|
On May 03 2019 18:15 Harris1st wrote:
10 years? TEN?
Make sense though: 2019 - 2024 is early access, then 2024 release, 2024+ some random DLCs
I for one am not gonna go anywhere near Dragon Age
I am also negative about Dragon age, likely I won't play it the first 2 years after release at least. Though they could do a Game of the Year and I would play it, doesn't seem like they have it any more though.
|
Much has been written about Anthem's rocky path through development, shaky launch, and the recent reshuffling of post-launch plans as developer BioWare continues to try and save its struggling online game.
Now, publisher EA has weighed in with its take on the financial side of things. It's not great but, actually, it's not all bad either.
Let's get that bad stuff out the way first. "Anthem underperformed our expectations," EA exec Blake Jorgensen said during the company's investor call late last night (transcribed by Seeking Alpha). This seems to be the overall vibe. "The launch of Anthem did not meet our expectations," EA boss Andrew Wilson also confirmed at one point.
EA had, perhaps wisely, never bet big on Anthem delivering immediate profits. Its expectations were conservative, and yet Anthem did not meet these. That's not great.
But EA also make it clear to investors it would still be spending money to support Anthem for the forseeable future. Also, that it still had confidence in BioWare, a developer which has now suffered two flops on the trot.
"We continue to invest heavily in Anthem, with developers working on game quality, content, systems and game mechanics. It's great original IP and we've doubled down on the product," Jorgensen said.
"We are committed to the live service for Anthem, and delivering for our community in this new IP over the long-term," Wilson later added. "We believe in the team at BioWare, and we also believe in what they set out to achieve with this game - building a new IP and melding genres to reach a new audience."
Anthem did not perform well in the UK chart, which counts physical copies sold. In fact, Anthem shifted half the boxed copies of Mass Effect Andromeda. But it did much better in digital sales - perhaps because of its online nature.
EA's revenue from full game downloads was up 10 per cent year-on-year, something the publisher said had been "driven by the launch of Anthem and by the ongoing shift to digital". Almost half - 49 per cent - of full game sales on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One were sold digitally during the last financial quarter. This is, again, a stat boosted by Anthem.
"Judging from sales so far, [Anthem] is the most digital game we have ever launched," Jorgensen noted.
One last point of interest came from Andrew Wilson's response to a query on how the launches of games like Anthem and Star Wars Battlefront 2 (which had its own drama around launch) may affect big budget EA releases going forward, with Wilson suggesting a mobile-style soft launch for big-budget games.
"It also comes down to changing how we launch games and how we rolled out and you should expect we'll start to test things like soft launches, the same things that you see in the mobile space right now," Wilson said.
"And it also comes down to changing how we communicate with players. And our entire marketing organisation now is moving out of presentation mode and into conversation mode and changing how we interact with players over time."
Source
|
EA also said they would keep supporting Mass Effect Andromeda after its disappointing launch. And we know how that turned out.
If they do and try to actually fix the game, good on them. But I wouldn't bet money on it.
|
They should just start on Anthem 2 immediately if they want to "save" the IP. And use UE4 for it.
|
On May 09 2019 19:55 Harris1st wrote:
They should just start on Anthem 2 immediately if they want to "save" the IP. And use UE4 for it.
I think as long as EA owns them they are contractually obliged to use Frostbite...
|
The best part about Wilson's comments is how "the old way to release games does not work anymore". Because releasing a bug-filled piece of crapware is the new "old way".
On May 09 2019 20:11 Latham wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2019 19:55 Harris1st wrote:
They should just start on Anthem 2 immediately if they want to "save" the IP. And use UE4 for it. I think as long as EA owns them they are contractually obliged to use Frostbite...
Are you sure they are contractually obliged to? Pretty sure Bioware accepted to use Frostbite, rather than being forced to use it.
|
On May 09 2019 20:13 Godwrath wrote:The best part about Wilson's comments is how "the old way to release games does not work anymore". Because releasing a bug-filled piece of crapware is the new "old way". Show nested quote +On May 09 2019 20:11 Latham wrote:On May 09 2019 19:55 Harris1st wrote:
They should just start on Anthem 2 immediately if they want to "save" the IP. And use UE4 for it. I think as long as EA owns them they are contractually obliged to use Frostbite... Are you sure they are contractually obliged to? Pretty sure Bioware accepted to use Frostbite, rather than being forced to use it.
I dunno who reported on it, maybe Jason Schrier or YongYea or The Quartering but for the 1st Anthem game, EA did, in fact, force them to use Frostbite.
I'm a bit too lazy to dig through all the pile of controversy surrounding this game ATM, but one of the workers on Anthem that wanted to remain anonymous said EA had this grand vision of unification and having all of their games made on Frostbite, and would "strongly suggest" using Frostbite instead of UE to Bioware. Money cuts may or may not have been involved in the exchange. Then he further stated Frostbite was woefully unprepared for making games with flight involved and EA didn't send any Frostbite engineers to help them sort it out, instead sending the engineers to money milking titles like FIFA and shit...
maybe not "forced to use", but definitely coerced into using...
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong, BioWare was the defining part of the whole fuck up and I don't intend to defend them in any way shape or form but trying to force companies to make a whole plethora of games like racing, RPGs, shooters, platformers on an engine that was FUNDAMENTALLY designed by DICE with the purpose of 1st person shooters is to put it lightly "misguided" just to save a few bucks and not pay Epic for the use of Unreal Engine.
As I said, BioWare fucked up big time being given 7 years to develop a game for EA with lots of money funding, and only pushing out Anthem in the last ~18 months. But this was in part because EA thinks everyone can develop everything on Frostbite. The people that run EA are not game devs or engine engineers, they are corporate shills focused on making money to make investors happy, and if they have to give a hammer to someone's hand to get ridge of a smudge on the glass window just to save 20% repair costs, then by God they will do it.
BioWare is also a toxic workplace with big crunchtime now, so they clearly have internal problems, EA is the least of their worries.
https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/2019/04/30/ea-crippled-bioware-with-frostbite/
Everywhere you go to read you can see EA provided next to 0 help with the engine and the devs were left to their own devices on how to implement systems like skill points and flight, instead of getting help from actual Frostbite engineers.
Sure they took the offer to work with Frostbite willingly because UE2 with which they made DA:2 wasn't gonna cut it anymore. But the decision to go for Frostbite and not UE3/4 was heavily influenced by EA to get max profits out of their engine license and not for the good of a game. I'm pretty sure UE4 was not even an option for them to choose. A drowning man will cling even to a razor's edge to survive...
|
It has been stated ad nauseum that the decission was Biowares. Yeah EA fucked up because its EA, but we are talking specifically about the games. If you choose an engine that doesn't suit your needs and it takes you 5 years to figure it out, then there is nothing EA could had done to help you from yourself.
|
I have to wonder what pressures EA puts on the studio heads to use Frostbite. It clearly didn't work on Respawn, but Titanfall prime came out in 2014 around the same time DA:I. But Respawn was already deep into using their weird mutant version of the source engine for since 2011. And it is manned by the studio founder, so they can very easily tell EA to fuck off, we are not using that shit engine.
My bet is that Bioware could have used another engine in theory, but EA's demands for returns makes is super risky to do so. And the managers of Bioware were more interested in keeping their jobs and pleasing their bosses than making sure the game was a success. Because lets be clear, using another engine costs money. Often per unit sold. Which means they need to sell more units to make up for it.
|
United States15275 Posts
On May 09 2019 21:13 Latham wrote:
Sure they took the offer to work with Frostbite willingly because UE2 with which they made DA:2 wasn't gonna cut it anymore.
DA2 was built off the Lycium engine aka Infinity 4.0. People commonly mistake DA as an Unreal product since all ME games use different versions of UE3.
On May 09 2019 21:13 Latham wrote:
But the decision to go for Frostbite and not UE3/4 was heavily influenced by EA to get max profits out of their engine license and not for the good of a game. I'm pretty sure UE4 was not even an option for them to choose. A drowning man will cling even to a razor's edge to survive...
UE4 didn't exist during the initial development of Anthem and Andromeda, and UE3 was already considered clunky at that point. I elaborated on the options Bioware possessed during their transition to Frostbite earlier in the thread.
On May 10 2019 02:17 Plansix wrote:
I have to wonder what pressures EA puts on the studio heads to use Frostbite. It clearly didn't work on Respawn, but Titanfall prime came out in 2014 around the same time DA:I. But Respawn was already deep into using their weird mutant version of the source engine for since 2011. And it is manned by the studio founder, so they can very easily tell EA to fuck off, we are not using that shit engine.
My bet is that Bioware could have used another engine in theory, but EA's demands for returns makes is super risky to do so. And the managers of Bioware were more interested in keeping their jobs and pleasing their bosses than making sure the game was a success. Because lets be clear, using another engine costs money. Often per unit sold. Which means they need to sell more units to make up for it.
EA didn't acquire Respawn until December 2017. Also keep in mind Apex Legends was less demanding from a technical and time-oriented standpoint than the AAA equivalent the studio would've worked on as a replacement. It was undoubtedly a reason EA management was more lenient in letting Respawn decide the parameters of the game.
|
On May 10 2019 02:32 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2019 21:13 Latham wrote:
But the decision to go for Frostbite and not UE3/4 was heavily influenced by EA to get max profits out of their engine license and not for the good of a game. I'm pretty sure UE4 was not even an option for them to choose. A drowning man will cling even to a razor's edge to survive... UE4 didn't exist during the initial development of Anthem and Andromeda, and UE3 was already considered clunky at that point. I elaborated on the options Bioware possessed during their transition to Frostbite earlier in the thread.
Andromeda sure, but Anthem could easily been made in UE4. It was released March 2014. I doubt any graphics were done at this time for Anthem.
I am no expert in programming and I don't really know the pros and cons of using this engine or that. I just see the results.
Anyway, this Jesse guy said on twitter they are working on Cataclysms now. Their probably one and only chance to get this game even halfway on track IMO
|
On May 09 2019 18:17 Gorsameth wrote:
EA also said they would keep supporting Mass Effect Andromeda after its disappointing launch. And we know how that turned out. If they do and try to actually fix the game, good on them. But I wouldn't bet money on it.
good points. i agree, and successful games competing with Anthem are only going to keep on getting better.
|
On May 10 2019 02:32 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2019 02:17 Plansix wrote:
I have to wonder what pressures EA puts on the studio heads to use Frostbite. It clearly didn't work on Respawn, but Titanfall prime came out in 2014 around the same time DA:I. But Respawn was already deep into using their weird mutant version of the source engine for since 2011. And it is manned by the studio founder, so they can very easily tell EA to fuck off, we are not using that shit engine.
My bet is that Bioware could have used another engine in theory, but EA's demands for returns makes is super risky to do so. And the managers of Bioware were more interested in keeping their jobs and pleasing their bosses than making sure the game was a success. Because lets be clear, using another engine costs money. Often per unit sold. Which means they need to sell more units to make up for it. EA didn't acquire Respawn until December 2017. Also keep in mind Apex Legends was less demanding from a technical and time-oriented standpoint than the AAA equivalent the studio would've worked on as a replacement. It was undoubtedly a reason EA management was more lenient in letting Respawn decide the parameters of the game.
ban this man! Too many facts and too much logic all in one post. Joking aside, good points man. A Battle Royal game can often be a subset of a fully fleshed out game. With all the different PvP , PvE, and PvEvP modes Bungie keeps pumping out for Destiny 2 they could probably pump out a Battle Royal "mode" and offer it for free.
If whatever $60 full game shooter a studio has is in the middle of development and the project is starting to fail ... just turn it into a Battle Royal game and call the project a "success".
Who knows what Apex Legends started out as ...
|
UE4 is fundamentally a shooter engine as well. Sure you can do a lot of things with it, but developing shooters is the standard setting and you'd have to go an extra mile to develop f.e. a round based team RPG on it.
Considering that Anthem is functionally a RPG shooter I don't see much of a difference either way, a shooter engine should be a good tool to develop Anthem with.
@DA4 I don't get why they keep pushing online elements when it's very clear that that's not Bioware's forte.
|
On May 11 2019 01:29 Archeon wrote:
UE4 is fundamentally a shooter engine as well. Sure you can do a lot of things with it, but developing shooters was the standard setting and you'd have to go an extra mile to develop f.e. a round based team RPG on it.
Considering that Anthem is functionally a RPG shooter I don't see much of a difference either way, a shooter engine should be a good tool to develop Anthem with.
@DA4 I don't get why they keep pushing online elements when it's very clear that that's not Bioware's forte. They push online because that's where long term money lies.
Why put all that effort into making a great single player game that people will pay 60 bucks for once when you can sell them on a 'live service' and have them pay 60 bucks for the game, and then shovel more and more stuff at them for more money with much lower investment because the base game already exists.
|
EAs Gold Standard for bringing in cash isn't exactly "online" or "live service". EA's best way to bring in cash is with their FIFA/Madden/NHL Tracking Card Pack system. Its a variant on the loot box system. The "Card Packs" are the equivalent of "Loot Boxes".
Of course, to have "Loot Boxes" or "Card Packs" you need to have the game online/live-service.
|
On May 11 2019 01:29 Archeon wrote:
UE4 is fundamentally a shooter engine as well. Sure you can do a lot of things with it, but developing shooters is the standard setting and you'd have to go an extra mile to develop f.e. a round based team RPG on it.
I think you're wrong on that front. If you take a look at the list of the games done or being done on this platform you'll notice that shooters aren't even the majority of the titles. And if you take a closer look at the list of titles you'll notice that new AION is being developed with UE4 and open world + MMORPG + flying is pretty much what defines this game (not to mention several flight simulators being developed with this engine). Weren't that exactly the elements BioWare had problems with when using Frostbite?
|
It's now officially been a month since the last Tweet from this game's social media team, even the CM's have gone quiet... Are they waiting to showcase something for E3, working on finishing the features that were promised at launch? Nobody knows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
