18 réponses à ce sujet

[Xenocide_EU]

I am sure alot share this sentiment. 

 

First of all, i paid alot of money for this game, why does this follow a freemium business model in its multiplayer? I find this entirely unacceptable. A company is there to serve the costumer, not to milk them like cows.

 

Secondly, the multiplayer is just plain boring. Remember neverwinter nights 2? Even today that game has a big community, because of its awesome multiplayer and having players create their own stories. If this game had something even remotely like that....it would have been one of the greatest games ever. But i assume you cannot create a business model with player created content? Why not sell player created campaigns, keep a community engaged....surely it would have generated a much more consistent revenue stream then the joke multiplayer is right now. I truly pitty anyone sinking money in this right now.

 

I feel this needs to be said.

Have a good day.

[gingeranna]

Multiplayer in DA:I was outed before release as being based on specific maps, not the full game story.

 

So the reason for multiplayer is: Paid DLC.

[lichg]

Anyone actually spent any real money on the multiplayer..?

[Vanth]

I haven't even played it. What is the point of it?

[line_genrou]

I have no interest in the multiplayer. To be honest this was only added to appeal to multiplayer whores and get a "new crowd" to buy the game without having played the other two

[Cornughon]

I have no interest in the multiplayer. To be honest this was only added to appeal to multiplayer whores and get a "new crowd" to buy the game without having played the other two

Probably this, seeing how many games released without multiplayer get a lot of bashing for having less replay value, and that 'everybody only plays online', and it's old fashioned to only have a campaign mode, like Wolfenstein: The New Order for example (yes I know a totally different game than this, but it's the same kind of critisism).

And the second reason is that Mass Effect 3's multiplayer mode was such a huge success (unexpected, but totally deserved, even I played the hell out of it, even though I'm usually only interested in story modes).

I would have been suprised if DA:I came without one. But reading this I might not even bother with it, since the campaign offers enough content on it's own already...

[Caelistas]

Why? Because:

 

 

I'd bet they'll make a nice little extra from the fools that buy MP chests.

[Vanth]

So, motivated by this thread I went to try multiplayer. As expected, it was ****. In fact it was so bad, I almost quit half-way through the level. The only reason I didn't quite was because I didn't want to leave the team one short.

 

Since I wanted to play a warrior, I was forced to play a dwarf. It was the only time I have ever played a dwarf in any game.

[Lee T]

The idea behind adding multiplayer in everygame is to prevent resale after the single player part is done. Since the've lost the battle against piracy publisher's have gone out of their way to impede the second hand market and multiplayer has been a weapon of choice (with stuff like online pass and redeemable DLC included in the brand new copy).

All that was needed for DA was instanciated dungeons for you to enjoy with your friends. That's clearly not thpath they've chosen to go.

However they are getting greedy by trying to gain money on top of it with a freemium model. Let's hope they're will not be enough whales to maintain such a model.

We're unfortunately not that far away from seeing this creeping into single player content. I wouldn't be surprised to see grinding added in many games with complimentary monetary shortcuts.

[Cornughon]

We're unfortunately not that far away from seeing this creeping into single player content. I wouldn't be surprised to see grinding added in many games with complimentary monetary shortcuts.

It already exists. It's called: Free to P(l)ay...

And I thought Diablo 3 already had such a gameplay model?

[Kantr]

Multiplayer in DA:I was outed before release as being based on specific maps, not the full game story.

 

So the reason for multiplayer is: Paid DLC.

Multiplayer has free dlc

 

Why? Because:

 

 

I'd bet they'll make a nice little extra from the fools that buy MP chests.

I buy mp chests. With in-game money. One round gives you enough cash for at least 5 chests

[GreyJedi727]

Honestly, I don't care for the fact the game has Multiplayer period. It's an RPG, it doesn't need it, and in my experience, most games that have Single Player AND Multiplayer, the main game suffers in length and occasionally quality. Two things an RPG definitely needs.

Just saying.

[Z.Z]

I haven't tried the multiplayer stuff yet, but ME has better gameplay which justifies multiplayer mode. Unless DAI multiplayer is like Divinity Original Sin or, I don't know, NWN, I don't see how that can be entertaining.

[Geth Supremacy]

Anyone actually spent any real money on the multiplayer..?

 

something tells me OP did LMAO! Just wants to act like he didn't  He dropped 50 bucks for one purple that was item level 13 and he mad hahaha.

[Xenocide_EU]

something tells me OP did LMAO! Just wants to act like he didn't  He dropped 50 bucks for one purple that was item level 13 and he mad hahaha.

 

Yea you got me. I smashed my keyboard "angry german kid" style.

 

@Greyjedi 

 

Wasnt really the case with nwn2...but it was the last game that truely followed the DnD ruleset...its from a different era....

Seriously, if i want to grind gear i will be playing a game like diablo or path of exile..if i want to do dungeons runs i will be playing an MMO..just not in this game.

Its a shame how this game pretty much follows the same 4 player party story driven adventure like the DnD games of old, but then instead of having awesome story driven multiplayer...it comes up with this lame grindfest ****.

[Kavain]

I find that MP is actually the most redeeming part about this game. SP is broken and riddled with bugs, endless crafting, gathering and more crafting, pointless story and shallow characters. Thanks for MP, I say!

[palathe4th]

I am waiting for the elder scrolls online for xbox to play a multiplayer. This game should have had the same thing, an open world adventure. They could use the darn single player map in multiplayer, I dont know why they didn't.

[AlexMBrennan]

Simply put, because it's dead cheap (compared to creating original, fully animated and voice acted content and new maps to keep players busy for 100s of hours) - all you need is a bit of code to let you connect with other players, and your customers will happily play the same small map over and over and over again to get credits they need to buy Spectre packs. 

It's not quite as good as Blizzard (how long does it take you to beat Diablo 3 for the first time? Yet I know people who have been playing the game for 2h each day for MONTHS grinding loot), but it's not far off either.

 

Even without the microtransactions (you know, I wouldn't have been surprised if there had been an option to rush war table operations with platinum), that's good for DLC sales since players still playing the game are more likely to buy DLC than players who binned the game months ago after beating the campaign. 

 

 

 

Honestly, I don't care for the fact the game has Multiplayer period. It's an RPG, it doesn't need it, and in my experience, most games that have Single Player AND Multiplayer, the main game suffers in length and occasionally quality. Two things an RPG definitely needs.

Elsewhere on the internet, people are complaining that BGEE didn't have the promised multiplayer support. 

[palathe4th]

A good way to keep players playing would be to use the open world of single player, as opposed to the small maps they have now. We did not need cut scenes and voice acting in multiplayer, just keep the same monsters and dragons, and people would be happy killing them.

The loot is random anyways. Would be much more entertaining than what they have now.