242 réponses à ce sujet

[Zkyire]

Quite honestly, even if they add MP to DAI, I don't care. I spent more time playing ME3 MP than I did playing the SP campaign so *shrug*.

[PaladinEagle]

Whilst multiplayer is nothing more than a money making scheme for EA given how good the multiplayer on Mass 3 was (up until it started kicking me out every game) I'm hopeful that it will be pretty good.  Only time will tell

[Savber100]

What's wrong with MP?

There I said it. SP being bad has NEVER been because of MP. Anyone who says so is clearly retarded on mattters of game development.

[LinksOcarina]

Savber100 wrote...

What's wrong with MP?

It's popular.

People hate popular things.

[addiction21]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

The CoD audience pays $15  for each individual map pack. Map packs that often include a couple maps from the previous game that they already paid for last year. Of course, they don't make the connection and don't realize that paying $15 for a map pack is insanity becuase they represent the lowest common denominator in society.

Big publishers like Activision and EA love these kinds of gamers because they don't think about anything other than spending $60 on the same game they bought last year. Or in this case, points to buy weapons that are already on the disc that they paid full price for. There is no redemption for such a person.

I know right? People spending their own money on what they enjoy. HOW DARE THEY!! We should insult them and act as if berating their enjoyment makes us superior.

[Twisted Path]

Thing is a lot of people got into Bioware RPGs specifically because they weren't mindless shooters. The more the games become like mindless shooters (see Mass Effect 3,) the less fun they are for those people. Who ah...wanted to play roleplaying games.

[Aolbain]

addiction21 wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

The CoD audience pays $15  for each individual map pack. Map packs that often include a couple maps from the previous game that they already paid for last year. Of course, they don't make the connection and don't realize that paying $15 for a map pack is insanity becuase they represent the lowest common denominator in society.

Big publishers like Activision and EA love these kinds of gamers because they don't think about anything other than spending $60 on the same game they bought last year. Or in this case, points to buy weapons that are already on the disc that they paid full price for. There is no redemption for such a person.

I know right? People spending their own money on what they enjoy. HOW DARE THEY!! We should insult them and act as if berating their enjoyment makes us superior.

We are the BSN. Its our thing. Without trolling, grave retardation and a false sense of superiority, what would be left?  I tell you what would be left: Chris Prestley, sitting in the empty halls we left behinde, surrounded by moderators, all crying of relief and joy.

[Allan Schumacher]

Plaintiff wrote...

Unless Bohemia Interactive and Valve are making the mods themselves, and charging for them, then no, mods do not make money.

What Bohemia Interactive and Valve do make money from are sales of their games. Whether you mod it later or don't is irrelevent, because they got all the money they were going to get from you when you paid for the product. It doesn't matter if you play it, mod it, or throw it away without even opening it, their profits are not increasing or decreasing as a result of any of that.

The link between mods and profit for the producers of the main game is extremely tenuous at best, and any profit that could be said to be linked to modding is negligable. Possibly the companies make money from the sale of the toolset, but the people with the skill and desire to use a toolset to create mods are a niche audience, and game companies make no money whatsoever from the downloading/use of the mods themselves.  It is not financially sensible to make the creation of a toolset a priority. They will make more money, more directly, if they devote that time to creating additional content themselves.

Both Bohemia Interactive and Valve are game companies that saw a lot of sales of their games based upon mods made for it (DayZ and Counterstrike).  Counterstrike and Day of Defeat were Half-Life mods that actually went retail.  Although these types of success stories aren't very common, however.

Having said that, I agree with the poster that hinted that Valve is a money press today because of Steam.

[Malanek]

demont0 wrote...

As long as it remains a completely separate entity from SP, i couldn't care less about the inclusion of it in game, as i know i will probably completely ignore it (as i have with ME. I don't appreciate a one mode MP, with micro-transactions for completely random boxes. How there isn't outrage about this, I have no idea).

The gameplay variety comes in the form of the 50 or so different kits you can play. There is a massive variety in ME3 multiplayer gameplay.

As for microtransactions, no one is forcing you to pay anything. Some people complain about them, but that is probably less than 5% of the player base.

[AppealToReason]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

AppealToReason wrote...

But COD has nothing like that in any of their games. Just DLC maps that you buy because you can't unlock them. Microtransactions is more like Diablo, F2P's, and Facebook games which are more or less exclusively for the PC master race.

The CoD audience pays $15  for each individual map pack. Map packs that often include a couple maps from the previous game that they already paid for last year. Of course, they don't make the connection and don't realize that paying $15 for a map pack is insanity becuase they represent the lowest common denominator in society.

Big publishers like Activision and EA love these kinds of gamers because they don't think about anything other than spending $60 on the same game they bought last year. Or in this case, points to buy weapons that are already on the disc that they paid full price for. There is no redemption for such a person.

Seems like you're just complaining about gamers in general. 

[Bard Lehel]

 I can't understand all the MP-hating being posted.  That's fine if you are a SP fan and would never play coop because you are a loner, or never tried it with a friend who plays RPGs as well.  

I have been a Bioware fan since BG days.  And I like D&D style rgps where I can coop with my friends who are into the same types of games.  Did that with BG2, NWN, etc.  I was excited when I heard news of Bioware creating a new rpg that was free of Wizards licenscing, but was hoping for more of a coop rpg option, with previous titles.  I personally don't like SP games anymore--I prefer social gaming over loner gaming, with some exceptions.  But, disappointed that DA:O and DA2 didn't have a coop feature.  

I just want to have a friend join my campaign or vice-versa.  It doesn't have to be designed around mp grouping...I'd be fine where there would be 1 hero and the rest of your friends in the party are just tagging along.  Again, I don't see why SP-only advocates are making such a fuss to campaign against this type of gameplay that many of us who played previous Bioware titles really enjoyed.  

[AppealToReason]

Bard Lehel wrote...

 I can't understand all the MP-hating being posted.  That's fine if you are a SP fan and would never play coop because you are a loner, or never tried it with a friend who plays RPGs as well.  

I have been a Bioware fan since BG days.  And I like D&D style rgps where I can coop with my friends who are into the same types of games.  Did that with BG2, NWN, etc.  I was excited when I heard news of Bioware creating a new rpg that was free of Wizards licenscing, but was hoping for more of a coop rpg option, with previous titles.  I personally don't like SP games anymore--I prefer social gaming over loner gaming, with some exceptions.  But, disappointed that DA:O and DA2 didn't have a coop feature.  

I just want to have a friend join my campaign or vice-versa.  It doesn't have to be designed around mp grouping...I'd be fine where there would be 1 hero and the rest of your friends in the party are just tagging along.  Again, I don't see why SP-only advocates are making such a fuss to campaign against this type of gameplay that many of us who played previous Bioware titles really enjoyed.  

I'd love to have that. So what if I miss out on a few random dialogue lines during a quest if I can be in chat with a friend the entire time making obscure references and poop jokes!

[Ziegrif]

If the gameplay is fun I'll play MP.
If it's not. I'll play the game for the story.
I like fast paced hack and slashers more than tactics.
But I love the DA story.
So the combat is what will either hook me in the MP or not.

But for the love of all that is holy to anyone I HOPE THEY DON'T LINK MP AND SP LIKE IN ME3. That would be bad, VERY BAD. Keyboard smashingly bad.

[Hoogies123]

I'm very skeptical about DA3 overall. After DA2 I was very unhappy with the direction it went and the cuts that were made. I'm telling you now Bioware that you won't see any of my money if you don't deliver on an epic story much like DA:O, so allocate funds where necessary but keep in mind that I would prefer a polished single player game.

I know I'm not alone in these sentiments.

[shepard1038]

What if the multiplayer is a cooperative mode?

[Inquisitor Recon]

shepard1038 wrote...
What if the multiplayer is a cooperative mode?

Like what you could do in Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale? That would be great. Yet I rather doubt that. I don't think it hits the market EA is aiming for.

[BouncyFrag]

Twisted Path wrote...

Fiddles dee dee wrote...

OP, the managing director of EA stated he was overjoyed that he had not published any game without an online multiplayer component. I'm guess that's at least a supporting factor.

For the record though, I'm interested to try DA multiplayer.

There's also that clip floating around Youtube where the CEO of EA is talking to shareholders and tells them what a great cash-cow micro-transfers (especially in multiplayer games,) are because people aren't thinking clearly in the middle of the game. You don't realize how silly it is to pay $1.99 or whatever for some slight statistical advantage when you're in the game and loosing.

Honestly I think it's the general public's fault for falling for that sort of marketing ploy, and it's similar to the reason we have impulse-buy items in the checkout line at supermarkets. If people didn't pay money for that sort of thing it wouldn't exist. But it's also making games less and less fun for us folks who don't buy the extra DLC bells and whistles, since we're forking over $60 for games that are increasingly incomplete.

Clip of EA's CEO on micro-transactions: (The background music is a nice touch.)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR6-u8OIJTE

[Rawgrim]

As long as the MP is completely optional and doesn`t affect the SP at all, I have no problems with it.

[thebigbad1013]

As long as the multiplayer element is optional and in no way affects the single player experience, I really don't have a problem with it. I wasn't exactly thrilled when I found out that ME3 had multiplayer included, but I ended up liking it well enough and I still play it on occasion. But it is an absolute must for me that the multiplayer is completely seperate from the single player game.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Ninja Stan wrote...

There was a lot of resistance to ME3 multiplayer before that game's release, largely for the same reasons in the OP, yet ME3 MP is insanely popular. That's not to say that DA3 MP will necessarily be equally as popular, but to dismiss it out of hand now, when we have no information about it, is a little premature, in my opinion.

Shame about ME3's SP though.

[Rawgrim]

DinoSteve wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

There was a lot of resistance to ME3 multiplayer before that game's release, largely for the same reasons in the OP, yet ME3 MP is insanely popular. That's not to say that DA3 MP will necessarily be equally as popular, but to dismiss it out of hand now, when we have no information about it, is a little premature, in my opinion.

Shame about ME3's SP though.

I only played the ME3 MP because I was forced to in order to get the galactic readiness up high enough. This got fixed later, though. But not before it messed up my first playthrough. No wonder it was an "instant success" when everyone who bought the game got forced to play it to begin with.

[Warden661]

I did like the multiplayer in ME3. I didn't like the fact that it was connected to singleplayer, but it was enjoyable as a standalone aspect of the game. If DA:I has multiplayer then I will try it. If I don't like it I won't play. If it's connected to singleplayer in the same way ME3's was then i'll be disappointed but I'll still play for however long I need to. Honestly it's just not that big of a deal for me. Either way I'm getting the game. Pre-ordering even!

Modifié par BoBear, 21 janvier 2013 - 11:15 .

[Yuqi]

As long as it's not like Fable 3...

[Galbrant]

Well I did enjoy the multiplayer in ME3 but iI got only so much enjoyment from one mode then it got boring fighting the same 3 enemies over and over. It was obvious that it did affect the single player. There were noticeable lower amount of sidequests in ME3, Those boring scanning missions don't count.

I'm fine with multiplayer as long as it doesn't ruins my single player experience which ME3 did. Well then again ME3 didn't need help from the multiplayer to ruin the singleplayer. And I'm okay with it if they did you know more than one play style Horde Mode got boring eventually,.