DLC undermining the game's thematic aspirations before it's even available. ok.
Blood Dragon was completely unrelated to Far Cry 3 beyond just using the same engine. It's not undermining anything if it's basically just three additional games built on Far Cry 5's engine.
I thought Blood Dragon used a bunch of Far Cry 3's geography and other assets?
You might be thinking of Primal, which used Far Cry 4's map.
Yeah, people were a little mad about it when the game launched for some reason. I just pretended it was prehistoric Kyrat.
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
+3
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Eh, it's Ubisoft. They're one of the big publishers, like hell they'd rather spend money on making something new for players if they can risk some player anger by pulling a fast one on them.
This is the same company still running their garbage middleware, after all, which has looooong since proven to do absolutely nothing to prevent pirating and gives no extra value to the customer.
Eh, it's Ubisoft. They're one of the big publishers, like hell they'd rather spend money on making something new for players if they can risk some player anger by pulling a fast one on them.
This is the same company still running their garbage middleware, after all, which has looooong since proven to do absolutely nothing to prevent pirating and gives no extra value to the customer.
they weren't 'pulling a fast one' though. Blood Dragon and Primal both exists solely because Ubi decided to reuse assets to create smaller titles in-between the franchises main instalments.
Eh, it's Ubisoft. They're one of the big publishers, like hell they'd rather spend money on making something new for players if they can risk some player anger by pulling a fast one on them.
This is the same company still running their garbage middleware, after all, which has looooong since proven to do absolutely nothing to prevent pirating and gives no extra value to the customer.
they weren't 'pulling a fast one' though. Blood Dragon and Primal both exists solely because Ubi decided to reuse assets to create smaller titles in-between the franchises main instalments.
Which saves a lot of money in a way your average consumer will never notice.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
+1
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Except Blood Dragon was priced as the standalone expansion pack it was, and Primal is priced almost full-retail despite a copy-and-paste of the game world.
It's not recycling assets that's skeezy, but recycling a bunch of assets and trying to sell it for the price of an actual new game? Definitely skeezy.
But like I said, it's Ubisoft, so it's entirely normal behavior for them.
Except Blood Dragon was priced as the standalone expansion pack it was, and Primal is priced almost full-retail despite a copy-and-paste of the game world.
It's not recycling assets that's skeezy, but recycling a bunch of assets and trying to sell it for the price of an actual new game? Definitely skeezy.
But like I said, it's Ubisoft, so it's entirely normal behavior for them.
I've bought played 4 and Primal, and even knowing that Primal used 4's map I never really could notice. Plus Primal managed a very different feel thanks to the caveman and tribe-building mechanics, and all the caves.
I don't feel ripped off.
Edit: In fact Primal's map had pretty drastic topographical changes from 4's map.
Except Blood Dragon was priced as the standalone expansion pack it was, and Primal is priced almost full-retail despite a copy-and-paste of the game world.
It's not recycling assets that's skeezy, but recycling a bunch of assets and trying to sell it for the price of an actual new game? Definitely skeezy.
But like I said, it's Ubisoft, so it's entirely normal behavior for them.
Primal was also a bigger game than Blood Dragon was, hence the difference in pricing between them. honestly, i'd much rather studios re-use assets where possible to save time and money than try to gouge consumers with shitty F2P mechanics in full priced retail games.
+5
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Except Blood Dragon was priced as the standalone expansion pack it was, and Primal is priced almost full-retail despite a copy-and-paste of the game world.
It's not recycling assets that's skeezy, but recycling a bunch of assets and trying to sell it for the price of an actual new game? Definitely skeezy.
But like I said, it's Ubisoft, so it's entirely normal behavior for them.
I've bought played 4 and Primal, and even knowing that Primal used 4's map I never really could notice. Plus Primal managed a very different feel thanks to the caveman and tribe-building mechanics, and all the caves.
I don't feel ripped off.
Edit: In fact Primal's map had pretty drastic topographical changes from 4's map.
Yeah, it has a similar structure I believe, but its redesigned to fit the time period they are going for. It has enough differences that it is totally not just a repeat of the map.
I don't remember much in the way of similarities besides the general map shape. I just watched a video comparing the areas and while they both have mountains in the same area, the shape of those hills and mountains are different enough that I never noticed and it never bothered me.
0
Options
Big DookieSmells great!Houston, TXRegistered Userregular
Except Blood Dragon was priced as the standalone expansion pack it was, and Primal is priced almost full-retail despite a copy-and-paste of the game world.
It's not recycling assets that's skeezy, but recycling a bunch of assets and trying to sell it for the price of an actual new game? Definitely skeezy.
But like I said, it's Ubisoft, so it's entirely normal behavior for them.
I've bought played 4 and Primal, and even knowing that Primal used 4's map I never really could notice. Plus Primal managed a very different feel thanks to the caveman and tribe-building mechanics, and all the caves.
I don't feel ripped off.
Edit: In fact Primal's map had pretty drastic topographical changes from 4's map.
I was going to say this same thing. I played both games as well, and even knowing that map assets were re-used, I never would be able to tell in-game. There was still a significant amount of new content that went into Far Cry Primal. Worth $60? Maybe to some people. For me, it was worth the $25 I eventually paid for it.
I don't really see recycling assets as skeezy if it's done right. I think they handled it in a way that made sense for FCP.
Except Blood Dragon was priced as the standalone expansion pack it was, and Primal is priced almost full-retail despite a copy-and-paste of the game world.
It's not recycling assets that's skeezy, but recycling a bunch of assets and trying to sell it for the price of an actual new game? Definitely skeezy.
But like I said, it's Ubisoft, so it's entirely normal behavior for them.
Primal was also a bigger game than Blood Dragon was, hence the difference in pricing between them. honestly, i'd much rather studios re-use assets where possible to save time and money than try to gouge consumers with shitty F2P mechanics in full priced retail games.
There's saving time and money and then there's Dragon Age II's reuse of the same dungeon map over and over and over...
Black lives matter.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
Except Blood Dragon was priced as the standalone expansion pack it was, and Primal is priced almost full-retail despite a copy-and-paste of the game world.
It's not recycling assets that's skeezy, but recycling a bunch of assets and trying to sell it for the price of an actual new game? Definitely skeezy.
But like I said, it's Ubisoft, so it's entirely normal behavior for them.
Primal was also a bigger game than Blood Dragon was, hence the difference in pricing between them. honestly, i'd much rather studios re-use assets where possible to save time and money than try to gouge consumers with shitty F2P mechanics in full priced retail games.
There's saving time and money and then there's Dragon Age II's reuse of the same dungeon map over and over and over...
see also Halo's "Oh shit, we need to get this ready for launch and have run out of time to make the entire second half of the game". :P
Complaints about Dragon Age 2 always ignore the insanely small amount of time they had to put that game together, which is impressive when you consider it still has the best gameplay and writing of any of the Dragon Age games.
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
edited February 2018
I got a lot of tearing up religious extremists (along with racist gangsters) in 100 hours of three-four Mafia 3 playthroughs. What does this really have to offer me as someone who loved Fat Cry 3 but hasn’t bought one since?
Complaints about Dragon Age 2 always ignore the insanely small amount of time they had to put that game together, which is impressive when you consider it still has the best gameplay and writing of any of the Dragon Age games.
Its not fair to blame Bioware, but it is fair to blame EA who decided to ship it in that state with that small development window.
But me on board with the people who could tell Primal was a reskinned 4. I felt they put enough polish into that game that I couldn't notice. Kinda bummed it bombed to be honest. While it may of been the second weakest Ubisoft Far Cry, I felt the historical setting had a lot of promise. Like, give me Medieval Far Cry with the combat of Chivalry.
I mean, we never got final sales figures so I'm guessing it's one of the lower-selling Far Cries, but getting a shout-out three months after release is a pretty good indication it did fine, considering how front-loaded sales are. It might have also benefitted from lower development costs given the asset re-using.
Dropped a preorder on Far Cry 5 gold edition over the weekend. I was going to pick up FC5 anyway because the premise and setting interest me, but that season pass reveal pushed me over the edge.
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
Dropped a preorder on Far Cry 5 gold edition over the weekend. I was going to pick up FC5 anyway because the premise and setting interest me, but that season pass reveal pushed me over the edge.
yeah, i haven't done it yet but the season pass and FarCry3 bonus have ensured that i will put my money down before release.
The way enemies react to getting shot or hit with knives seems super janky to me, like frames are missing. Could just be the build tho. Game looks super fun and explosions look great. So many games don't do good explosions. Explosions!
Prohass on
0
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
So, Ubisoft just did this at a press event they set up:
This sort of crazy marketing budget is why AAA games have to sell a hojillion copies or be considered failures...
Honestly, that kind of event is relatively cheap. All you're really paying for is room and board for the press, plus actors and helicopter rental. This kind of stuff happened all the time in the N64/PSX days.
Yeah, it's... weird. "Why didn't they market this game harder" has been a thing I've read more than a few time in discussions of games that kind of failed too.
There is a glut of entertainment/diversion opportunities these days, so marketing matters way more now.
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
0
Options
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
Yeah, it's... weird. "Why didn't they market this game harder" has been a thing I've read more than a few time in discussions of games that kind of failed too.
There is a glut of entertainment/diversion opportunities these days, so marketing matters way more now.
And it's a valid criticism, marketing's important. But marketing needn't be gigantic live action trailers that cost $texas. AAA studios have a tendency to market stupidly.
marketing is one of those things that hindsight is always 20/20 on. Not everyone who buys games follows game news media, so stunts like this are a way to end up on news feeds on facebook for a lot of people.
I think its easy to go "look at these ridiculous marketing campaigns they cost so much!" but nobody is really able to point out the magic sweet spot of "just the right amount of advertising"
Advertising is often a go big or go home zero sum deal too, like if you spend just a little less than was needed, you end up wasting your entire advertising budget on a campaign that never broke through, so sometimes you end up saving money by spending more.
Im not saying it isnt all stupid and silly, its just its not as easy as "spend less", even with big name games. Theres a reason coke still spends billions on marketing even though everybody knows about coca cola
Posts
It did?
*googles*
Oh wow, I never noticed.
This is the same company still running their garbage middleware, after all, which has looooong since proven to do absolutely nothing to prevent pirating and gives no extra value to the customer.
they weren't 'pulling a fast one' though. Blood Dragon and Primal both exists solely because Ubi decided to reuse assets to create smaller titles in-between the franchises main instalments.
Which saves a lot of money in a way your average consumer will never notice.
It's not recycling assets that's skeezy, but recycling a bunch of assets and trying to sell it for the price of an actual new game? Definitely skeezy.
But like I said, it's Ubisoft, so it's entirely normal behavior for them.
I've bought played 4 and Primal, and even knowing that Primal used 4's map I never really could notice. Plus Primal managed a very different feel thanks to the caveman and tribe-building mechanics, and all the caves.
I don't feel ripped off.
Edit: In fact Primal's map had pretty drastic topographical changes from 4's map.
Primal was also a bigger game than Blood Dragon was, hence the difference in pricing between them. honestly, i'd much rather studios re-use assets where possible to save time and money than try to gouge consumers with shitty F2P mechanics in full priced retail games.
No, you're not seeing it right. I know this because I have Far Cry 5 Gold in my PC Uplay library.
Yeah, it has a similar structure I believe, but its redesigned to fit the time period they are going for. It has enough differences that it is totally not just a repeat of the map.
I don't remember much in the way of similarities besides the general map shape. I just watched a video comparing the areas and while they both have mountains in the same area, the shape of those hills and mountains are different enough that I never noticed and it never bothered me.
I was going to say this same thing. I played both games as well, and even knowing that map assets were re-used, I never would be able to tell in-game. There was still a significant amount of new content that went into Far Cry Primal. Worth $60? Maybe to some people. For me, it was worth the $25 I eventually paid for it.
I don't really see recycling assets as skeezy if it's done right. I think they handled it in a way that made sense for FCP.
Oculus: TheBigDookie | XBL: Dook | NNID: BigDookie
There's saving time and money and then there's Dragon Age II's reuse of the same dungeon map over and over and over...
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
see also Halo's "Oh shit, we need to get this ready for launch and have run out of time to make the entire second half of the game". :P
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Its not fair to blame Bioware, but it is fair to blame EA who decided to ship it in that state with that small development window.
But me on board with the people who could tell Primal was a reskinned 4. I felt they put enough polish into that game that I couldn't notice. Kinda bummed it bombed to be honest. While it may of been the second weakest Ubisoft Far Cry, I felt the historical setting had a lot of promise. Like, give me Medieval Far Cry with the combat of Chivalry.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
yeah, i haven't done it yet but the season pass and FarCry3 bonus have ensured that i will put my money down before release.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I love that some writer had to come up with a dog's character motivations, same as all the other companions/guns for hire.
They really are going all out with their marketing budget. How much does it cost to hire a helicopter?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
A few hundred to a few thousand an hour most likely
Oculus: TheBigDookie | XBL: Dook | NNID: BigDookie
"We need to add real money loot boxes to make up dev costs"
"Look at these 5 live action trailers with Hollywood A-listers and licensed, royalty-bearing music"
:rotate:
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Honestly, that kind of event is relatively cheap. All you're really paying for is room and board for the press, plus actors and helicopter rental. This kind of stuff happened all the time in the N64/PSX days.
There is a glut of entertainment/diversion opportunities these days, so marketing matters way more now.
And it's a valid criticism, marketing's important. But marketing needn't be gigantic live action trailers that cost $texas. AAA studios have a tendency to market stupidly.
I think its easy to go "look at these ridiculous marketing campaigns they cost so much!" but nobody is really able to point out the magic sweet spot of "just the right amount of advertising"
Advertising is often a go big or go home zero sum deal too, like if you spend just a little less than was needed, you end up wasting your entire advertising budget on a campaign that never broke through, so sometimes you end up saving money by spending more.
Im not saying it isnt all stupid and silly, its just its not as easy as "spend less", even with big name games. Theres a reason coke still spends billions on marketing even though everybody knows about coca cola