361 réponses à ce sujet

[Giubba]

God damn it, a day passed and this thread is still running?!

[Angloassassin]

I'm not sad to see attributes go - it was always just annoying anyhow.

"I need a maximum of 16 cunning for Coercion, 42 strength for my plate amor, 38 strength for my weapon, 25 dexterity for this SaS ability"

Armor restrictions?.. Short of them restricting your armor - you now have schematics you can get *For* the armor design you like, aaaaand, you can create that armor using materials specific for the certain class.

 

Weapon restrictions? Face it...  Did your warrior really need a dagger? Did your mage *Really* need a battle axe? Various weapons have various requirements for a reason. Dex for Daggers because they are supposed to be used by rogues, str for things like Swords, Axes, and 2-handed weapons, because they're meant for warriors.    

 

You're basically telling me that you *Want* the ability to purposefully gimp your character by giving them a weapon they have no abilities to use.

 

As for the removal of hot-keying abilities to your bar. I assume they're going for a more "Preparation Based'' combat system like the Witcher. If you forgot to put a specific ability on your bar before going into combat, then whoops - it's your fault. Trust me, I've done it a number of times.

 

As for tactics menu being 'Dumbed Down' - if it is, I'm assuming to make it easier to understand for newer players. I know that my first 2-3 playthroughs of DA:O, I didn't bother with the thing, left everyone to whatever tactic was auto-selected.

 

 

 

Right now, it just seems to me you want to blame something for the Developers taking a new turn on things.

 

 

It's exactly the problem I had when I was working in IT - if you announced to someone you were going to be doing work on their computer, they'd blame you for anything that went wrong, even if it was something as simple as them forgetting they had their Caps-lock on when they went to put in their password.

 

MP is not some boogeyman that we need to be afraid of. If ME3's MP told us anything, is that (Aside from the Galactic Readiness), very little about the SP was touched in the wake of MP.

[Cyonan]

1) Attributes. Combat is designed in conjunction with multiplayer, and you can't deny this. Balance is one of the things they were doing, and MP characters have set abilities, set attributes, and the like. SP characters should not, like in DAO, DAA, DA2.. How do you balance this? You take away the ability for the SP player to change the attributes - you can only do this through crafting now, which also happens to line up with MP.

 

2) Weapon and armor are class restricted, again.

 

3) The previous games utilized a system where you could pause, in order to better do crazy things like glance through your abilities, and if you didn't have the right setup or didn't have an ability hotkeyed, change them or use Ability X on an enemy when it made sense. With MP - an entirely real-time mode - this wouldn't work. Therefore, the whole thing has just suddenly been removed and there's now a hard cap in place, and even SP players can't change abilities without exiting battle. Why?

 

4 - 5)  You could still go to the inventory in DA2 and swap weapons the hard way. And yet, DAI actually encourages one-man army mode more than the previous games. Now all you have to do in order to become a completely different character is run out of combat, switch hats, and you have more CON than Iron Bull or more DEX than Varric. So why is this limitation necessary? Because the combat is entirely designed for characters that can only run one spec - ie, MP. If you could do crazy things like switch to a ranged weapon, you might actually be able to pull off interesting tactical maneuvers.

 

6) Again, once you're in combat, you can't change character abilities or tactics whatsoever.

 

7) The tactics screen itself has basically been gutted. There's no "if-then" system to it, only being able to toggle abilities on and off. It's been dumbed down to all hell for no real reason.

 

The point is that most of those things are not a result of the MP, even if you don't agree with them.

 

1. Attributes would actually work well in MP if they weren't pre-set. The promotion system allows for frequent respecs if you mess up your stat allocation. I also suspect we'll see respec cards like with Mass Effect 3. There's no MP restriction here.

 

Besides, who cares if the MP and SP characters are balanced with each other? They're never going to interact anyway. You could easily just turn on stat allocation for SP only if you wanted.

 

2. You admit that this isn't new to Inquisition, so how is it MP's fault? It got added in a game that didn't even have a MP.

 

3. It's entirely possible for SP to have this while MP ignores it. MP already uses an entirely different ability limit than SP does, so I'm not entirely sure how it's at fault for SP only having 8 abilities at once. BioWare could up that number to 50 without affecting MP at all, they just don't want to(if you're on PC, we might be able to mod that).

 

4/5. Allowing for weapon swaps would still work in MP, and the characters are not limited to one build assuming they're anything like the Mass Effect 3 ones. One of the things that it was loved for was the variation in character builds available to us.

 

6/7. MP completely ignores the tactics system as your party members are controlled by players

[JosephShrike]

I'm not sad to see attributes go - it was always just annoying anyhow.

"I need a maximum of 16 cunning for Coercion, 42 strength for my plate amor, 38 strength for my weapon, 25 dexterity for this SaS ability"

Armor restrictions?.. Short of them restricting your armor - you now have schematics you can get *For* the armor design you like, aaaaand, you can create that armor using materials specific for the certain class.

 

Weapon restrictions? Face it...  Did your warrior really need a dagger? Did your mage *Really* need a battle axe? Various weapons have various requirements for a reason. Dex for Daggers because they are supposed to be used by rogues, str for things like Swords, Axes, and 2-handed weapons, because they're meant for warriors.    

 

You're basically telling me that you *Want* the ability to purposefully gimp your character by giving them a weapon they have no abilities to use.

 

As for the removal of hot-keying abilities to your bar. I assume they're going for a more "Preparation Based'' combat system like the Witcher. If you forgot to put a specific ability on your bar before going into combat, then whoops - it's your fault. Trust me, I've done it a number of times.

 

As for tactics menu being 'Dumbed Down' - if it is, I'm assuming to make it easier to understand for newer players. I know that my first 2-3 playthroughs of DA:O, I didn't bother with the thing, left everyone to whatever tactic was auto-selected.

 

 

 

Right now, it just seems to me you want to blame something for the Developers taking a new turn on things.

 

 

It's exactly the problem I had when I was working in IT - if you announced to someone you were going to be doing work on their computer, they'd blame you for anything that went wrong, even if it was something as simple as them forgetting they had their Caps-lock on when they went to put in their password.

 

MP is not some boogeyman that we need to be afraid of. If ME3's MP told us anything, is that (Aside from the Galactic Readiness), very little about the SP was touched in the wake of MP.

Yeah. Exactly. So many of the complaints about multiplayer, or Inquisition in particular, basically boil down to "This isn't Origins 2!", which I don't think is or was every going to be made. So much of that game was incredibly antiquated and clunky mechanically, there really had to be a change. Additionally, as I mentioned before, the concept of diminishing returns comes into play when dealing with the dev team and the project as a whole, so the notion that MP took resources away from SP is based on a) those resources being available for single player and if those resources had been available for single player, worthwhile content would have been added, both of which are huge leaps with very little basis in any kind of fact.

[Paul E Dangerously]

I'm not sad to see attributes go - it was always just annoying anyhow.

"I need a maximum of 16 cunning for Coercion, 42 strength for my plate amor, 38 strength for my weapon, 25 dexterity for this SaS ability"

Armor restrictions?.. Short of them restricting your armor - you now have schematics you can get *For* the armor design you like, aaaaand, you can create that armor using materials specific for the certain class.

 

Weapon restrictions? Face it...  Did your warrior really need a dagger? Did your mage *Really* need a battle axe? Various weapons have various requirements for a reason. Dex for Daggers because they are supposed to be used by rogues, str for things like Swords, Axes, and 2-handed weapons, because they're meant for warriors.    

 

You're basically telling me that you *Want* the ability to purposefully gimp your character by giving them a weapon they have no abilities to use.

 

As for the removal of hot-keying abilities to your bar. I assume they're going for a more "Preparation Based'' combat system like the Witcher. If you forgot to put a specific ability on your bar before going into combat, then whoops - it's your fault. Trust me, I've done it a number of times.

 

As for tactics menu being 'Dumbed Down' - if it is, I'm assuming to make it easier to understand for newer players. I know that my first 2-3 playthroughs of DA:O, I didn't bother with the thing, left everyone to whatever tactic was auto-selected.

 

Right now, it just seems to me you want to blame something for the Developers taking a new turn on things.

 

I see a lot of "Well, I didn't use this so I don't care if nobody else is able to" in here. That's great if you didn't. Remember when everyone raised hellfire and brimstone about not having racial choice in DA2 because "everyone played human anyway"? It's just like that.

 

1) Armor is class restricted. Rogues can't wear heavy, mages can't wear any. They can make something that looks like plate, but it's not actually plate, and therefore tied at the hip to the crafting system. You find something nice you want to use? Too bad, you're SOL. Get back in the box.

 

2) Want to tell me that my Longsword/Dagger Warrior wasn't viable? Or my Longsword/Dagger rogue? Or my dual handaxe rogue? Or my Arcane Warrior mage? Or my Warrior Archer? Again, if you don't have the imagination to think outside the most basic stereotypes that's great, but it doesn't mean all of us aren't able to.

 

3) Again, it's not even simplified, it's just gone. You have on and off. You can no longer set conditions. Better hope the AI is smart enough not to trigger Barrier so far ahead of combat that it's not on cooldown when you need it. Except we've seen videos of it and it clearly isn't. See also health potions, and an inability to properly manage ranged characters. You're gonna have to micromanage the hell out of everything when the tactics system was one of the few things DA2 did that received universal praise.

 

"A new turn" is fine, but not actually resembling the one successful game in the series isn't. Whatever Origins' flaws were, it allowed the player to build from a wide variety of character options, including attributes, weapons, armor, abilities and gear. In DAI, it's just abilities and gear. If you can't see why hacking off player choice at the knees is a bad thing, I don't know what to say.

[xkg]

2) Want to tell me that my Longsword/Dagger Warrior wasn't viable? Or my Longsword/Dagger rogue? Or my dual handaxe rogue? Or my Arcane Warrior mage? Or my Warrior Archer? Again, if you don't have the imagination to think outside the most basic stereotypes that's great, but it doesn't mean all of us aren't able to.

 

I don't know where that thinking came from and I wouldn't even talk about stereotypes here. The most iconic rogue I can think of, Robin Hood, was good at both, archery and swordplay.

 

Hello there Robin. What do you need that sword for ? You can't use it, you are rogue.

Spoiler

[Paul E Dangerously]

I don't know where that thinking came from and I wouldn't even talk about stereotypes here. The most iconic rogue I can think of, Robin Hood, was good at both, archery and swordplay.

 

Hello there Robin. What do you need that sword for ? You can't use it, you are rogue.

Spoiler

 

Hell, the Gray Mouser's one of the first modern-fantasy iconic rogues, and he used a longsword/dagger combo. Conan? Also a rogue, used a longsword.

[Angloassassin]

I see a lot of "Well, I didn't use this so I don't care if nobody else is able to" in here. That's great if you didn't. Remember when everyone raised hellfire and brimstone about not having racial choice in DA2 because "everyone played human anyway"? It's just like that.

 

1) Armor is class restricted. Rogues can't wear heavy, mages can't wear any. They can make something that looks like plate, but it's not actually plate, and therefore tied at the hip to the crafting system. You find something nice you want to use? Too bad, you're SOL. Get back in the box.

 

2) Want to tell me that my Longsword/Dagger Warrior wasn't viable? Or my Longsword/Dagger rogue? Or my dual handaxe rogue? Or my Arcane Warrior mage? Or my Warrior Archer? Again, if you don't have the imagination to think outside the most basic stereotypes that's great, but it doesn't mean all of us aren't able to.

 

3) Again, it's not even simplified, it's just gone. You have on and off. You can no longer set conditions. Better hope the AI is smart enough not to trigger Barrier so far ahead of combat that it's not on cooldown when you need it. Except we've seen videos of it and it clearly isn't. See also health potions, and an inability to properly manage ranged characters. You're gonna have to micromanage the hell out of everything when the tactics system was one of the few things DA2 did that received universal praise.

 

"A new turn" is fine, but not actually resembling the one successful game in the series isn't. Whatever Origins' flaws were, it allowed the player to build from a wide variety of character options, including attributes, weapons, armor, abilities and gear. In DAI, it's just abilities and gear. If you can't see why hacking off player choice at the knees is a bad thing, I don't know what to say.

 

 

I'll address these in order. 

 

First off - I've done it enough in my other comments, especially the one(or couple) I've posted in here, saying that I don't believe my opinion to be the Be All, End All.  In fact, I brought up that *I* didn't use them, because I've played maybe 40+ Wardens, 20+ Hawkes, varying builds, classes, playthroughs, difficulties. Et Cetera Et Cetera. So - I'm speaking from an informed opinion.

 

Secondly, they've already stated you'll find weapon and armor schematics through the game - that will allow you to make use of that cool looking piece of armor you found a while back, you just need to find the crafting materials that will make it For Your Class.

 

Thirdly, that's just a low blow - really, I'm reeling. Someone who doesn't know me from Adam is telling me that I can't think outside the box.  *Most* of my Warriors were either Sword and Board or Two-Handed, *Most* of my Mages were Arcane Warriors, Blood Mages, or Shape Shifters, and My *First* Warden ever was an Archer Dalish Warrior.  So please, reign yourself in before you start making baseless assertions about other people.

 

  I wasn't saying that any of those weren't viable -- actually, I was... As a Mage, you have *NO* Physical skills *AT ALL* No shield slam, no assault, nothing. Using a physical weapon limited you to auto attacks, and Combat Magic only ever worked on basic spells like Arcane bolt.   Otherwise, your Warden physically put his weapons away, casted - stood still a moment, and pulled back out his weapons.

 

As a rogue, your main hand weapon is the one you do backstabs with - heavier weapon, means slower backstabs, meaning less overall damage. Also, it required you taking extra DW perks, just to equalise having to use your heavier weapons. Not to mention stacking on strength, which - at a higher level, could exclude you from gaining the bonuses that turned your Dex into your damage multiplier. 

 

So yes - in my honest Opinion, none of those were all that viable.

 

and lastly - do you *really*... I mean, *Really* want to go back to DA:O? Where you could win a fight just by chugging the most health potions back to back? No skill necessary.

 

They previously built encounters in DA:O for health being, how much health the character had, plus how many healing spells, and added in all the lyrium and health potions. So you wound up with punishing encounters, with little tactics beside - make sure you chug faster!

 

It's alright to say you don't like Multiplayer, but to blame it for current design choices, is just wrong - seriously. Go visit some places where Bioware (On forums or the streams), talk about why they made changes like this. It certainly wasn't to "Balance and gut things in favor of Multiplayer."

[AlanC9]

Why would a SP development team worry about making all classes balanced, for example, by gimping mages in DAI as opposed to the previous two games if not for MP ?

Because they think class balance is a good thing for SP too? ME2, for instance, strikes me as a game that could have used a bit of MP-inspired class balancing. Squadmates without defense-stripping abilities are noticeably weak at higher difficulty levels.
 

ME3MP players saw for themselves what happened in ME3MP where the MP team would nerf things like Drone and Decoy that will affect SP, making them practically worthless.

What patch did that happen in? I didn't see any evidence of that in the patch notes. Drone worked fine for me in SP; was the ability originally supposed to be overpowering? Would that have made SP better? I don't see it.

[AlanC9]

Hell, the Gray Mouser's one of the first modern-fantasy iconic rogues, and he used a longsword/dagger combo. Conan? Also a rogue, used a longsword.

Surely Conan's dual-class, though. And the Gray Mouser has a little wizardly ability, IIRC. Multiple classes is a whole different issue, of course.

[AlanC9]

1) Attributes. Combat is designed in conjunction with multiplayer, and you can't deny this. Balance is one of the things they were doing, and MP characters have set abilities, set attributes, and the like. SP characters should not, like in DAO, DAA, DA2.. How do you balance this? You take away the ability for the SP player to change the attributes - you can only do this through crafting now, which also happens to line up with MP.

I don't follow the argument. How do attributes make MP balance harder? Everybody gets the same points to spend. Sure, some folks will spend them badly, but people will craft badly too, so what's the difference?

2) Weapon and armor are class restricted, again.

Right. Again. So, not added for MP.

[Paul E Dangerously]

I'll address these in order. 

 

First off - I've done it enough in my other comments, especially the one(or couple) I've posted in here, saying that I don't believe my opinion to be the Be All, End All.  In fact, I brought up that *I* didn't use them, because I've played maybe 40+ Wardens, 20+ Hawkes, varying builds, classes, playthroughs, difficulties. Et Cetera Et Cetera. So - I'm speaking from an informed opinion.

 

Secondly, they've already stated you'll find weapon and armor schematics through the game - that will allow you to make use of that cool looking piece of armor you found a while back, you just need to find the crafting materials that will make it For Your Class.

 

Thirdly, that's just a low blow - really, I'm reeling. Someone who doesn't know me from Adam is telling me that I can't think outside the box.  *Most* of my Warriors were either Sword and Board or Two-Handed, *Most* of my Mages were Arcane Warriors, Blood Mages, or Shape Shifters, and My *First* Warden ever was an Archer Dalish Warrior.  So please, reign yourself in before you start making baseless assertions about other people.

 

  I wasn't saying that any of those weren't viable -- actually, I was... As a Mage, you have *NO* Physical skills *AT ALL* No shield slam, no assault, nothing. Using a physical weapon limited you to auto attacks, and Combat Magic only ever worked on basic spells like Arcane bolt.   Otherwise, your Warden physically put his weapons away, casted - stood still a moment, and pulled back out his weapons.

 

As a rogue, your main hand weapon is the one you do backstabs with - heavier weapon, means slower backstabs, meaning less overall damage. Also, it required you taking extra DW perks, just to equalise having to use your heavier weapons. Not to mention stacking on strength, which - at a higher level, could exclude you from gaining the bonuses that turned your Dex into your damage multiplier. 

 

So yes - in my honest Opinion, none of those were all that viable.

 

and lastly - do you *really*... I mean, *Really* want to go back to DA:O? Where you could win a fight just by chugging the most health potions back to back? No skill necessary.

 

They previously built encounters in DA:O for health being, how much health the character had, plus how many healing spells, and added in all the lyrium and health potions. So you wound up with punishing encounters, with little tactics beside - make sure you chug faster!

 

It's alright to say you don't like Multiplayer, but to blame it for current design choices, is just wrong - seriously. Go visit some places where Bioware (On forums or the streams), talk about why they made changes like this. It certainly wasn't to "Balance and gut things in favor of Multiplayer."

 

And after just finishing a game with a heavy armor rogue that didn't use Daggers whatsoever, I find that it's more than viable.

 

Again, it's not all about the supposedly optional crafting system. What about the things called loot drops, or quest rewards? In DAO, if I found a good item, there was a 98% chance it wasn't class locked. If I meet the requirements for that suit of armor, I can wear it. In DAI, I cannot. I don't necessarily want something that looks like it, I want the real deal. Uniques. Set items.

 

As far as mage + weapon, there are sixty spells in DAO/DAA that can be cast without sheathing the weapon. "Only the most basic" indeed. Are Inferno, Tempest, and Chain Lightning basic? Crushing Prison? Mana Clash?

 

What does chugging potions have to do with setting the AI to not let themselves be murdered? "Use spell X when Condition Y is set", "Chug a potion if you're at 25% health". "Do not engage in melee, since you're inept and can't melee at all in DAI and just have to let someone hack your face off".  I can't do anymore in DAI. I have to rely on the AI, and I've never been disappointed assuming the AI in every game I play may be inept. It usually is. From what I've seen of the streams, they've got bad problems with ranged characters that just can't handle it when someone closes in to melee, and they die almost instantly. This is not good. Is there a good reason I can't, other than oversimplification?

[Lebanese Dude]

I was going to post replies to some people but I figured it would be pointless since you're too mired in your own negativity for any rational discussion.

Whatever...I pray for the day gamers stop complaining about what's absent and focus on enjoying what's present....particularly when it concerns something as trivial as a video game.

Have fun people. It's what you're here for.

[Itkovian]

1) Attributes. Combat is designed in conjunction with multiplayer, and you can't deny this. Balance is one of the things they were doing, and MP characters have set abilities, set attributes, and the like. SP characters should not, like in DAO, DAA, DA2.. How do you balance this? You take away the ability for the SP player to change the attributes - you can only do this through crafting now, which also happens to line up with MP.

 

I'll concede this one, it DOES simplify balancing, but then again you must consider that crafting greatly complicated balance. If simplification is what they wanted, why add such in-depth crafting that has such an impact to character builds? THAT certainly made things far more complicated than stats assignement did (since crafting does far more than just alter stats, but confers a whole slew of special effects, like healing and barrier/guard generation, and so on).

 

2) Weapon and armor are class restricted, again.

 

And that has _nothing_ to do with multiplayer. DA2 did the same, and no MP there. Weapon restrictions is a common design when abilities are closely tied to weaponry.

 

3) The previous games utilized a system where you could pause, in order to better do crazy things like glance through your abilities, and if you didn't have the right setup or didn't have an ability hotkeyed, change them or use Ability X on an enemy when it made sense. With MP - an entirely real-time mode - this wouldn't work. Therefore, the whole thing has just suddenly been removed and there's now a hard cap in place, and even SP players can't change abilities without exiting battle. Why?

 

There is no reason why this is enforced in SP because it's not possible to do so in MP, for the simple reason that it would entirely be possible to do so in MP if the devs decided players could. They could easily have decided to allow all these options (change ability mapping, change inventory) while the game was not paused. Baldur's Gate did just that: you could switch inventory in mid-fight, but the fight kept going.

 

No, clearly the inability to change abilities or equipment in battle is there to enforce tactical choices on the players. Basically, the design theory is that it forces players to plan ahead and make tactical decisions before the fights. This has _nothing_ to do with multiplayer, and these restrictions exist in single player because that's how the combat is designed.

 

4 - 5)  You could still go to the inventory in DA2 and swap weapons the hard way. And yet, DAI actually encourages one-man army mode more than the previous games. Now all you have to do in order to become a completely different character is run out of combat, switch hats, and you have more CON than Iron Bull or more DEX than Varric. So why is this limitation necessary? Because the combat is entirely designed for characters that can only run one spec - ie, MP. If you could do crazy things like switch to a ranged weapon, you might actually be able to pull off interesting tactical maneuvers.

 

That's stretching things to an absurd level. YES, if people are interested in "gaming" the system they could go to such lengths as running out of the fight to switch equipment and abilities (in effect re-speccing their characters), but that's clearly going out of your way to avoid the spirit of the design. Namely, that you're meant to make meaningful tactical decisions before battles through your ability lineup and equipment.

 

This is no different than going back to camp to refill your potions after every encounter. Sure, you CAN do it if you really really want to avoid the attritional aspect of the design, but you're really supposed to try and manage your ressource until the end of the dungeon (or some such).

 

Just because the devs decided to not completely block ways to "game" their tactical restrictions does NOT mean players are "encouraged" to do so... indeed the very tediousness of doing so CLEARLY shows the opposite' Sure, you can run back to camp after every fight, or flee fights all the time so you can switch gear... but it'll be durn annoying and you'll have more fun if you try to play the game as intended.

 

6) Again, once you're in combat, you can't change character abilities or tactics whatsoever.

 

See above. This has nothing to do with multiplayer, but is instead a common aspect of modern game design.

 

7) The tactics screen itself has basically been gutted. There's no "if-then" system to it, only being able to toggle abilities on and off. It's been dumbed down to all hell for no real reason.

 

I'm definitely missing the old tactics screen, but that's not the point of this discussion. The point is this has nothing to do with Multiplayer (more likely it's related to the new engine). Multiplayer doesn't use the behaviors and tactics screen AT ALL.

 

As for why it's "dumbed down", I think it's safe to say there is a real reason. Devs didn't go "meh, we could copy/paste tactics, but let's not do it, because whatevs." I imagine it had something to do with the new engine making it difficult to rebuild the tactics system as it stood in DAO/DA2. Remember, while tactics are simpler in DAI, they still had to build the system from the ground up, so it's not like they had a full tactics system ready and decided to dumb it down... and again it had nothing to do with MP.

 

You don't like some of their design decisions, and that's fine. I personally miss the old tactics system, and love to have a skill bar full of buttons to push (I loved the sustained mode mechanics).

 

But don't use that as some sort of ammo against the inclusion of multiplayer in DA games. These are design decisions that are quite valid in a single player only game on their own. It's needlessly reactionary, and essentially amounts to blaming those of us who love mutiplayer for your reduced enjoyment of the game (even if it's not intentional, that's how it comes off).

[skjutengris]

I applaud the multiplayer.

good to play with friends

[Vanth]

In every software project I've been involved in, you start with a business case outlining the product to be made, the expected costs and the expected returns. You ask for the money to make the product you want, not the other way around.

 

Well, it looks like you made my point for me. There are expected costs and expected returns. Tell me, do you think the expected cost with multiplayer would be more or less than without? Presumably more, right? Do you think the expected return would be more or less than without? Presumably more, right?

 

Now, why do you think the expected return would be higher? There are two possibilities. Either they reckon they can sell more copies, or they reckon that they can charge more. I think it was probably both to be honest.

 

In which case, we are being charged more for the product with multiplayer than we would have been charged without multiplayer, which is the  point I was making...

[unclee]

Well, it looks like you made my point for me. There are expected costs and expected returns. Tell me, do you think the expected cost with multiplayer would be more or less than without? Presumably more, right? Do you think the expected return would be more or less than without? Presumably more, right?

 

Now, why do you think the expected return would be higher? There are two possibilities. Either they reckon they can sell more copies, or they reckon that they can charge more. I think it was probably both to be honest.

 

In which case, we are being charged more for the product with multiplayer than we would have been charged without multiplayer, which is the  point I was making...

 

In what world are you living where this game would have cost less had they not included multiplayer? In this, the actual real world, this game was going to cost $60 regardless.

[Mercedes-Benz]

EA?

[Vanth]

In what world are you living where this game would have cost less had they not included multiplayer? In this, the actual real world, this game was going to cost $60 regardless.

 

So your position is that Bioware are giving us multiplayer out of the goodness of their hearts? There is no financial motivation at all? It has nothing to do with DA:I costing way more than comparable games. Well, I wish I did live where you live. There must be butterflies, unicorns and pretty flowers everywhere.

[xXGearSecond]

So your position is that Bioware are giving us multiplayer out of the goodness of their hearts? There is no financial motivation at all? It has nothing to do with DA:I costing way more than comparable games. Well, I wish I did live where you live. There must be butterflies, unicorns and pretty flowers everywhere.

 

You're going to have to explain that to me. Because Dragon Age: Inquisition is the same price as every other AAA game out there. It is $59.99, the same price that DA II and DA:O was. And it would be that price with or without multiplayer.

 

If DA:I costs more where you are, it has nothing to do with MP.

[unclee]

So your position is that Bioware are giving us multiplayer out of the goodness of their hearts? There is no financial motivation at all? It has nothing to do with DA:I costing way more than comparable games. Well, I wish I did live where you live. There must be butterflies, unicorns and pretty flowers everywhere.

 

No, my position is $59.99 is the price of games these days. It doesn't matter if the game is SP-only, MP-only or SP and MP. It'll be $59.99.

 

Infamous: Second Son? $59.99. Destiny? $59.99. Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare? $59.99. Hell, even Nintendo has started charging $59.99 for their games.

 

This is how it's worked since the 360 and PS3 era. So I say again: In what world are you living where this game was going to cost anything other than $59.99, regardless of if it came with multiplayer or not?

[AlanC9]

Now, why do you think the expected return would be higher? There are two possibilities. Either they reckon they can sell more copies, or they reckon that they can charge more. I think it was probably both to be honest.
.

There is a non-crazy version of this position, where MP earns additional revenue through microtransactions. Obviously, that doesn't make much of a case against MP since only actual MP players will be charged for MP gear.

[FireAndBlood]

It's kind of bull to say that MP doesn't affect single player in the slightest. It does in the sense that X amount of time and Y amount of money is allocated to a game, and if money and time are going to MP, then that's money and time that isn't spent on single player.

Every time I see a comment like this, the Finance major in me rages.

[Vanth]

You're going to have to explain that to me. Because Dragon Age: Inquisition is the same price as every other AAA game out there. It is $59.99, the same price that DA II and DA:O was. And it would be that price with or without multiplayer.

 

If DA:I costs more where you are, it has nothing to do with MP.

 

DA:I is £49.99 ($79.21) for the standard PC edition, but the new Call of Duty is £39.99. That is quite a difference. Middle Earth: Shadows of Mordor was £29.99.

 

I honestly can't remember how much DA2 was, but it certainly wasn't £49.99. DA:O was £29.99.