn't seem that dramatic for me.
The premise itself is bullshit.
Live service games have trained players to expect lackluster content on launch, replaced by unbearable grind.
Here is what you do EA: Make cool games. Finish them. Then release them. Then move on to the next one.
The very model they said was dead several years ago. That one.
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2019, 10:27:43 AM
Here is what you do EA: Make cool games. Finish them. Then release them. Then move on to the next one.
The very model they said was dead several years ago. That one.
Yeah, the whole article reads as "these things that we have been doing for a while and players hate, are actually what players love".
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2019, 10:27:43 AM
Here is what you do EA: Make cool games. Finish them. Then release them.
Then move on to the next one.
The very model they said was dead several years ago. That one.
Well, I'd say, add further content in between moving to another project :)
I like Galactic Civilizations III. 99$US was the price of the game for the Founders Edition, and that included access to the alpha&beta + all future expansions&dlc of the game. Regular game was 49,95$ at release.
The game was crappy at first. Heck, it is still bug ridden after 3 years (or is it 4?), but damn, I got my money worth out of it, even if I had to pay for each extensions. Lots of content was added through DLC& yearly expansions. The founders have had their money's worth out of it after the 2nd DLC, I think. But there's always something new introduced in montly patches, dlcs, expansions, etc.
I like this model.
I want to buy my games as CD-ROMs in unnecessarily large boxes that I have to buy at a store. When an expansion comes out, I would like to drive to the store and buy that as a separate CD-ROM in an equally large box. Honestly, this way of releasing games started failing when they made the boxes smaller.
I hate that increasingly companies aren't even releasing physical versions.
I want to own the actual game damnit.
I want my games on hundreds of 3.5 inch disks.
Quote from: Tyr on May 22, 2019, 06:06:03 PM
I hate that increasingly companies aren't even releasing physical versions.
I want to own the actual game damnit.
What's especially annoying is buying the physical boxed version and finding a steam code inside that you have to use in order to authorizes the game. <_<
Quote from: Tyr on May 22, 2019, 06:06:03 PM
I hate that increasingly companies aren't even releasing physical versions.
I want to own the actual game damnit.
You never own the actual software, physical copy or not. You buy a license to use it.
Quote from: Tyr on May 22, 2019, 06:06:03 PM
I hate that increasingly companies aren't even releasing physical versions.
I want to own the actual game damnit.
Not me; in the battle against clutter it is really handy that my gaming doesn't involve physical copies.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 23, 2019, 02:02:32 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 22, 2019, 06:06:03 PM
I hate that increasingly companies aren't even releasing physical versions.
I want to own the actual game damnit.
Not me; in the battle against clutter it is really handy that my gaming doesn't involve physical copies.
Hell yes. I have over 200 games on Steam. It would NOT be easy to store two hundred DVD cases, let alone big boxes.
The age where each game release was a celebrated rarity is long gone. Now it is the age of foraging out the good value ones from the endless stream of new games.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 23, 2019, 02:02:32 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 22, 2019, 06:06:03 PM
I hate that increasingly companies aren't even releasing physical versions.
I want to own the actual game damnit.
Not me; in the battle against clutter it is really handy that my gaming doesn't involve physical copies.
Amen.
I bet you'll feel differently when one day you suddenly don't have half your games anymore.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 17, 2019, 02:40:52 AM
I bet you'll feel differently when one day you suddenly don't have half your games anymore.
I have that situation with the games I owned pre-Steam. I have no fucking clue where they are now. I'm not a organized person, I'd lose or damage the CDs on a regular basis.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 17, 2019, 02:40:52 AM
I bet you'll feel differently when one day you suddenly don't have half your games anymore.
By the time I lose half my games, I won't give a damn about the half that I've lost. And if I do, they'll be available for pennies on the dollar or pirateable on reputable sites.
Collecting video entertainment media is fallacy that doesn't actually get used, worse when it's physical. I think it's because we want to treat it like it's music.
It's not. Most of those things have aged very poorly.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 17, 2019, 02:32:17 PM
Collecting video entertainment media is fallacy that doesn't actually get used, worse when it's physical. I think it's because we want to treat it like it's music.
It's not. Most of those things have aged very poorly.
It used to age poorly. Now 20 year old games don't seem as archaic. That and if it is popular enough it often has a thriving mod community that has added lots of cool features. I now have lots of reasons to play older games than I used to. Without some big breakthrough in gaming technology I don't see that changing much either....at least for single player games. Those online games just kind of die and become unusable.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 17, 2019, 02:40:52 AM
I bet you'll feel differently when one day you suddenly don't have half your games anymore.
I already lost half my games. The CDs and DVDs got broken or lost, or worst, I threw them away thinking I would not need them anymore since they were too old (like, say, Age of Empires 1&2), only to realize later I could have got a discount on Steam for the updated version had I added them to my library.
I also realized to late than I could get free upgrades&DLC to some old games I had bought on another platform than was sold&sold&sold&sold... Just by re-adding them to Steam.
All in all, I love the electronic way of doing business.
Will I truly care in 20 years that I have to rebuy the Witcher 3 at 6,99$ to get the enhanced edition for 14.99$? Not really.
Besides, even if Blizzard goes under and I lost access to Starcraft... will it truly matter? I mean, I've already beaten the game on all difficulty level once, 3 times on hard and the real value for me is in custom games against the AI. If Blizzard goes under, their servers won't be up, I won't be able to play online, alone or with others. So I'm fucked there.
Yes there's a risk, but it's no worst of losing your games or throwing them away because they're too old and you need the space.
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2019, 03:02:01 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 17, 2019, 02:32:17 PM
Collecting video entertainment media is fallacy that doesn't actually get used, worse when it's physical. I think it's because we want to treat it like it's music.
It's not. Most of those things have aged very poorly.
It used to age poorly. Now 20 year old games don't seem as archaic. That and if it is popular enough it often has a thriving mod community that has added lots of cool features. I now have lots of reasons to play older games than I used to. Without some big breakthrough in gaming technology I don't see that changing much either....at least for single player games. Those online games just kind of die and become unusable.
uhh, if the DVD game is still working, than the online version is still working! Most platforms outside of EA Store - sorry - Origin :glare: :shutup: , keep the games up-to-date for modern Windows (GOG is also recycling DOS games to make them work on Windows).
I like the GoG way of just getting the whole game and just storing it however you want.
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2019, 03:10:21 PM
I like the GoG way of just getting the whole game and just storing it however you want.
Not the same, but Steam does allow you to backup your Steam folder. For most games, they can be played while in offline mode.
French court rules Steam should let customers resell their games:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2019/09/19/steam-should-let-users-resell-games-french-court-rules/
Obviously this will probably go further up through the courts, but interesting nonetheless.
And more incentive for big publishers to turn their games into services that you subscribe to.
Quote from: Syt on September 19, 2019, 09:52:44 AM
French court rules Steam should let customers resell their games:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2019/09/19/steam-should-let-users-resell-games-french-court-rules/
Obviously this will probably go further up through the courts, but interesting nonetheless.
And more incentive for big publishers to turn their games into services that you subscribe to.
The major effect would either to push more games as service or raise the base price on games (and cut way back on Steam sales). Probably both.
About a decade ago EA released Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning. It had a nice initial burst but quickly faded but me and a hard core of about 250,000 subscribers soldiered on, figuring that EA would correct the problem eventually. Well of course as soon as the game was not bigger than WoW, EA just left it to die. Yeah never again am I going to fall for the "games as a service" crap again. If the game is not popular you will get no service. But at least that game released with a significant amount of content, now you usually get very little.
Anyway unless the game is the next Fortnite don't waste your time buying those scams. It is almost like backing a kickstarter now, you are buying promises of a company doing something in the future.
Quote from: frunk on September 19, 2019, 10:01:31 AM
Quote from: Syt on September 19, 2019, 09:52:44 AM
French court rules Steam should let customers resell their games:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2019/09/19/steam-should-let-users-resell-games-french-court-rules/
Obviously this will probably go further up through the courts, but interesting nonetheless.
And more incentive for big publishers to turn their games into services that you subscribe to.
The major effect would either to push more games as service or raise the base price on games (and cut way back on Steam sales). Probably both.
Steam will adjust its platform, let users sell their games and pocket 20% of the sale like it does for the stupid cards.
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2019, 10:09:06 AM
About a decade ago EA released Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning. It had a nice initial burst but quickly faded but me and a hard core of about 250,000 subscribers soldiered on, figuring that EA would correct the problem eventually. Well of course as soon as the game was not bigger than WoW, EA just left it to die. Yeah never again am I going to fall for the "games as a service" crap again. If the game is not popular you will get no service. But at least that game released with a significant amount of content, now you usually get very little.
Anyway unless the game is the next Fortnite don't waste your time buying those scams. It is almost like backing a kickstarter now, you are buying promises of a company doing something in the future.
That still happens today. Take Anthem, for example. An incredibly awful launch and the game is pretty much dead.
The problem with the games as a service concept is it is a winner-takes-all bet. And most games will fail to make the absurd amounts of money AAA publishers expect. There can't be 5 Fortnites or LoLs in each segment.
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2019, 10:09:06 AM
About a decade ago EA released Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning. It had a nice initial burst but quickly faded but me and a hard core of about 250,000 subscribers soldiered on, figuring that EA would correct the problem eventually. Well of course as soon as the game was not bigger than WoW, EA just left it to die. Yeah never again am I going to fall for the "games as a service" crap again. If the game is not popular you will get no service. But at least that game released with a significant amount of content, now you usually get very little.
Anyway unless the game is the next Fortnite don't waste your time buying those scams. It is almost like backing a kickstarter now, you are buying promises of a company doing something in the future.
I am curious what you think companies ought to do with games that haven't caught on and become profitable. Should they just spend resources on them out of the goodness of their hearts - what games should NOT get resources, so that hard core followers of that one game you like gets them?
Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2019, 10:26:21 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2019, 10:09:06 AM
About a decade ago EA released Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning. It had a nice initial burst but quickly faded but me and a hard core of about 250,000 subscribers soldiered on, figuring that EA would correct the problem eventually. Well of course as soon as the game was not bigger than WoW, EA just left it to die. Yeah never again am I going to fall for the "games as a service" crap again. If the game is not popular you will get no service. But at least that game released with a significant amount of content, now you usually get very little.
Anyway unless the game is the next Fortnite don't waste your time buying those scams. It is almost like backing a kickstarter now, you are buying promises of a company doing something in the future.
I am curious what you think companies ought to do with games that haven't caught on and become profitable. Should they just spend resources on them out of the goodness of their hearts - what games should NOT get resources, so that hard core followers of that one game you like gets them?
No. I am saying nothing of the sort.
I am not telling companies what they ought to do, I am telling gamers what they ought to do: not buy these things until you know they are big. Because otherwise you just wasted your money on promises instead of an actual video game. They are bad for consumers.
So I guess if I had advice for game companies it would be: stop making this shit. But hey only the market will tell them that. If people keep buying this garbage they will keep making it. I just will not be one of those people, and neither should you!
But anyway that is what I think gaming companies should do...if they want my advice.
The problem is that there's just so much profit in making mediocre games (ie. FIFA, NBA) loaded with gambling mechanics that there is little incentive to spend resources on content.
All current industry woes stem from companies trying to "engage" players, so they spend more on microtransactions. Killing lootboxes won't be enough, but it would be a good start. These guys have really deep pockets though, so I'm not holding my breath.
Quote from: Iormlund on September 20, 2019, 10:43:00 AM
The problem is that there's just so much profit in making mediocre games (ie. FIFA, NBA) loaded with gambling mechanics that there is little incentive to spend resources on content.
All current industry woes stem from companies trying to "engage" players, so they spend more on microtransactions. Killing lootboxes won't be enough, but it would be a good start. These guys have really deep pockets though, so I'm not holding my breath.
I knew I was in trouble when that guy from Bethesda seemed downright anguished that people were still playing and enjoying Skyrim and the other ES games and Bethesda had no way to make money off of them. What a disaster people loved those pre-microtransaction games so much! How could we have been so foolish as to make great games people want to play for years?
I get it on some level but wow that does not bode well.
Again if Bethesda wants my advice it would be to make another Elder Scrolls game and cash in on all the people who love that series. But I guess that is olde timey thinking.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2019, 10:29:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2019, 10:26:21 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2019, 10:09:06 AM
About a decade ago EA released Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning. It had a nice initial burst but quickly faded but me and a hard core of about 250,000 subscribers soldiered on, figuring that EA would correct the problem eventually. Well of course as soon as the game was not bigger than WoW, EA just left it to die. Yeah never again am I going to fall for the "games as a service" crap again. If the game is not popular you will get no service. But at least that game released with a significant amount of content, now you usually get very little.
Anyway unless the game is the next Fortnite don't waste your time buying those scams. It is almost like backing a kickstarter now, you are buying promises of a company doing something in the future.
I am curious what you think companies ought to do with games that haven't caught on and become profitable. Should they just spend resources on them out of the goodness of their hearts - what games should NOT get resources, so that hard core followers of that one game you like gets them?
No. I am saying nothing of the sort.
I am not telling companies what they ought to do, I am telling gamers what they ought to do: not buy these things until you know they are big. Because otherwise you just wasted your money on promises instead of an actual video game. They are bad for consumers.
I don't think that is correct either.
I played Warhammer online and enjoyed it a lot. Had some great PvP.
I was bummed it didn't survive, but I certainly do not wish I had never played it, which is what you are suggesting.
I think consumers should be informed and price into their decision the relevant factors - and that includes the possibility that the game they love may not be loved enough by others to catch on. That does not mean they should not play though, it just means they should factor that into their buying decision.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2019, 10:36:50 AM
So I guess if I had advice for game companies it would be: stop making this shit. But hey only the market will tell them that. If people keep buying this garbage they will keep making it. I just will not be one of those people, and neither should you!
But anyway that is what I think gaming companies should do...if they want my advice.
You thought Warhammer Online was shit? Huh.
Why did you play it if it was such shit?
Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2019, 10:48:43 AM
I played Warhammer online and enjoyed it a lot. Had some great PvP.
I was bummed it didn't survive, but I certainly do not wish I had never played it, which is what you are suggesting.
I think consumers should be informed and price into their decision the relevant factors - and that includes the possibility that the game they love may not be loved enough by others to catch on. That does not mean they should not play though, it just means they should factor that into their buying decision.
As I said that game had lots of content so it did survive for awhile. It could have been a big success though, and granted in my poors way of thinking 250,000 subs is pretty good especially sustained over several years as it was with Warhammer Online. What is the probability that any game of that type will sustain success greater than that over a long period of time without a slam dunk launch? Very small.
So all I am saying is wait until you see that the game is going to be a WoW or Fortnite because unless it is a huge success on that kind of scale the companies are not going to invest the resources they are promising to invest. What you are saying is only slightly different it seems to me.
Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2019, 10:49:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2019, 10:36:50 AM
So I guess if I had advice for game companies it would be: stop making this shit. But hey only the market will tell them that. If people keep buying this garbage they will keep making it. I just will not be one of those people, and neither should you!
But anyway that is what I think gaming companies should do...if they want my advice.
You thought Warhammer Online was shit? Huh.
Why did you play it if it was such shit?
I did not think it was shit. I was just bringing up an example of a game where it got dumped as soon as it was not a mega-success, as an example of why these kinds of products should be avoided. At least when a normal game is not a huge success you at least still have a game to play. These games as a service will just vanish and you have nothing.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2019, 11:01:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2019, 10:49:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2019, 10:36:50 AM
So I guess if I had advice for game companies it would be: stop making this shit. But hey only the market will tell them that. If people keep buying this garbage they will keep making it. I just will not be one of those people, and neither should you!
But anyway that is what I think gaming companies should do...if they want my advice.
You thought Warhammer Online was shit? Huh.
Why did you play it if it was such shit?
I did not think it was shit. I was just bringing up an example of a game where it got dumped as soon as it was not a mega-success, as an example of why these kinds of products should be avoided. At least when a normal game is not a huge success you at least still have a game to play. These games as a service will just vanish and you have nothing.
You have hours and hours and hours of enjoyment.
Its an online game. 99.9% of them have a shelf life. You know that going in.
I just don't see the complaint here.
I guess maybe its a matter of perspective. I play games because I enjoy them RIGHT NOW. I don't play them in the hope that someday I will enjoy them.
If an online game I love goes away, then so be it. I had fun while it lasted, and I paid for it while it lasted.
Quote from: Berkut on September 20, 2019, 11:33:52 AM
Its an online game. 99.9% of them have a shelf life. You know that going in.
I just don't see the complaint here.
Well I think these two sentences reflect our differences here. You fully expect the possibility that the product you buy might be immediately declared a failure and it being put on life support. That was not so obvious to me back in 2008. After all the three previous online games I had played EQ, DAOC, and WoW had not had that problem at all.
So now I do know that going in and that is why I don't buy them anymore.
And perhaps Warhammer was a bad example as yeah I did get enjoyment out of that game. But I did learn that lesson with that game, which was why I brought it up.
QuoteI guess maybe its a matter of perspective. I play games because I enjoy them RIGHT NOW. I don't play them in the hope that someday I will enjoy them.
If an online game I love goes away, then so be it. I had fun while it lasted, and I paid for it while it lasted.
An online game or a "game as a service" carries certain expectations of, well, service. So while I get that it is all good so long as you are having fun, wouldn't it be better if the game was going to live up to its promise? And doesn't it kind of suck that it depends entirely on factors outside of your control?
But even that aside I am skeptical that the current AAA gaming companies are going to make too many of these "Games as a Service" type games all that enjoyable right at release. It seems like the strategy is get us to invest in the concept and they will flesh it out later, but there is no guarantee they will flesh it out. In fact it seems highly unlikely unless it just happens to really take off.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2019, 12:24:00 PM
But even that aside I am skeptical that the current AAA gaming companies are going to make too many of these "Games as a Service" type games all that enjoyable right at release. It seems like the strategy is get us to invest in the concept and they will flesh it out later, but there is no guarantee they will flesh it out. In fact it seems highly unlikely unless it just happens to really take off.
This is what they call Minimum Viable Product. The problem is it doesn't work. People see barebones games with no content, then stop playing and the game is doomed. See the aforementioned Anthem or FO76.
Quote from: Iormlund on September 20, 2019, 03:34:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2019, 12:24:00 PM
But even that aside I am skeptical that the current AAA gaming companies are going to make too many of these "Games as a Service" type games all that enjoyable right at release. It seems like the strategy is get us to invest in the concept and they will flesh it out later, but there is no guarantee they will flesh it out. In fact it seems highly unlikely unless it just happens to really take off.
This is what they call Minimum Viable Product. The problem is it doesn't work. People see barebones games with no content, then stop playing and the game is doomed. See the aforementioned Anthem or FO76.
Well it does seem to work in various kickstarter-like environments, where people pay for a game knowing it's incomplete and being developed.
But yes for AAA games at full price people tend to want to see a complete game.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2019, 10:46:21 AM
Again if Bethesda wants my advice it would be to make another Elder Scrolls game and cash in on all the people who love that series. But I guess that is olde timey thinking.
They are making ES6. It will probably be live service. :yuk:
Ironically, EA is still maintaining SWTOR, which is getting a new expansion next month. But I guess they at least recoup its running costs via the cartel market and subscriptions.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2019, 10:46:21 AM
Again if Bethesda wants my advice it would be to make another Elder Scrolls game and cash in on all the people who love that series. But I guess that is olde timey thinking.
well, they released a Special Edition for the game (free for owners of Skyrim), they released a Elder Scrolls online and are working on TES VI (Skyrim was V), as well as publishing/creating other games.
I'd say they are on the rigth track, bug issues aside.
Quote from: viper37 on September 22, 2019, 10:54:38 PM
well, they released a Special Edition for the game (free for owners of Skyrim), they released a Elder Scrolls online and are working on TES VI (Skyrim was V), as well as publishing/creating other games.
I'd say they are on the rigth track, bug issues aside.
I disagree they are on the right track, but we will see. Hopefully we get another great TES game.
Bethesda is dead.
It died when Todd Howard decided he did not want to make any more games that people would play for hours on end without needing to pay him for the pleasure
Quote from: Valmy on September 22, 2019, 11:07:26 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 22, 2019, 10:54:38 PM
well, they released a Special Edition for the game (free for owners of Skyrim), they released a Elder Scrolls online and are working on TES VI (Skyrim was V), as well as publishing/creating other games.
I'd say they are on the rigth track, bug issues aside.
I disagree they are on the right track, but we will see. Hopefully we get another great TES game.
The next Elder Scroll will be a Skyrim-like game. They already have an online game generating constant revenue.
Look at Blizzard. They released Warcraft III, then went with WoW, a mega success. They used these profits to create (sometimes, just try to) newer games in their existing IP. They are extremely conservative, though, not the best studio to take examples from... but, they managed to release enjoyable games while having a cashcow that finances everything (within limits).
I think there is still hope for old gamers like us :)
Well, before TES6 there'll be their as yet unrevealed space game.
Quote from: viper37 on September 23, 2019, 02:07:38 PM
Look at Blizzard. They released Warcraft III, then went with WoW, a mega success. They used these profits to create (sometimes, just try to) newer games in their existing IP. They are extremely conservative, though, not the best studio to take examples from... but, they managed to release enjoyable games while having a cashcow that finances everything (within limits).
I think there is still hope for old gamers like us :)
Have you followed the news about Activision Blizzard in the last year or so?
Quote from: Solmyr on September 24, 2019, 03:01:18 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 23, 2019, 02:07:38 PM
Look at Blizzard. They released Warcraft III, then went with WoW, a mega success. They used these profits to create (sometimes, just try to) newer games in their existing IP. They are extremely conservative, though, not the best studio to take examples from... but, they managed to release enjoyable games while having a cashcow that finances everything (within limits).
I think there is still hope for old gamers like us :)
Have you followed the news about Activision Blizzard in the last year or so?
Yes, they tried to find the next WoW (as in, constant $$$ stream) and failed miserably with their loot based game.
Before that, they tried to expand SC2 with single player missions but that didn't work very well.
It took them, what, 12 years before they committed to SC2? And 5-6 years to release the full game? I do not despair. I know right now, they are focusing on a WC3 remaster, just finishing a disapointing SC1 remaster.
Quote from: Syt on September 23, 2019, 03:30:21 PM
Well, before TES6 there'll be their as yet unrevealed space game.
Yes, Starfield.
Incidentally, EA is to release a remastered version of Command & Conquer and Red Alert. The 4k remaster is made by Petroglyph, with former Westwood employees/founders working on it.