Random Game Talk (are you really a gamer if you aren't playing BG3?)

[Heimdallr]

6 hours ago, showtime said:

What's the downside to doing this?  Why wouldn't Activision do it?  I know the game is extremely successful, but over the past 4-5 years it has taken a hit and probably isn't as popular as it used to be.  

Yet CoD is still the best selling game (or close) ever single year, at $60 + $40 for the season pass. For most games I agree the FTP + MTX formula is the way to go, but the juggernauts like CoD, Madden, etc. still make too much money on their yearly sales to go FTP or to support the game for more than a year. 

[showtime]

8 minutes ago, Heimdallr said:

Yet CoD is still the best selling game (or close) ever single year, at $60 + $40 for the season pass. For most games I agree the FTP + MTX formula is the way to go, but the juggernauts like CoD, Madden, etc. still make too much money on their yearly sales to go FTP or to support the game for more than a year. 

You're right that CoD is the best selling game.  Fortnite has changed the game, tho.  Never before has a free to play game been this popular in a genre that anyone can pick up and play.  CoD was the best selling game in 2017 and what happened?  Tons of people complained the game sucked.  In the past, CoD really didn't have any competition.... but now there is Fortnite.  Why drop $60 + DLC money if I can play Fortnite for free?  CoD already took the first step with Black Ops 4 having Free DLC.

Look at Star Wars Battlefront 2.  People complained why?  Because the game was $60 and it had a pay wall.  Make the game Free to Play and nobody complains and you sell a ish ton of cosmetics.  You'll make more money in the long run. 

I think this business model was really risking on console because it had never been done before.... but now there's Fortnite and that has literally shattered everything known before.

[cddolphin]

Color me surprised that COD remains an annual best-seller..

There really aren't a lot of quality games being published nowadays.

[Mossburg]

Just now, cddolphin said:

Color me surprised that COD remains an annual best-seller..

There really aren't a lot of quality games being published nowadays.

I'm in the same boat, I don't fully understand how. My theory is it's basically like a cable provider or magazine or something else you just buy because you've done it and they know how to make it so that audience keeps buying automatically. That audience is basically a more casual gaming majority, not just kids with mom's credit card, but older dudes who were never hardcore gamers or got into gaming around the PS2 or PS3 days, don't really follow gaming news or anything and have full time responsibilities. That market is probably the biggest.

[Spartacus]

I think also making a triple A title with modern graphics is extremely expensive compared to what is used to be. I think it makes almost all of the big companies extremely risk adverse. That's why I really like to support original works even if their not the best. 

[JBURGE]

33 minutes ago, cddolphin said:

Color me surprised that COD remains an annual best-seller..

There really aren't a lot of quality games being published nowadays.

I used to be a big cod player, but haven't really played the last 3 games much. I still think they're very well made games, but being as popular as it is, the masses will always want perfection. Personally I like the fast paced gameplay, but I'm just burned out. 

[Norm]

On 5/19/2018 at 5:27 AM, TXsteeler said:

Any honest gamer that grew up playing games before micro transactions ruined things should talk about how terrible every chance they get. The fact that such terrible business practices are successful is disgusting imo, and when people stop complaining is when it becomes common in every game and the terrorists win.

I say don't let the terrorists win as a dumb *** troll comment like video games turned super evil and everything was hunky dory before mtxs. I've never seen anyone actually use it seriously lolol

[Norm]

On 5/20/2018 at 11:04 AM, Heimdallr said:

Do people remember when you had to pay full price for a game with zero or very limited reviews, and there was zero chance of future updates, bug fixes or additional content? All the advances in post-launch support is a huge boon for consumers. 

Microtransactions and DLC are additional and optional content. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Having that option available in no way harms you. Now, if developers add in items that alter the competitive balance of the game, that is poor design, but not an indictment on the concept of DLC itself.

I'm getting a little tired of every game with dlc is half a game and you have to wait for the rest and pay for it. There's plenty of content in these games on release in lots of cases. I'd say most but I don't know how one even begins to prove it. But I don't think at all it's half a game or anything. We had the same ****. They called it expansions, nobody cared

On 5/21/2018 at 4:51 AM, HorizontoZenith said:

I can't believe there's a universe where people defend micro transactions and that I'm in that universe.  Micro transactions are not normal, and they are not something that should be defended. 

They harm the overall quality of games.  Instead of focusing on creating the best game possible, developers will start focusing on how to get the most money out of micro transactions.  Sports games are a perfect example of this.  Why does the NBA game suck?  Why does Madden suck?  Because they can charge full price each and every year for changing menus, music and a few tiny details and gameplay mechanics, lose some buyers and make that up and more by people paying for MUT cards or haircuts on a damn video game character. 

The bottom line in any industry or company is money.  That's it.  If a company can make more money off micro transactions, their biggest focus will be on that.  In no world, solar system, galaxy or universe should anybody ever defend micro transactions.  A micro transaction is the equivalent to paying 10 dollars to see the latest Marvel movie and then paying an extra dollar to be able to sit for the after credits scene.  If you defend micro transactions, you are a sad, strange person. 

They were like anything else really. They can be used terribly and can do what you say. They don't have to. It's certainly feasible you could use them to give out maps for free if they sold well and it wouldn't split the player base. Your whole premise is based on the fact the entire video game industry is a boogie man. A thought that that has a basis but isn't universal.

22 hours ago, showtime said:

Fortnite made $126 million in February alone, according to some report I read and that number is obviously increasing every month.  I don't understand why more companies don't go the free-to-play route for certain games.  It doesn't work for some games, but just imagine a game like Black Ops 4 doing that. 

For example

* . They announce that the new CoD game is free to play and will be supported for at least 5 years minimum with constantly updates, new guns, new maps, etc.  All of these new maps and guns will be free.

* . The game has a non-stop ish ton of new character skins, gun skins, C4 skins, etc anything you can put a skin on.  

People would play the F out of CoD and they would also buy skins and stuff as well.

What's the downside to doing this?  Why wouldn't Activision do it?  I know the game is extremely successful, but over the past 4-5 years it has taken a hit and probably isn't as popular as it used to be.  

Just a different discussion than micro-transactions lol.

OT a bit but as a PC player, the idea hackers could feasibly find a way to create account after account scares me. That would be my personal downside haha

[Norm]

Also can we talk about BFV doe

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

14 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

Also can we talk about BFV doe

If they're going to do another WWII game I'm not very interested, especially with the direction Battlefield has been going since BF3.

[Norm]

2 minutes ago, Darth Pees said:

If they're going to do another WWII game I'm not very interested, especially with the direction Battlefield has been going since BF3.

Let's fight then.

Lol

I was fine with about whatever honestly but having a high end WW2 game that isn't COD will be cool. I have a feeling after the teaser sort of just giving away the biggest secret they held so tight, there might be more to it.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

29 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

Let's fight then.

Lol

I was fine with about whatever honestly but having a high end WW2 game that isn't COD will be cool. I have a feeling after the teaser sort of just giving away the biggest secret they held so tight, there might be more to it.

Don't get me wrong, I love the original BF games set in WWII, I just feel like after BF1 was so meh (IMO) that doing the same game in WWII (which will probably be what this is) is going to be the same thing.

Now if they get creative and do some good things, like maybe attack & defend on Omaha Beach or something like that instead of just "all 50 people circle up on one point and throw grenades at each other for 20 minutes", I'll get more optimism.

[Norm]

22 minutes ago, Darth Pees said:

Don't get me wrong, I love the original BF games set in WWII, I just feel like after BF1 was so meh (IMO) that doing the same game in WWII (which will probably be what this is) is going to be the same thing.

Now if they get creative and do some good things, like maybe attack & defend on Omaha Beach or something like that instead of just "all 50 people circle up on one point and throw grenades at each other for 20 minutes", I'll get more optimism.

I completely understand the sentiment. I have similar concerns. I'm probably too hopeful it'll improve. I hope they know everyone is scared it will play too similar and find ways to move from that.

[Scalamania]

1 hour ago, NormSizedMidget said:

Also can we talk about BFV doe

super stoked - loved BF1

[showtime]

4 hours ago, Darth Pees said:

If they're going to do another WWII game I'm not very interested, especially with the direction Battlefield has been going since BF3.

It's interesting because Battlefield 1 was based during the WW1 time frame and people absolutely love it.  That game is actually really good, especially right now.  If BFV was based in WWII, people would go crazy over that.  People really tend to love shooters from that time period.  TBH, I don't care what direction they go in as long as the game is quality.  It would be cool to see a futuristic Battlefield game and see them take a chance, but I think the WWII/Modern time frame is much more safer direction for them to go in. 

EDIT:  Apparently the reveal is tomorrow, but it seems to have been confirmed it is set in WWII.