Options

Rocksteady's [Suicide Squad] and WB Montreal's [Gotham Knights]

13032343536

Posts

  • Options
    cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    The crazy thing about Anthem is that, if you just look at pure sales, it seemed to do really well. I mean, it was the top seller the month it came out, and went on to sell five million copies. But because it took so long to develop and relied on live service expenses to succeed, it ultimately failed. Suicide Squad seems to be in the same position - it has been in development since 2017 AND it got a massive delay to... er, what did the delay ultimately do? At any rate, I'm guessing it was very expensive to make and will need to make loads of live service money to cover that. It's possible that this game will manage to do worse than Anthem.

    Now the big question of what happens now comes down to the head of WB, David Zaslav. He's on the record as of a couple weeks ago as saying live service games are awesome, so I wonder if he'll blame Suicide Squad's struggles on Rocksteady rather than live service games struggling. This dude doesn't give the tiniest shit about legacy - this is the man who canceled Batgirl and Coyote vs. Acme, sold a Batman series by Bruce Timm and Michael Reeves to Amazon, cut half the looney tunes from Max because god knows why, and on and on and on. This doesn't strike me as a man willing to give leeway for the Arkham games being awesome. And he's still desperate to cover the enormous debt he took on by buying WB in the first place.

    Granted anything could happen, but given Zaslav's ruthlessness, I'm not optimistic.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Options
    emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    Does Suicide Squad count as a Fortnite clone? With the shooting and the loot and the jumping around, some similarities are there.

  • Options
    ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Does Suicide Squad count as a Fortnite clone? With the shooting and the loot and the jumping around, some similarities are there.

    While I respect that Fortnite has (or at least had?) modes that didn't involve building, there are roughly eighteen gajillion games I'd compare this to before Fortnite.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • Options
    shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    Calling it a clone would suggest that the game mechanics are largely the same (they aren't at all), or that graphics are similarly styled (they're not), or that the game style/genre is the same (no again). You might as well call it an Anthem clone, that's at least slightly closer (while still incorrect).

  • Options
    DragkoniasDragkonias That Guy Who Does Stuff You Know, There. Registered User regular
    edited February 7
    I have watched a lot of reviews for SS and tbh it doesn't look like a bad game...

    It just looks like a blog standard GaaS that has the misfortune of releasing when that ship has already mostly sailed.

    But I feel that is the danger of chasing fads in an era where game development takes way longer than it used to.

    Dragkonias on
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    So Gamerant managed to find the one guy on twitter who has formal access to the backend sales numbers for Suicide Squad. "About half the sales of Marvels Guardians of the Galaxy" was mentioned, where GotG despite being a fantastic game, severely underwhelmed in sales. It eventually managed to get over the line due to a long tail and very positive word of mouth though.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    So Gamerant managed to find the one guy on twitter who has formal access to the backend sales numbers for Suicide Squad. "About half the sales of Marvels Guardians of the Galaxy" was mentioned, where GotG despite being a fantastic game, severely underwhelmed in sales. It eventually managed to get over the line due to a long tail and very positive word of mouth though.

    Hoooooly shit. GotG did downright bad at launch. (It's a damn fine game, though, glad it got a second life.)

    Even Avengers managed to be the top-selling game during its launch month.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Options
    SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    It's downright criminal that we're not gonna get Guardians of the Galaxy 2

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Options
    VikingViking Registered User regular
    GotG was brilliant, except for the actual "game" bits. The combat was trash the entire time and almost enough to sour me on the whole game.
    I would have been very interested in an iterative version where the combat felt good and they didn't have you fighting boring blobs or geometric shapes.

    steam_sig.png
    Bravely Default / 3DS Friend Code = 3394-3571-1609
  • Options
    SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    edited February 8
    I wouldn't say it was "trash". It was just boring and not very engaging. But it also got better the more powers you unlocked.

    SyphonBlue on
    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Options
    AlphaRomeroAlphaRomero Registered User regular
    At least they went for broke in the first one, hit pretty much every note you could want in there.

  • Options
    cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    To add insult to injury, a future DLC character has been leaked. ...by Brainiac, the game's final boss. He blurted out the wrong bit of dialog during a boss fight.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Options
    LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    Yikes. That's just embarrassing.

  • Options
    klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    Poor choice, IMO.
    Once again they're retconning their own verse (Freeze and his wife decided to live out their last few days together in Knight), so I guess it's multiverse to the rescue again (no better way to cheapen any and all deaths when you can just pick up a multiverse backup and undo all their character development).
    And if they wanted an ice-based villain character, surely Captain Cold would be the better choice? He's more the type to get caught and press-ganged into the Squad than Fries is.

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • Options
    AlphaRomeroAlphaRomero Registered User regular
    klemming wrote: »
    Poor choice, IMO.
    Once again they're retconning their own verse (Freeze and his wife decided to live out their last few days together in Knight), so I guess it's multiverse to the rescue again (no better way to cheapen any and all deaths when you can just pick up a multiverse backup and undo all their character development).
    And if they wanted an ice-based villain character, surely Captain Cold would be the better choice? He's more the type to get caught and press-ganged into the Squad than Fries is.

    I mean yeah but noone is going to pay for/give a shit about
    Captain Cold.

  • Options
    klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    edited February 8
    klemming wrote: »
    Poor choice, IMO.
    Once again they're retconning their own verse (Freeze and his wife decided to live out their last few days together in Knight), so I guess it's multiverse to the rescue again (no better way to cheapen any and all deaths when you can just pick up a multiverse backup and undo all their character development).
    And if they wanted an ice-based villain character, surely Captain Cold would be the better choice? He's more the type to get caught and press-ganged into the Squad than Fries is.

    I mean yeah but noone is going to pay for/give a shit about
    Captain Cold.
    I don't give a shit about the rest of them either, so...

    Seriously, I've always thought that's a flaw in Suicide Squad in general. For the most part it's made up of unlikeable, unrepentant monsters. And if someone does manage to have a sudden attack of humanity and becomes a better person, it's almost guaranteed that they'll die to Waller if no-one else, because she can't have that kind of weakness on her team.

    klemming on
    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • Options
    DemonStaceyDemonStacey TTODewback's Daughter In love with the TaySwayRegistered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    I wouldn't say it was "trash". It was just boring and not very engaging. But it also got better the more powers you unlocked.

    Yea this is one of those things that drives me crazy in modern game talk.

    Where there is nothing between trash and great. It does a huge disservice to any actual discussion about games.

  • Options
    klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    edited February 8
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    I wouldn't say it was "trash". It was just boring and not very engaging. But it also got better the more powers you unlocked.

    Yea this is one of those things that drives me crazy in modern game talk.

    Where there is nothing between trash and great. It does a huge disservice to any actual discussion about games.

    Yeah, like how there are no review scores lower than 7. 7 is as bad as it can get, less than that is an affront to mankind.

    klemming on
    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • Options
    VikingViking Registered User regular
    edited February 8
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    I wouldn't say it was "trash". It was just boring and not very engaging. But it also got better the more powers you unlocked.

    Yea this is one of those things that drives me crazy in modern game talk.

    Where there is nothing between trash and great. It does a huge disservice to any actual discussion about games.

    Normally I would agree, but at no point did I enjoy the combat. it was something I slogged through to get to the parts of the game I actually did enjoy.
    It got "better" as the game progressed but I never felt like it was something fun to do even once it got all its parts in place.

    Fortunately it was never a major component of the game and combat encounters were sparse for the most part

    Viking on
    steam_sig.png
    Bravely Default / 3DS Friend Code = 3394-3571-1609
  • Options
    DemonStaceyDemonStacey TTODewback's Daughter In love with the TaySwayRegistered User regular
    Viking wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    I wouldn't say it was "trash". It was just boring and not very engaging. But it also got better the more powers you unlocked.

    Yea this is one of those things that drives me crazy in modern game talk.

    Where there is nothing between trash and great. It does a huge disservice to any actual discussion about games.

    Normally I would agree, but at no point did I enjoy the combat. it was something I slogged through to get to the parts of the game I actually did enjoy.
    It got "better" as the game progressed but I never felt like it was something fun to do even once it got all its parts in place.

    Fortunately it was never a major component of the game and combat encounters were sparse for the most part

    That's kinda my point though.

    That still doesn't make it trash.

    A lot of people very much dislike mediocre and have no interest in mediocre. And that is completely valid!

    But there's a whole level under that.

    People just tend to put anything under their personal bar for enjoyment as being bad instead of using a comparison to the overall field. Which is not great for conversation.

  • Options
    Brainiac 8Brainiac 8 Don't call me Shirley... Registered User regular
    I loved the combat in Guardians of the Galaxy. The ability to mix up attacks by your team and the different elements of your blaster made for some neat combinations you could do. Also the characterization/conversation/story was a huge love letter to the comics. God I loved this game and really hate that there won't be a sequel because of how badly it was handled in the marketing department.

    Also, it's really disingenuous to say all you fight are boring blobs or Geometric shapes. The blob enemies were just in one early level. The rest were nothing like that and the game had some neat enemy design that stemmed from the comics.

    Probably one of my favorite games of the entire generation.

    3DS Friend Code - 1032-1293-2997
    Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
    PSN - Brainiac_8
    Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
    Add me!
  • Options
    LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    I think GotG's combat was a good proof of concept.

    I know a sequel is unlikely/impossible, but I would love to see them take that concept and grow it up and lean more heavily into it. Being able to call in your team for attack combos and things is a lot of fun. And they need to go much further with it than they did.

  • Options
    MgcwMgcw Registered User regular
    edited February 10
    I genuinely think this game is incredibly fun to play.
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    The crazy thing about Anthem is that, if you just look at pure sales, it seemed to do really well. I mean, it was the top seller the month it came out, and went on to sell five million copies. But because it took so long to develop and relied on live service expenses to succeed, it ultimately failed. Suicide Squad seems to be in the same position - it has been in development since 2017 AND it got a massive delay to... er, what did the delay ultimately do? At any rate, I'm guessing it was very expensive to make and will need to make loads of live service money to cover that. It's possible that this game will manage to do worse than Anthem.

    Now the big question of what happens now comes down to the head of WB, David Zaslav. He's on the record as of a couple weeks ago as saying live service games are awesome, so I wonder if he'll blame Suicide Squad's struggles on Rocksteady rather than live service games struggling. This dude doesn't give the tiniest shit about legacy - this is the man who canceled Batgirl and Coyote vs. Acme, sold a Batman series by Bruce Timm and Michael Reeves to Amazon, cut half the looney tunes from Max because god knows why, and on and on and on. This doesn't strike me as a man willing to give leeway for the Arkham games being awesome. And he's still desperate to cover the enormous debt he took on by buying WB in the first place.

    Granted anything could happen, but given Zaslav's ruthlessness, I'm not optimistic.

    I really, honestly enjoy this game a ton. But you're not wrong.

    https://www.thewrap.com/coyote-vs-acme-update-offers-warner-bros/

    Just look at this article. KTJL is a massive bomb by any metric, there's no way they let it live the only question is if it will be able to finish out what they've already worked on. I don't think it will ever make its money back and I feel really bad for the people who clearly put a ton of work into this game. It's one thing for it to do bad financially but the massive amount of unfairness to the game itself has also got to be incredibly depressing.

    The stuff people complain about for demonizing it as a horrible live service game is not even present in the game. There's no loot boxes you can buy, there's literally nothing you can buy except a couple of overpriced skins.

    There's no FOMO daily mechanics or weekly quest grinds or timers or anything like that.

    There are literally no engagement hooks to make you play the game for hours of grinding other than "do you wanna get a better score/enjoy playing more", much like the challenge maps from every Arkham game.

    The way gearing works, you can keep the stuff you already like and reroll it to your heart's content until you get the mods you want on your items. The potential rolls for everything are stated clearly in the menus. It also doesn't take that many rerolls to get the mod you want, unlike Diablo 4. There is no ilvl scaling where your items get outdated.

    There are tiers of weapons that unlock the higher you go on the end-game missions like Torment scaling for Diablo 3 but the weapons and gear aren't better with higher stats, they have different Set Bonuses and those set bonuses aren't inherently better and they also stack with set bonuses from the lower tiers so you can mix and match.

    The stated season plan is a battle pass with cosmetic stuff, there's a free version of the pass with cosmetic stuff as well, much like Diablo 4.

    All the content/characters from the passes were planned to be free. Who knows if they are allowed to follow through on that, maybe characters after Joker will be paid but even if whoever's in charge made them change the plan there's no way this recovers the money no matter what they do.

    I'd just like for the 4 seasons to be finished because I'd be very happy with that. I'm already happy with the game as is. IMO, it really only needs a broader amount of loot with cool affixes and some tweaks to the end-game scaling to be great. This honestly would have been my #2 favorite game if it came out last year.

    Edit: So, I just dove into the loot customization in the last hour.

    Normally you can only re-roll 1 mod on an item you have, but you can 'elite' an item for 1 mission's worth of resources which lets you re-roll every mod on the item. After that, you can spend 1 mission's worth of resources to PICK the exact mod you want on your item and it gives you 3 rolls on that exact mod. It took me 5 tries across 3 mods to get max roll on each mod for one piece of equipment. This is like 50 mins worth of 'grinding' to get the exact stats you want on your item. That is eminently fair for a loot-based game.

    Mgcw on
  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    One thing I love about this game is that being opposed to always online games, and liking superhero games, it made me buy Arkham Knight, which is an utterly amazing game that I can't believe I passed on when it first came out. Best $20 I've spent in ages!

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    Andy JoeAndy Joe We claim the land for the highlord! The AdirondacksRegistered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    One thing I love about this game is that being opposed to always online games, and liking superhero games, it made me buy Arkham Knight, which is an utterly amazing game that I can't believe I passed on when it first came out. Best $20 I've spent in ages!


    You're not the only one.

    XBL: Stealth Crane PSN: ajpet12 3DS: 1160-9999-5810 NNID: StealthCrane Pokemon Scarlet Name: Carmen
  • Options
    LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    Mgcw wrote: »
    I genuinely think this game is incredibly fun to play.

    I really, honestly enjoy this game a ton. But you're not wrong.

    The stuff people complain about for demonizing it as a horrible live service game is not even present in the game. There's no loot boxes you can buy, there's literally nothing you can buy except a couple of overpriced skins.

    There's no FOMO daily mechanics or weekly quest grinds or timers or anything like that.

    There are literally no engagement hooks to make you play the game for hours of grinding other than "do you wanna get a better score/enjoy playing more", much like the challenge maps from every Arkham game.


    It's totally fine if you're enjoying the game. Everybody has different tastes and different tolerances for this stuff. And if you're enjoying SS:KtJL then good on you.

    But I do think you're maybe viewing the game through some rose tinted glasses, and very clearly you're ignoring the things that they are doing that are egregious and bad for the customer.

    Saying "it's not as bad as these other games" is not a good defense. Bad is a continuum, and maybe SS:KtJL falls lower than a lot of other big games in this space, but that doesn't absolve it either.

    Here's some issues with SS:KtJL:

    - Always online, even though the game supports a singleplayer mode. It doesn't matter that tons of other games do this. It's bad for the consumer and it's bad for game preservation.
    - They sold extra premium skins with the epic edition of the game, but then they locked the color variants of those skins behind an additional paywall. What a slap in the face to their dedicated paying customers.
    - The story does not have a conclusive/satisfying ending because the game is designed to be played forever as a live service. Meaning the version of the game you bought at launch is not a complete product. It's a product with an IOU for more to come later, with the hopes that the WB executives don't kill it early.


    This isn't an exhaustive list of the sins of this game. It's just a sampling to illustrate the point that this game is still fundamentally flawed and definitely has many of the problems that most/all of the games in this vein have.

  • Options
    cooljammer00cooljammer00 Hey Small Christmas-Man!Registered User regular
    Why Arkham Knight and not one of the other, better received Arkham games?

    steam_sig.png

    3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
    Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
  • Options
    VikingViking Registered User regular
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    Mgcw wrote: »
    I genuinely think this game is incredibly fun to play.

    I really, honestly enjoy this game a ton. But you're not wrong.

    The stuff people complain about for demonizing it as a horrible live service game is not even present in the game. There's no loot boxes you can buy, there's literally nothing you can buy except a couple of overpriced skins.

    There's no FOMO daily mechanics or weekly quest grinds or timers or anything like that.

    There are literally no engagement hooks to make you play the game for hours of grinding other than "do you wanna get a better score/enjoy playing more", much like the challenge maps from every Arkham game.


    It's totally fine if you're enjoying the game. Everybody has different tastes and different tolerances for this stuff. And if you're enjoying SS:KtJL then good on you.

    But I do think you're maybe viewing the game through some rose tinted glasses, and very clearly you're ignoring the things that they are doing that are egregious and bad for the customer.

    Saying "it's not as bad as these other games" is not a good defense. Bad is a continuum, and maybe SS:KtJL falls lower than a lot of other big games in this space, but that doesn't absolve it either.

    Here's some issues with SS:KtJL:

    - Always online, even though the game supports a singleplayer mode. It doesn't matter that tons of other games do this. It's bad for the consumer and it's bad for game preservation.
    - They sold extra premium skins with the epic edition of the game, but then they locked the color variants of those skins behind an additional paywall. What a slap in the face to their dedicated paying customers.
    - The story does not have a conclusive/satisfying ending because the game is designed to be played forever as a live service. Meaning the version of the game you bought at launch is not a complete product. It's a product with an IOU for more to come later, with the hopes that the WB executives don't kill it early.


    This isn't an exhaustive list of the sins of this game. It's just a sampling to illustrate the point that this game is still fundamentally flawed and definitely has many of the problems that most/all of the games in this vein have.

    ok but why this game?
    why are people champing at the bit for it to fail when its not even close to the worst example?

    steam_sig.png
    Bravely Default / 3DS Friend Code = 3394-3571-1609
  • Options
    shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    I'm wishing for ALL their demises, so that's why.

  • Options
    rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    I'm wishing for ALL their demises, so that's why.

    Yes and Lucascraft has said the same in D4 threads. Live services aren't allowed to exist.

  • Options
    SnicketysnickSnicketysnick The Greatest Hype Man in WesterosRegistered User regular
    edited February 12
    Why Arkham Knight and not one of the other, better received Arkham games?

    it is the most recent and prettiest one

    and it's available on current gen consoles, which i don't know if City/Oranges/Asylum are

    Snicketysnick on
    7qmGNt5.png
    D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
  • Options
    shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    Why Arkham Knight and not one of the other, better received Arkham games?

    it is the most recent and prettiest one

    and it's available on current gen consoles, which i don't know if City/Oranges/Asylum are

    They did a Remaster of the earlier ones, save Origins.

  • Options
    SnicketysnickSnicketysnick The Greatest Hype Man in WesterosRegistered User regular
    oh right yeah they did didnt they

    7qmGNt5.png
    D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited February 12
    Viking wrote: »
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    Mgcw wrote: »
    I genuinely think this game is incredibly fun to play.

    I really, honestly enjoy this game a ton. But you're not wrong.

    The stuff people complain about for demonizing it as a horrible live service game is not even present in the game. There's no loot boxes you can buy, there's literally nothing you can buy except a couple of overpriced skins.

    There's no FOMO daily mechanics or weekly quest grinds or timers or anything like that.

    There are literally no engagement hooks to make you play the game for hours of grinding other than "do you wanna get a better score/enjoy playing more", much like the challenge maps from every Arkham game.


    It's totally fine if you're enjoying the game. Everybody has different tastes and different tolerances for this stuff. And if you're enjoying SS:KtJL then good on you.

    But I do think you're maybe viewing the game through some rose tinted glasses, and very clearly you're ignoring the things that they are doing that are egregious and bad for the customer.

    Saying "it's not as bad as these other games" is not a good defense. Bad is a continuum, and maybe SS:KtJL falls lower than a lot of other big games in this space, but that doesn't absolve it either.

    Here's some issues with SS:KtJL:

    - Always online, even though the game supports a singleplayer mode. It doesn't matter that tons of other games do this. It's bad for the consumer and it's bad for game preservation.
    - They sold extra premium skins with the epic edition of the game, but then they locked the color variants of those skins behind an additional paywall. What a slap in the face to their dedicated paying customers.
    - The story does not have a conclusive/satisfying ending because the game is designed to be played forever as a live service. Meaning the version of the game you bought at launch is not a complete product. It's a product with an IOU for more to come later, with the hopes that the WB executives don't kill it early.


    This isn't an exhaustive list of the sins of this game. It's just a sampling to illustrate the point that this game is still fundamentally flawed and definitely has many of the problems that most/all of the games in this vein have.

    ok but why this game?
    why are people champing at the bit for it to fail when its not even close to the worst example?

    Believe it or not, I think IGN actually has a video that sums up how people feel extremely well:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS1OF4jzs4U

    Also for some they just hope live service games die out, which is never going to happen, but I think with enough high profile failures like this a lot less studios are going to be devoting their time to them that were classically single player centric. For example, it was only just recently that Sony realized the shit storm they were going to create for themselves by forcing their traditional single player studios to make live service games, notably Insomniac, Naughty Dog and so on. We could very much have had a future looking forward to multiple other single player studios having a similar utter farce. We've seen Bioware (Anthem), Crystal Dynamics (Avengers), Arkane Studios (Redfall) and now Rocksteady (Suicide Squad) all completely fail miserably at making these always online rote looter shooters that it seems the gaming community is overwhelmingly rejecting.

    It's not that live service games are bad and are dooooomed. If you make one that people want, it can and will find success. I point to Helldivers 2, which has beyond exceeded the developer Arrowhead games expectations in every way. It's had a peak of 155,000 players on Steam, was averaging around 149,000 when I wrote this post and has breached over 365,000+ users concurrently with the PS5 together (due to them increasing their server capacity to 365,000 and straight away obliterating it). It's also a $40 game and while it has aggressive microtransactions, that's what you need to do to pay them server bills - which for Helldivers 2 will be *high*. This is a genuinely successful live service game and if Arrowhead keeps it going, they will have bucked the recent trend comprehensively. Given they are a small studio, it's an absolutely smashing success no matter what. That many CCUs from my experience translates into a *lot* of sales. Like a *lot*.

    We can compare with Suicide Squad, a game with 7-8 years of development, hundreds of millions of dollars spent and a $70 price tag. It started out with a mere 13,500 players on steam and has currently dipped to around 3,000 right now - but has been on a continuous downward trend all week. It's a not a matter of if the game has failed, it has, but what Warner Brothers does. The writing was on the wall almost from day 1 and I stand by what I wrote previously. Hopefully Rocksteady gets to actually finish the game, because we definitely don't need another unfinished GaaS to throw on the pile of dead GaaS games.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    I'm wishing for ALL their demises, so that's why.

    Yes and Lucascraft has said the same in D4 threads. Live services aren't allowed to exist.

    It's not that they're not allowed to exist. It's the way that most of them do exist is greedy, business first, gamers second thinking.

    They start with the question of "how can we make a ton of money?" and then they develop a game around doing that. Rather than starting from a question of "what's the most fun video game we can make?"

    Maximum fun and maximum profit are pretty much incompatible ideas. One is consumer friendly and the other is business friendly. As a consumer, I prefer the former.

    So when I talk about how I hate GaaS and live service, it's because all these games that have come out in the past 10 years have been money-first cash grabs, rather than being about the fun. It's also the same reason why 10,000 games industry workers lost their jobs last year, for no damn reason. Because all of these big publishers are run by business men who don't care about fun, and don't care about the lives of the people they are hurting when they do mass layoffs to make their quarterly earnings calls look good.


    There is a world out there where GaaS is not the terrible, greedy. horrible monstrosity that it is. But that world is not the one we live in.

  • Options
    klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    The problem with live service games is that they're all competing for the same slice of pie; the games require a regular time investment so you just can't devote your time to Destiny and Suicide Squad and Anthem because if you try you won't make satisfactory progress in any of them, you have to pick one.
    If Sony push multiple games out it's a given that most of them will fail because they're all competing with each other, and in that environment you can't rely on word of mouth picking up after you get some updates and expansions out, because by then you've lost so much money that the money side of management is screaming at you to abandon the game.

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • Options
    ThegreatcowThegreatcow Lord of All Bacons Washington State - It's Wet up here innit? Registered User regular
    Yup it's kind of amazing how many companies are not realizing this point. It's not lack of money that players have. It's "Time". I had a hard enough time devoting spare time to any other game, even single player games when I was peak into World of Warcraft for example, and that was when I had way more free time during my college days (god i'm old). For most adults, we have even less and the thought of trying to juggle all the daily/weekly login requirements most of the current GAAS requires just turns me off to the whole thing entirely.

  • Options
    VontreVontre Registered User regular
    I have a dumb question, legitimate. Do people actually like the Suicide Squad? >> Like is this a popular thing? I don't know who any of these characters are other than Harley Quinn. Did those movies do really well or something?

  • Options
    klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    The Gunn one did, and the one before it won an Oscar (For Makeup and Hairstyling, but they say that part quieter).
    I suppose they're supposed to be seen as the refreshing gritty anti-barely-heroes compared the goody-two-shoes Justice League. Thing is, you need the goody-two-shoes Justice League for the comparison, and we've kinda skirted around that recently.

    As it is, they mostly seem to be used by Amanda Waller to fix the problems that Amanda Waller created and kill a lot of people in the process.

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • Options
    cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    King Shark is kind of a thing in the comics and pop culture. A... somewhat different take on the character is in the Harley Quinn show.

    https://youtu.be/PviEvdhqtTs?si=Ww3NXGz8p8l2Zz-V

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
Sign In or Register to comment.