I am happy they’re doing this, but with a timeline of “months”, how well is this going to go if it bumps up against the next generation console launches? Obviously not everyone switches to the next generation immediately and they will be backwards compatible, but I would imagine the launches would throw up some speed bumps to rebuilding their player base.
Oh crap, that's right.
Given unlimited time and resources the best thing would be to launch a PS5/Xbox Two version of 2.0 day and date with current gen, but that would be a massive amount of stuff on top of what they're already doing.
Or maybe EA's just that desperate for another ongoing revenue stream? Given their history it's kind of amazing they're sticking with Anthem instead of cutting their losses, but with the shrinking number of AAA game releases it might not make sense* to do that any more.
*Well, sense to a short-sighted executive that wants to maximize short-term profits. But you know what I mean.
I think you nailed it right here, I recall someone brought it up during the initial talk of "abandoning anthem" last year. The thing is, ea really doesn't have much in the way of active, lucrative revenue streams outside of FIFA. Star Wars bombed hard due to the backlash and they had to pull back on the loot boxes they had planned for the game. Battlefield is definitely not pulling in the numbers they'd like to see right now, and while Apex Legends appears to be doing good business, I'd imagine in ea's eyes it's a relative failure since it's not pulling in fortnite/pubg levels of dosh at least as far as I'm aware of currently. I'd imagine they want as many revenue streams as possible that don't rely on lootboxes going forward as anti-lootbox legislation slowly picks up steam across the world.
It’s bewildering how fucked it is that capitalism demands more of EAs earnings than just selling many tens of millions of games from the giant library of amazing titles and developers they’ve accumulated
It doesn't help that their business model has basically completely shifted to microtransactions/post launch content as their major revenue drivers now. If I recall, FIFA's card packs alone accounted for nearly 40% of there overall revenue for the entire year. Once that kind of spigot is turned on, I can't see how they'd want to stop it.
I'm honestly shocked they greenlit a single-player Star Wars. (Then again, they've struggled with multiplayer Star Wars, so maybe that was a semi-desperation move. Hey, it worked.)
I'll say it again -- the pubs need to raise the price of AAA games already. Then again, it probably wouldn't shut off the microtransaction spigot at this point.
The pubs did raise the price. This argument is so stale. Why does every single game have seasons of extra cost DLC? Because $60 is a shell price. And raising the base price to $80 or $100 is laughable because that wouldn't make them cut microtransactions or season passes or anything else. By making that argument, you're wondering out loud why they don't screw you over more upfront.
+4
Options
Sirialisof the Halite Throne.Registered Userregular
edited February 2020
Even if games cost 1000$ they’d still launch microtransactions without a second thought if they thought they could get away with it.
I am happy they’re doing this, but with a timeline of “months”, how well is this going to go if it bumps up against the next generation console launches? Obviously not everyone switches to the next generation immediately and they will be backwards compatible, but I would imagine the launches would throw up some speed bumps to rebuilding their player base.
Oh crap, that's right.
Given unlimited time and resources the best thing would be to launch a PS5/Xbox Two version of 2.0 day and date with current gen, but that would be a massive amount of stuff on top of what they're already doing.
Or maybe EA's just that desperate for another ongoing revenue stream? Given their history it's kind of amazing they're sticking with Anthem instead of cutting their losses, but with the shrinking number of AAA game releases it might not make sense* to do that any more.
*Well, sense to a short-sighted executive that wants to maximize short-term profits. But you know what I mean.
I think you nailed it right here, I recall someone brought it up during the initial talk of "abandoning anthem" last year. The thing is, ea really doesn't have much in the way of active, lucrative revenue streams outside of FIFA. Star Wars bombed hard due to the backlash and they had to pull back on the loot boxes they had planned for the game. Battlefield is definitely not pulling in the numbers they'd like to see right now, and while Apex Legends appears to be doing good business, I'd imagine in ea's eyes it's a relative failure since it's not pulling in fortnite/pubg levels of dosh at least as far as I'm aware of currently. I'd imagine they want as many revenue streams as possible that don't rely on lootboxes going forward as anti-lootbox legislation slowly picks up steam across the world.
It’s bewildering how fucked it is that capitalism demands more of EAs earnings than just selling many tens of millions of games from the giant library of amazing titles and developers they’ve accumulated
It doesn't help that their business model has basically completely shifted to microtransactions/post launch content as their major revenue drivers now. If I recall, FIFA's card packs alone accounted for nearly 40% of there overall revenue for the entire year. Once that kind of spigot is turned on, I can't see how they'd want to stop it.
I'm honestly shocked they greenlit a single-player Star Wars. (Then again, they've struggled with multiplayer Star Wars, so maybe that was a semi-desperation move. Hey, it worked.)
I'll say it again -- the pubs need to raise the price of AAA games already. Then again, it probably wouldn't shut off the microtransaction spigot at this point.
The pubs did raise the price. This argument is so stale. Why does every single game have seasons of extra cost DLC? Because $60 is a shell price. And raising the base price to $80 or $100 is laughable because that wouldn't make them cut microtransactions or season passes or anything else. By making that argument, you're wondering out loud why they don't screw you over more upfront.
Nah, just acknowledging that the cost of making an AAA game has skyrocketed since they last raised the price two generations ago.
I am happy they’re doing this, but with a timeline of “months”, how well is this going to go if it bumps up against the next generation console launches? Obviously not everyone switches to the next generation immediately and they will be backwards compatible, but I would imagine the launches would throw up some speed bumps to rebuilding their player base.
Oh crap, that's right.
Given unlimited time and resources the best thing would be to launch a PS5/Xbox Two version of 2.0 day and date with current gen, but that would be a massive amount of stuff on top of what they're already doing.
Or maybe EA's just that desperate for another ongoing revenue stream? Given their history it's kind of amazing they're sticking with Anthem instead of cutting their losses, but with the shrinking number of AAA game releases it might not make sense* to do that any more.
*Well, sense to a short-sighted executive that wants to maximize short-term profits. But you know what I mean.
I think you nailed it right here, I recall someone brought it up during the initial talk of "abandoning anthem" last year. The thing is, ea really doesn't have much in the way of active, lucrative revenue streams outside of FIFA. Star Wars bombed hard due to the backlash and they had to pull back on the loot boxes they had planned for the game. Battlefield is definitely not pulling in the numbers they'd like to see right now, and while Apex Legends appears to be doing good business, I'd imagine in ea's eyes it's a relative failure since it's not pulling in fortnite/pubg levels of dosh at least as far as I'm aware of currently. I'd imagine they want as many revenue streams as possible that don't rely on lootboxes going forward as anti-lootbox legislation slowly picks up steam across the world.
It’s bewildering how fucked it is that capitalism demands more of EAs earnings than just selling many tens of millions of games from the giant library of amazing titles and developers they’ve accumulated
It doesn't help that their business model has basically completely shifted to microtransactions/post launch content as their major revenue drivers now. If I recall, FIFA's card packs alone accounted for nearly 40% of there overall revenue for the entire year. Once that kind of spigot is turned on, I can't see how they'd want to stop it.
I'm honestly shocked they greenlit a single-player Star Wars. (Then again, they've struggled with multiplayer Star Wars, so maybe that was a semi-desperation move. Hey, it worked.)
I'll say it again -- the pubs need to raise the price of AAA games already. Then again, it probably wouldn't shut off the microtransaction spigot at this point.
The pubs did raise the price. This argument is so stale. Why does every single game have seasons of extra cost DLC? Because $60 is a shell price. And raising the base price to $80 or $100 is laughable because that wouldn't make them cut microtransactions or season passes or anything else. By making that argument, you're wondering out loud why they don't screw you over more upfront.
Nah, just acknowledging that the cost of making an AAA game has skyrocketed since they last raised the price two generations ago.
Two generations ago, there weren't loot boxes, season passes, $200+ in costume DLC, 9 different editions at launch that all have different things in them, etc. They NEVER lost a dime on any of this shit.
I am happy they’re doing this, but with a timeline of “months”, how well is this going to go if it bumps up against the next generation console launches? Obviously not everyone switches to the next generation immediately and they will be backwards compatible, but I would imagine the launches would throw up some speed bumps to rebuilding their player base.
Oh crap, that's right.
Given unlimited time and resources the best thing would be to launch a PS5/Xbox Two version of 2.0 day and date with current gen, but that would be a massive amount of stuff on top of what they're already doing.
Or maybe EA's just that desperate for another ongoing revenue stream? Given their history it's kind of amazing they're sticking with Anthem instead of cutting their losses, but with the shrinking number of AAA game releases it might not make sense* to do that any more.
*Well, sense to a short-sighted executive that wants to maximize short-term profits. But you know what I mean.
I think you nailed it right here, I recall someone brought it up during the initial talk of "abandoning anthem" last year. The thing is, ea really doesn't have much in the way of active, lucrative revenue streams outside of FIFA. Star Wars bombed hard due to the backlash and they had to pull back on the loot boxes they had planned for the game. Battlefield is definitely not pulling in the numbers they'd like to see right now, and while Apex Legends appears to be doing good business, I'd imagine in ea's eyes it's a relative failure since it's not pulling in fortnite/pubg levels of dosh at least as far as I'm aware of currently. I'd imagine they want as many revenue streams as possible that don't rely on lootboxes going forward as anti-lootbox legislation slowly picks up steam across the world.
It’s bewildering how fucked it is that capitalism demands more of EAs earnings than just selling many tens of millions of games from the giant library of amazing titles and developers they’ve accumulated
It doesn't help that their business model has basically completely shifted to microtransactions/post launch content as their major revenue drivers now. If I recall, FIFA's card packs alone accounted for nearly 40% of there overall revenue for the entire year. Once that kind of spigot is turned on, I can't see how they'd want to stop it.
I'm honestly shocked they greenlit a single-player Star Wars. (Then again, they've struggled with multiplayer Star Wars, so maybe that was a semi-desperation move. Hey, it worked.)
I'll say it again -- the pubs need to raise the price of AAA games already. Then again, it probably wouldn't shut off the microtransaction spigot at this point.
The pubs did raise the price. This argument is so stale. Why does every single game have seasons of extra cost DLC? Because $60 is a shell price. And raising the base price to $80 or $100 is laughable because that wouldn't make them cut microtransactions or season passes or anything else. By making that argument, you're wondering out loud why they don't screw you over more upfront.
Nah, just acknowledging that the cost of making an AAA game has skyrocketed since they last raised the price two generations ago.
Two generations ago, there weren't loot boxes, season passes, $200+ in costume DLC, 9 different editions at launch that all have different things in them, etc. They NEVER lost a dime on any of this shit.
Other than the small fact that many, many, MANY developers and publishers couldn't keep up with the advancing costs and folded.
It's certainly a mix. Big game design has gotten more expensive and big games need to cost more, but people aren't willing to break on the $60 box.
But then we also see plenty of games really taking advantage of whale hunting with microtransactions, and the biggest winners are laughing to the bank. Meanwhile, smaller devs struggle to survive. The publishers aren't hurting though.
Yeah the truth is always somewhere in the middle. Large companies #1 priority is shareholder profit. They don't care about games as anything other than a means to that end. If the cost of games goes up, they'll just keep pumping micro transaction crap since it's just more money for their quarterly earning calls.
That said for smaller or medium companies, the cost of making A, AA, and AAA games has gone up a ton. The fact that we've gone through over a decade of $60 and yet now games come with multiplayer modes, massive increases in graphical technology and effects, voice acting, more complex AI, and plenty more. It's not surprising to see why they are taking exclusive deals that Epic is handing out.
Do I want to pay over $60 bucks? Not in general, but is that because of the price tag or because very often, $60 these days gets you an incomplete buggy mess of a game - which comes with 'DLC' that is often really part of the base game but separated for $$$.
Personally, I'd easily pay $80+, if I KNEW the game was complete, decently bug free, a good length (this of course varies based on what the game is) and not firing off day 1 'DLC' or 'loot packs' for even more money (looking at your 'gore packs' and 'portrait pack' type deals).
It's almost like we need to get back to demos and not preordering. If a company knew I wasn't going to preorder their game and would wait for reviews, but planned on it and charged $80 for their good game, maybe it'd work better for us all.
What is this I don't even.
+1
Options
BRIAN BLESSEDMaybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHHRegistered Userregular
The idea that developers are within their power to complete content before certification and ship date (without compromising the product) but willingly withhold it to make an extra buck is mostly a myth.
As someone who ships software, and has shipped software now for a good long time, the only things you're getting post-launch are the things that simply didn't make it for launch. (Leaving aside explicitly planned followups etc.)
price is set by what people will pay; games prices seem to be 'stuck' at 50-60 USD because firms think pricing them higher would incur too big a sales hit to be worthwhile
you actually see this phenomenon with lots of consumer products; such as TVs or game consoles barely even keep up with inflation despite getting better all the time. It's because 1) there's ever-increasing competition for entertainment time/dollars and 2) american wages have been pretty stagnant in recent years which means that if firms want to mass market entertainment products at all they must cut prices
a lot of this is probably why 'games-as-service' is becoming such a prevalent model; corporate greed yes, but also because the sticker price of games has not even kept up with inflation in the last decade and firms gotta make that up somewhere
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
+1
Options
Sirialisof the Halite Throne.Registered Userregular
I mean, Europe has been paying 80$ for games since forever, we just also get all the day 1 DLC, season passes and other crap on top of it, pretty sure Canada and Australia pays the same if not more (Aus in particular) so this 50-60$ is basically only US people.
+2
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
price is set by what people will pay; games prices seem to be 'stuck' at 50-60 USD because firms think pricing them higher would incur too big a sales hit to be worthwhile
you actually see this phenomenon with lots of consumer products; such as TVs or game consoles barely even keep up with inflation despite getting better all the time. It's because 1) there's ever-increasing competition for entertainment time/dollars and 2) american wages have been pretty stagnant in recent years which means that if firms want to mass market entertainment products at all they must cut prices
a lot of this is probably why 'games-as-service' is becoming such a prevalent model; corporate greed yes, but also because the sticker price of games has not even kept up with inflation in the last decade and firms gotta make that up somewhere
It’s mostly just greed. EA and Activision have both told investors they don’t need micro transactions to be profitable. Micro transactions are just the cherry on top. Though for games with middling sales the micro transactions do help, but that just lets them ignore the reasons for the middling sales.
Another big problem is budgeting. A lot of interviews out there with Devs who’ve talked about submitting their budget for X money only to have the Publisher double it or otherwise increase it substantially. Followed by the Devs telling them they don’t need all of it. With Publishers responding that more money equals more better game. Leaving the Devs to figure out how to spend it all so in the future they don’t get less money when they need it. This usually results in Day One DLC or kickass snack rooms.
Edit- this is in regards to AAA studios. For smaller or independent studios things are very likely different.
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
I am happy they’re doing this, but with a timeline of “months”, how well is this going to go if it bumps up against the next generation console launches? Obviously not everyone switches to the next generation immediately and they will be backwards compatible, but I would imagine the launches would throw up some speed bumps to rebuilding their player base.
Oh crap, that's right.
Given unlimited time and resources the best thing would be to launch a PS5/Xbox Two version of 2.0 day and date with current gen, but that would be a massive amount of stuff on top of what they're already doing.
Or maybe EA's just that desperate for another ongoing revenue stream? Given their history it's kind of amazing they're sticking with Anthem instead of cutting their losses, but with the shrinking number of AAA game releases it might not make sense* to do that any more.
*Well, sense to a short-sighted executive that wants to maximize short-term profits. But you know what I mean.
I think you nailed it right here, I recall someone brought it up during the initial talk of "abandoning anthem" last year. The thing is, ea really doesn't have much in the way of active, lucrative revenue streams outside of FIFA. Star Wars bombed hard due to the backlash and they had to pull back on the loot boxes they had planned for the game. Battlefield is definitely not pulling in the numbers they'd like to see right now, and while Apex Legends appears to be doing good business, I'd imagine in ea's eyes it's a relative failure since it's not pulling in fortnite/pubg levels of dosh at least as far as I'm aware of currently. I'd imagine they want as many revenue streams as possible that don't rely on lootboxes going forward as anti-lootbox legislation slowly picks up steam across the world.
It’s bewildering how fucked it is that capitalism demands more of EAs earnings than just selling many tens of millions of games from the giant library of amazing titles and developers they’ve accumulated
It doesn't help that their business model has basically completely shifted to microtransactions/post launch content as their major revenue drivers now. If I recall, FIFA's card packs alone accounted for nearly 40% of there overall revenue for the entire year. Once that kind of spigot is turned on, I can't see how they'd want to stop it.
I'm honestly shocked they greenlit a single-player Star Wars. (Then again, they've struggled with multiplayer Star Wars, so maybe that was a semi-desperation move. Hey, it worked.)
I'll say it again -- the pubs need to raise the price of AAA games already. Then again, it probably wouldn't shut off the microtransaction spigot at this point.
The pubs did raise the price. This argument is so stale. Why does every single game have seasons of extra cost DLC? Because $60 is a shell price. And raising the base price to $80 or $100 is laughable because that wouldn't make them cut microtransactions or season passes or anything else. By making that argument, you're wondering out loud why they don't screw you over more upfront.
Nah, just acknowledging that the cost of making an AAA game has skyrocketed since they last raised the price two generations ago.
Two generations ago, there weren't loot boxes, season passes, $200+ in costume DLC, 9 different editions at launch that all have different things in them, etc. They NEVER lost a dime on any of this shit.
Other than the small fact that many, many, MANY developers and publishers couldn't keep up with the advancing costs and folded.
It's not very instructive to compare two generations ago to today. Two generations ago, video game costs for development were relatively unknown, people were shooting in the dark. Since the large companies could weather that experimentation, they got to benefit in the long run while others couldn't. It's somewhat akin to how startups are handled nowadays, large companies don't take risks but let startups take the risk for them, and when it pays off, they buy them out.
Man, the loading times in this are still brutal. Maybe not as bad when you're running long dungeons, but going the missions is rough.
What is this I don't even.
0
Options
BRIAN BLESSEDMaybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHHRegistered Userregular
I recently bought an M2 SSD and amongst other revelatory QoL improvements for my general Windows experience, I'm pretty sure my loading times went from several minutes (loading to primary overworld level) to sub-minute.
Then again, I'm one of the cryptids that never felt bothered by this because it's part and parcel of constantly loading into an open world map
+1
Options
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
Honestly games can be less than 60 dollars at this point
a lot of them are! I've put more hours into Apex Legends (also made by EA!) than probably anything else so far this year, anthem probably should have just been f2p and charged for cosmetics.
Honestly games can be less than 60 dollars at this point
a lot of them are! I've put more hours into Apex Legends (also made by EA!) than probably anything else so far this year, anthem probably should have just been f2p and charged for cosmetics.
Probably would have required dropping the story bits, but considering how they turned out that likely would have been for the best.
In its first update on the state of Anthem in three months, BioWare says the game’s overhaul is “going to be a longer process.”
“The Anthem incubation team has kicked off and we are starting to validate our design hypotheses,” wrote BioWare Austin studio director, Christian Dailey. “Incubation is a term we use internally—it essentially means we are going back and experimenting/prototyping to improve on the areas where we believe we fell short and to leverage everything that you love currently about Anthem.”
Dailey went on to confirm that approximately 30 people are currently working on Anthem as part of this incubation team and that it’s going to take some time. “And yes, the team is small but the whole point of this is to take our time and go back to the drawing board,” he wrote. “And a small team gives us the agility a larger one can’t afford.”
Well, yay for taking the time to get it right, and a smaller team won't burn as much money.
But man, it's going to take a lot to get people to pay attention to it again after all this time, especially with other games and possibly a new console generation hitting after it first launched.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
+16
Options
BRIAN BLESSEDMaybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHHRegistered Userregular
Honestly, distance is exactly what a game like Anthem needs, so the people who still talk shit about it on the socials (for some reason) can legitimately forget about its existence and leave the people who actually care about it to continue playing it/continue developing it in peace
When it comes out on next generation the core design principles of the original are wide and ambitious enough that it won't feel dated or anything if they land the execution correctly
it's weird cause like, I honestly don't think the game's problems were/are that deep. They have a fun gameplay model, they just need more activities for people to do (and also to optimize performance like, a lot)
it's good that they are apparently taking the 'take time to get it right' approach, but I never felt like they needed to reinvent the wheel. They just need to like, sand their wheel into a proper circular shape
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
If you're going to make a game about using a jetpack, why make it crap out after such a short flight time
To make you feel still-kinda-but-not-as-awesome doing fancy flippy triple-jump into a jetpack nonsense?
Either that, or it's to make you look for every waterfall or spray you can?
Because a melee enemy type is meaningless if you can hover indefinitely, as is any/all terrain bar artificial "suppressor field" type mechanisms. Limited flight adds engagement with terrain/environment, another element to track during combat/gameplay, and another dimension where enemies can overheat you and knock you down into their range.
Also, it feels pretty cool to nail the waterfall cooldown just as you're about to overheat, and I personally like those little skill/reward moments. The differing flight/heat profiles of the three javelins felt unique/distinct, and wearing a Colossus was meaningfully different from a Storm suit, not only in abilities and loadout, but how you approached an engagement and interacted with the battlefield.
It's the same as limited stealth. If stealth is unlimited, then there's no reason to ever not be stealthy, since "I take less damage and have more armor!" is still meaningless compared to "enemies never see me, so damage is irrelevant".
+8
Options
BRIAN BLESSEDMaybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHHRegistered Userregular
edited May 2020
Wanting [awesome movement mechanic] be accessibly near-infinite in its use like many online have requested without any real application of skill involved in any videogame honestly diminishes its value. If you told me that the environment should support more ways of maintaining the meter without spending periods of time running on the ground like a goober (and that the adjustments they already made could be tuned further to support this as well), then that's about where I'm at.
In the context of its association with gameplay it's basically a secondary sprint that allows you to freely traverse the XYZ axis as opposed to the traditional XY sprint
As somebody who primarily plays Interceptor, I really don't want to be jump-jetting during any kind of combat anyways (unless it's just dashing to a new target). Gotta keep that killstreak going!
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
If you're going to make a game about using a jetpack, why make it crap out after such a short flight time
To make you feel still-kinda-but-not-as-awesome doing fancy flippy triple-jump into a jetpack nonsense?
Either that, or it's to make you look for every waterfall or spray you can?
Because a melee enemy type is meaningless if you can hover indefinitely, as is any/all terrain bar artificial "suppressor field" type mechanisms. Limited flight adds engagement with terrain/environment, another element to track during combat/gameplay, and another dimension where enemies can overheat you and knock you down into their range.
Also, it feels pretty cool to nail the waterfall cooldown just as you're about to overheat, and I personally like those little skill/reward moments. The differing flight/heat profiles of the three javelins felt unique/distinct, and wearing a Colossus was meaningfully different from a Storm suit, not only in abilities and loadout, but how you approached an engagement and interacted with the battlefield.
It's the same as limited stealth. If stealth is unlimited, then there's no reason to ever not be stealthy, since "I take less damage and have more armor!" is still meaningless compared to "enemies never see me, so damage is irrelevant".
That's an incredibly easy fix. You don't overheat while flying around, you DO overheat while in combat because "your processor needs to focus on keeping you alive" or whatever other bullshit technobabble they want to come up with. The idea to limit your flight in such a heavy way in a game where you're supposed to fly around and feel like Iron Man was one of the worst game design decisions of the past decade. It doesn't lead to exploration, it leads to you just constantly looking ONLY for waterfalls.
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The jet pack is one of the few things I thought worked perfectly. It made me fly in interesting ways, use the verticality to dive or fly low, or fly over water or detour through waterfalls. It promoted fun flying, I’m surprised people disliked it so much. Sure if you’re flying in a straight horizontal line it works poorly but flying that way isn’t fun anyway.
I am legitimately shocked that people will defend that insane decision
I never understood it either. Let's make the game less fun? I get that folks don't mind it as is, but to say it's better than the alternative seems strange to me. If I want to get from point A to point B as fast as I can flying, why limit me? Yes diving from the very top of the map to the very bottom cools you down some. It never fully erased my heat unless it was raining and even if it did remove heat, now I'm not moving from point A to point B, I'm flying down. Yes waterfalls cooled you down, but they were only in certain locations and had plenty of chances to smash into the wall while cooling down. Again, stopping me from getting to point B when I want to get there.
As you mentioned, easy fix. Out of combat, no heat. In combat, heat. Done. Allows you to fly to the next battle without having to constantly stop and fall behind party members who have better cool down gear, also allows you to fly around free mode to your hearts content. In battle none of the mechanics need to change and CD gear still has purpose.
Their limited flight model could use a few tweaks. IIRC, free falling from higher altitudes and thrust feathering should have been more pronounced methods to sustain flight time.
Black lives matter.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
Their limited flight model could use a few tweaks. IIRC, free falling from higher altitudes and thrust feathering should have been more pronounced methods to sustain flight time.
You can regen flight time pretty quickly by flying down but it's dumb that free falling does not have the same effect.
That's probably my biggest complaint (edit: about the movement system, that is) as well. I get that maybe they don't want to incentivize a weird heartbeat pattern for flying, but the fact that if I'm on the cusp of overheating, cutting the engines and plummeting five hundred feet does literally nothing, but leaving them on and aiming for the ground will shed some heat.
It's weirdly counter-intuitive, and means that even if I react fast enough to kill the engines before I go out of control, I'm still left falling for those 5 seconds or whatever, and then when I hit the ground I can finally start shedding heat.
I'm not saying it should zero us out by the time we'd touch the ground or something, but give me at least some progress on the heat management for it.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I'll say the same thing I did a year ago when we were talking about this. Leaving it alone, actively bothers a % of their player base. Given how often it was mentioned as a negative in reviews, I'd argue a decent % of the player base. Changing it to no heat out of combat isn't going to agitate the other side nearly as much. A core mechanic of the game isn't flight time management out of combat.
Origin ID\ Steam ID: Warder45
+1
Options
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
Nah, limited jet pack was one of the few good decisions they made with this game.
is this like a joke post?
The feeling of the flying was always super enjoyable in Athem, one of the things they nailed. but making it limited, what in the world, why take something fun and then make you stop having fun.
Posts
The pubs did raise the price. This argument is so stale. Why does every single game have seasons of extra cost DLC? Because $60 is a shell price. And raising the base price to $80 or $100 is laughable because that wouldn't make them cut microtransactions or season passes or anything else. By making that argument, you're wondering out loud why they don't screw you over more upfront.
Thinking otherwise is deluding yourself.
Nah, just acknowledging that the cost of making an AAA game has skyrocketed since they last raised the price two generations ago.
Two generations ago, there weren't loot boxes, season passes, $200+ in costume DLC, 9 different editions at launch that all have different things in them, etc. They NEVER lost a dime on any of this shit.
Other than the small fact that many, many, MANY developers and publishers couldn't keep up with the advancing costs and folded.
But then we also see plenty of games really taking advantage of whale hunting with microtransactions, and the biggest winners are laughing to the bank. Meanwhile, smaller devs struggle to survive. The publishers aren't hurting though.
That said for smaller or medium companies, the cost of making A, AA, and AAA games has gone up a ton. The fact that we've gone through over a decade of $60 and yet now games come with multiplayer modes, massive increases in graphical technology and effects, voice acting, more complex AI, and plenty more. It's not surprising to see why they are taking exclusive deals that Epic is handing out.
Do I want to pay over $60 bucks? Not in general, but is that because of the price tag or because very often, $60 these days gets you an incomplete buggy mess of a game - which comes with 'DLC' that is often really part of the base game but separated for $$$.
Personally, I'd easily pay $80+, if I KNEW the game was complete, decently bug free, a good length (this of course varies based on what the game is) and not firing off day 1 'DLC' or 'loot packs' for even more money (looking at your 'gore packs' and 'portrait pack' type deals).
you actually see this phenomenon with lots of consumer products; such as TVs or game consoles barely even keep up with inflation despite getting better all the time. It's because 1) there's ever-increasing competition for entertainment time/dollars and 2) american wages have been pretty stagnant in recent years which means that if firms want to mass market entertainment products at all they must cut prices
a lot of this is probably why 'games-as-service' is becoming such a prevalent model; corporate greed yes, but also because the sticker price of games has not even kept up with inflation in the last decade and firms gotta make that up somewhere
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
It’s mostly just greed. EA and Activision have both told investors they don’t need micro transactions to be profitable. Micro transactions are just the cherry on top. Though for games with middling sales the micro transactions do help, but that just lets them ignore the reasons for the middling sales.
Another big problem is budgeting. A lot of interviews out there with Devs who’ve talked about submitting their budget for X money only to have the Publisher double it or otherwise increase it substantially. Followed by the Devs telling them they don’t need all of it. With Publishers responding that more money equals more better game. Leaving the Devs to figure out how to spend it all so in the future they don’t get less money when they need it. This usually results in Day One DLC or kickass snack rooms.
Edit- this is in regards to AAA studios. For smaller or independent studios things are very likely different.
It's not very instructive to compare two generations ago to today. Two generations ago, video game costs for development were relatively unknown, people were shooting in the dark. Since the large companies could weather that experimentation, they got to benefit in the long run while others couldn't. It's somewhat akin to how startups are handled nowadays, large companies don't take risks but let startups take the risk for them, and when it pays off, they buy them out.
Then again, I'm one of the cryptids that never felt bothered by this because it's part and parcel of constantly loading into an open world map
a lot of them are! I've put more hours into Apex Legends (also made by EA!) than probably anything else so far this year, anthem probably should have just been f2p and charged for cosmetics.
Probably would have required dropping the story bits, but considering how they turned out that likely would have been for the best.
https://kotaku.com/dont-expect-anthem-2-0-anytime-soon-1843482187
Well, yay for taking the time to get it right, and a smaller team won't burn as much money.
But man, it's going to take a lot to get people to pay attention to it again after all this time, especially with other games and possibly a new console generation hitting after it first launched.
When it comes out on next generation the core design principles of the original are wide and ambitious enough that it won't feel dated or anything if they land the execution correctly
it's good that they are apparently taking the 'take time to get it right' approach, but I never felt like they needed to reinvent the wheel. They just need to like, sand their wheel into a proper circular shape
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
If you're going to make a game about using a jetpack, why make it crap out after such a short flight time
To make you feel still-kinda-but-not-as-awesome doing fancy flippy triple-jump into a jetpack nonsense?
Either that, or it's to make you look for every waterfall or spray you can?
Because a melee enemy type is meaningless if you can hover indefinitely, as is any/all terrain bar artificial "suppressor field" type mechanisms. Limited flight adds engagement with terrain/environment, another element to track during combat/gameplay, and another dimension where enemies can overheat you and knock you down into their range.
Also, it feels pretty cool to nail the waterfall cooldown just as you're about to overheat, and I personally like those little skill/reward moments. The differing flight/heat profiles of the three javelins felt unique/distinct, and wearing a Colossus was meaningfully different from a Storm suit, not only in abilities and loadout, but how you approached an engagement and interacted with the battlefield.
It's the same as limited stealth. If stealth is unlimited, then there's no reason to ever not be stealthy, since "I take less damage and have more armor!" is still meaningless compared to "enemies never see me, so damage is irrelevant".
In the context of its association with gameplay it's basically a secondary sprint that allows you to freely traverse the XYZ axis as opposed to the traditional XY sprint
That's an incredibly easy fix. You don't overheat while flying around, you DO overheat while in combat because "your processor needs to focus on keeping you alive" or whatever other bullshit technobabble they want to come up with. The idea to limit your flight in such a heavy way in a game where you're supposed to fly around and feel like Iron Man was one of the worst game design decisions of the past decade. It doesn't lead to exploration, it leads to you just constantly looking ONLY for waterfalls.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I never understood it either. Let's make the game less fun? I get that folks don't mind it as is, but to say it's better than the alternative seems strange to me. If I want to get from point A to point B as fast as I can flying, why limit me? Yes diving from the very top of the map to the very bottom cools you down some. It never fully erased my heat unless it was raining and even if it did remove heat, now I'm not moving from point A to point B, I'm flying down. Yes waterfalls cooled you down, but they were only in certain locations and had plenty of chances to smash into the wall while cooling down. Again, stopping me from getting to point B when I want to get there.
As you mentioned, easy fix. Out of combat, no heat. In combat, heat. Done. Allows you to fly to the next battle without having to constantly stop and fall behind party members who have better cool down gear, also allows you to fly around free mode to your hearts content. In battle none of the mechanics need to change and CD gear still has purpose.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
Or if you play interceptor you should hardly ever fly at all anyway because it's slower.
edit: You can regen flight time pretty quickly by flying down but it's dumb that free falling does not have the same effect.
It's weirdly counter-intuitive, and means that even if I react fast enough to kill the engines before I go out of control, I'm still left falling for those 5 seconds or whatever, and then when I hit the ground I can finally start shedding heat.
I'm not saying it should zero us out by the time we'd touch the ground or something, but give me at least some progress on the heat management for it.
is this like a joke post?
The feeling of the flying was always super enjoyable in Athem, one of the things they nailed. but making it limited, what in the world, why take something fun and then make you stop having fun.