362 réponses à ce sujet

[xkg]

Ok, I'm feeding the troll here, but you do realize that if something is "cash grab", it means it's profitable, which means it's something players actually like and pay for. Which means adding it was a good idea.

 

You see, this is the gaming industry, if something is profitable and a good way to make money, it means people enjoy playing it.

 

Not everyone, of course, but lucky for us there's a huge single player game.

 

 

It all depends on the point of view. And how it is presented, is even more important.

EA has been somehow obvious about that for past few years, do you remember John Riccitiello talking ?

 

Spoiler

"When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip, and we ask you for a dollar to reload, you're really not very price sensitive at that point in time."

 

"A consumer gets engaged in a property, they might spend 10,20,30,50 hours on the game and then when they're deep into the game they're well invested in in. We're not gouging, but we're charging and at that point in time the commitment can be pretty high."

 

"But it is a great model and I think it represents a substantially better future for the industry."

 

Is it great model, Mr. Riccitiello ? Making the players addicted and then selling them the stuff. It's very reminds me of dealing the d... nevermind.

Given that he is gone already, and everyone should be greateful for that. But has EA stance diversed far from that thinking, since then ?

 

I am not so sure. The Sims 4, very good example of that. And CD-Action summed it up perfectly, in their review

 

Spoiler

The Sims 4 is just a foundation of a game. How would you react if you bought a new Elder Scrolls game and realized that half of the cities are unavailable (because TES6: World Adventures is around the corner), there are only 4 weapons (TES6: Accessories), you can’t ride horses (TES6: Pets), there are only 12 quests (TES6: Careers), 2 guilds (TES6: Friends) and 3 spells (TES6: Supernatural)?

 

Of course I am not forcing you to change your mind, just look at those facts, and judge for yourself.

[RenegadeRoy]

The problem is that everything in this game has been dumbed down just to support multiplayer.  It's not two entirely separate games, though it should have been.

Huh? How so? You have literally zero proof that anything in DA:I would be any different sans MP. 

[aaarcher86]

After the ME3 MP I thought DA MP would be tons of fun if they could make it work.

And from what we've seen, they have. It's exactly what I would want in DA MP. Very excited to try it out!

[SirGladiator]

I definitely like Multiplayer, it worked really great in ME3, and I'm just disappointed that there isn't more of a tie-in between the SP and MP, the way there was in ME3.  You felt like you were accomplishing something when you did the MP missions, because they helped you in the SP campaign, I don't know if the MP will be as fun in DAI if you aren't helping the Inquisition by playing it, but I'll certainly give it a try and hope for the best.  But we should definitely be helping our SP Inquisition by our accomplishments in MP, I hope they add that in some way in the future.

[Massakkolia]

It all depends on the point of view. And how it is presented, is even more important.

EA has been somehow obvious about that for past few years, do you remember John Riccitiello talking ?

 

Spoiler

"When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip, and we ask you for a dollar to reload, you're really not very price sensitive at that point in time."

 

"A consumer gets engaged in a property, they might spend 10,20,30,50 hours on the game and then when they're deep into the game they're well invested in in. We're not gouging, but we're charging and at that point in time the commitment can be pretty high."

 

"But it is a great model and I think it represents a substantially better future for the industry."

 

Is it great model, Mr. Riccitiello ? Making the players addicted and then selling them the stuff. It's very reminds me of dealing the d... nevermind.

Given that he is gone already, and everyone should be greateful for that. But has EA stance diversed far from that thinking, since then ?

 

I am not so sure. The Sims 4, very good example of that. And CD-Action summed it up perfectly, in their review

 

Spoiler

The Sims 4 is just a foundation of a game. How would you react if you bought a new Elder Scrolls game and realized that half of the cities are unavailable (because TES6: World Adventures is around the corner), there are only 4 weapons (TES6: Accessories), you can’t ride horses (TES6: Pets), there are only 12 quests (TES6: Careers), 2 guilds (TES6: Friends) and 3 spells (TES6: Supernatural)?

 

Of course I am not forcing you to change your mind, just look at those facts, and judge for yourself.

But we're not getting a half a game with DAI. We'll get the whole (huge) single player campaign and, in addition, a multiplayer mode for which we will be getting free DLC. I never felt pressured to use microtransactions in ME3, and I doubt I will be in DAI. 

 

Free-to-play models can cause addiction problems to a small minority of people, but the large majority (in most games over 90 percent) never pays a cent. Out of those who do pay, most can easily afford it. For what we know of DAMP so far, its financial model is not designed to limit your ability to proceed in the game, and it doesn't seem to depend on excessively addictive elements.  

[Ser Jynx]

mp fine-tuned the combat while the story crew did their thing. 

 

if you really don't like mp don't play it.

 

but don't say that mp was detrimental to the sp experience. cuz it wasn't

 

all it did was improve the overall battle system

[Vanth]

That is the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. ME3's MP greatly increased the game's longevity. I would have stopped playing it a long time ago if there hadn't been any multiplayer.

So you missed all the hate ME3 got for its shitty multiplayer then?

[Lebanese Dude]

The selfish train of thought is hilarious.

"I don't want MP. It doesn't matter what others want. What's important is that the company cater to MY desires and mine alone! MINE MINE MINE MINE!

That's how stupid this sounds.

[Heimdall]

So you missed all the hate ME3 got for its shitty multiplayer then?

I'm pretty sure much of that was directed at the way it was initially required to achieve certain endings.

[umadcommander]

they clearly thought it would sell well if this was indeed the initial plan, then i assume the weed they were smoking wore off and they came to their senses

[X Equestris]

So you missed all the hate ME3 got for its shitty multiplayer then?

No, that hate was directed at the singleplayer endings. I watched that fiasco myself.

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

Someone names their thread "...who ever asked for..."

 

And not ONE single Adam Jensen "I never asked for this" meme. I am disappointed

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

Oh oh over here i did.

[unclee]

So you missed all the hate ME3 got for its shitty multiplayer then?

 

I can't think of any such thing post-ME3 release. Everywhere you looked people were pleasantly surprised by how well it turned out and how fun it was to play.

 

What ME3 got a boatload of crap for was the fact that, despite developers saying the contrary, you couldn't initially get the "best" ending without playing multiplayer. Nobody really had a problem with the multiplayer itself, it was how it affected the single player experience that people absolutely raged about.

 

Which is one of the big reasons why DAMP won't affect single player.

[RenegadeRoy]

So you missed all the hate ME3 got for its shitty multiplayer then?

I must have, because I've only heard good things about the ME3 MP, and loved it myself. People complained that it had a slight effect on the SP, so they patched it.

[Angloassassin]

Funny thing about the MP though - not only is it separate from the SP in every way (No Galactic Readiness), there are no more achievements for it - so people don't feel obligated to play it for their 100% completion.

 

Also, it was used as a neutral testing environment by the developers to test abilities, effects, AI, enemy difficulty and movements. And it was developed by a different team in a side-by-side manner.

 

So, very little; if any, of the Single Player is going to be affected by the Multiplayer. 

 

 

Other things are, they've already announced all DLC for it will be free (A-la ME3 DLC), there will be no pay wall, and all Micro Transactions are optional. Just there for people who don't want to wade through the grind to earn the in-game currency to get their favorite character/weapons unlocked. 

 

Just like how ME3's MP was. And I sank more time into the MP than I did into the SP with ME3 because it was *Really* fun, and I had 2 siblings, extra copies of the game, and like 4 xbox's... So - yeah.

 

 

 

I certainly didn't *Ask* for it, but It's making me *That* much more excited that it's being included.

[andar91]

Projects change and evolve a lot, especially early on. The fact that Inquisition used to be exclusively MP isn't really relevant (obviously) to the final product, I think. Consider how much (of the single-player) had already been finished a year ago when they first showed off the Crestwood demo (and Mike Darrah said it was the realest build they'd ever showed i.e. not a lot of duct-tape holding it together). The change to single-player focus, whenever that happened, had to have happened very early on.

 

Multiplayer is completely separate from single player. It is not corrupting the game, though I realize some people unhappy with DA's direction are fond of using it as a symbol of all that they believe has gone awry. I'm not saying anybody has to LIKE the new direction (I don't mind most of it), but I think MP has become a bit of a scapegoat.

[Itkovian]

they clearly thought it would sell well if this was indeed the initial plan, then i assume the weed they were smoking wore off and they came to their senses

 

Or, more likely, after DA2 they decided to focus their efforts on a sequel that would please all the fans and avoid the risk of a full MP game. I imagine if DA2 had been more successful they might have been fine spawning 2 DA projects.

 

Something tells me this is for the bes,t mind you.

[cjones91]

I don't know either but what's done is done.I'll play it after my single player run to see if the MP is good.

[Bann Duncan]

BioWare has had multiplayer RPGs since 1998...

[godModeAlpha]

Multiplayer is used as a blanket these days.

 

Co-op PvE, is actually not bad. Like ME3 MP, looking forward to the some of that.

[AtreiyaN7]

Who cares who asked for it? It was just an idea that they kicked around at one time and never actually went through with.

 

Since I don't see any sign of DA:COD, DA:BF (not counting the use of the game engine), or DA:Halo existing as a discrete game right now, I don't see why the existence of a mere concept for a game that never came to pass is even a problem for anyone - other than for those people who hate the idea of multi-player anything in general and/or hate EA enough to enjoy complaining about MP and/or EA whenever humanly possible.

[Devtek]

I never asked for cookie dough ice cream either.  Was still the best flavour I have ever tasted. And now can never have again because I am lactose intolerant and the day of pain afterwards is really not worth it....back to my yummy sorbet now.

[Giantdeathrobot]

So you missed all the hate ME3 got for its shitty multiplayer then?

 

Apart from requiring to play it to get the best ending, the MP got very little flak post-release. It was well-made, fun and properly supported. It's played to this day, so it wasn't exactly a cheap, forgotten tie-in