EPTAnthem [PC/PS4/Xbox One] - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
abuse
Latvia1944 Posts
On February 22 2019 22:27 Artisreal wrote: Tbh 160 bucks is not that much if you get 500+hrs of entertainment... Not every game is dota 2 where everything is free but the time you invest in while maintaining a very good and mostly polished product with incredible replayability and depth. Would I, personally, pay this for a loot shooter? No. The fact that there are people who think 160 bucks for any game is "not that much" is concerning. The fact that there are people who say they wouldn't even pay it themselves, but still think it's an ok price is more concerning. The fact that people are even willing to wait for 2 years after a game's release to get to enjoy their 160 buck investment is also concerning. Do people not want a game to be /a finished game/ when when they are released? blows my mind. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7150 Posts
On February 22 2019 22:21 Gorsameth wrote: And how much money will you have invested in D2 by the point it has gotten to a 'pretty decent game'? Base game + Season pass + Forsaken + season pass. Sorry if my standards are slightly higher then 160? bucks for decent. Me personally? Not much I never bought Destiny 2 cause I knew it was a clusterfuck. I got it for free, then bought Forsaken including Osiris and Warmind. So about 50 bucks. Since I am not that hardcore into Looter-Shooter grind I got about 200 hrs out of it until I got bored. I also didn't pay a cent for Anthem though, got it for free with my RTX GPU ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Edit: My probably best games in hours/ money invested would be Heroes and Starcraft 2. Both were in retrospect ridicolously cheap for the 1000 hours I played :D | ||
|
Yarcc
Finland27 Posts
| ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On February 22 2019 22:48 abuse wrote: The fact that there are people who think 160 bucks for any game is "not that much" is concerning. The fact that there are people who say they wouldn't even pay it themselves, but still think it's an ok price is more concerning. The fact that people are even willing to wait for 2 years after a game's release to get to enjoy their 160 buck investment is also concerning. Do people not want a game to be /a finished game/ when when they are released? blows my mind. I'm absolutely willing to pay for quality content. You really have to take into perspective what you're being delivered, of course, that's absolutely what I've said. I just think it's ridiculous to expect years and years of updates, basically unlimited replayability and endless endgame (to be a bit hyperbole here) - and all that for 60 quid. I'd be hard pressed to shell out 160 at the start without knowing the product and its progression over time, but 30 or 40 bucks à year for annoter 100+ hours of gameplay... That's fine in my book. Don't get me wrong, what I'm saying is not supposed to defend a game that ships while still in development. Like EA aparently did with anthem. Having a couple of patches that get the balance /drop rate /whatever right after launch is fine. Player feedback is essential in getting things right. | ||
|
abuse
Latvia1944 Posts
It's 60 quid + microtransactions. It's also not ridiculous to expect updates for a game after it launches, it's been done for ages before this. It's IS ridiculous to think that any AAA publisher these days would go for "years and years of updates"(quality updates at least) instead of just making Anthem 2 or Destiny 2, like it already happened. I mean, don't get me wrong too, if any publisher would ever get me a QUALITY game with years and years of updates, and endless endgame, I wouldn't mind paying 160 too. But It's never going to happen. Ever. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7150 Posts
On February 22 2019 23:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I think this is what is at the root of the problem with games as a service, they should be free to play with MT thrown in for cosmetics, in game pets etc. Then Bioware/EA could sell the DLC's and expansions. No complaints would be heard. It does work for games like Guild Wars 2 and the likes. Can't fault them for trying  But you guys are right. People nowadays pay way too much for way too little. The whole early access stuff for example. And Pre-Order boni. It has come so far that people pre-order an early access title like Anthem and are even paying for additional microtransactions... what a world we live in. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
By summer this game will be cleaned up and likely run fine, with better loot and more content. EA just dumped all this money into the game and then kicked it out the door before it was done because they didn’t want to anger shareholders with a 4 month delay. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
https://www.reddit.com/r/AnthemTheGame/comments/atjevm/anthem_current_and_upcoming_changes_2222019/ | ||
|
seemsgood
5527 Posts
of all the big four,EA's the only one seems like they really want to step up the curent bussiness model with BF and anthem and i think people are over-bashing them | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17462 Posts
a trail of deleted tweets and statements like "i was taken out of context" LOL. the article keeps getting updated as EA keeps trying to cover its ass on statements that were probably lies with EA trying to make it look like a "misunderstanding" https://www.vg247.com/2019/02/22/paid-review-anthem-youtuber/ I say this thing gets "Humbled" before November 1. Everyone is saying the AI of the enemies is crap and the combat is lame. Based on how Datto described the combat I can understand why very few people like the combat. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
https://variety.com/2019/gaming/news/youtuber-says-ea-demanded-takedown-paid-review-1203146117/ “Our GameChangers program is not designed to pay for review content. We don’t believe in that. In this case, the conditions for disclosure for this specific video were not met – which is something we adhere very strictly to – so we asked for it to be taken down and corrected. We’ve not asked for the content of the video to be changed, or ‘blacklisted’ the creator. Our full disclosure rules can be found here: https://www.ea.com/game-changers/disclosure.” Which is in line with the requirements created by the FTC for advertising. Paying for a review is not a good plan and quickly runs afoul of those regulations. The pervasive myth that video game publishers pay for positive review, or reviews at all has always mystified me. There are so many more effective ways to spend a marketing budget. My bet is that EA asked him to review the water mark specifically because he put up a review and they did not want any confusion that they paid for any reviews. | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
| ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
Although if the story keeps on being shat on I'll rethink even that. | ||
|
Elmonti
Spain299 Posts
On February 22 2019 22:48 abuse wrote: The fact that there are people who think 160 bucks for any game is "not that much" is concerning. The fact that there are people who say they wouldn't even pay it themselves, but still think it's an ok price is more concerning. The fact that people are even willing to wait for 2 years after a game's release to get to enjoy their 160 buck investment is also concerning. Do people not want a game to be /a finished game/ when when they are released? blows my mind. Times have changed dude, things are different... I don't know about you, but I'm 27 yo, so I have grown in an era when you got what you paid for, and THEN you could like the game or not. They had their flaws for sure, but bugs didn't break the game, and you got the full content... maybe a couple of expansions in the future... You didn't pay for a game hoping to become what you were told after many months. I don't know, maybe in the future when you buy a car it will have flat tires and damaged suspension, which will be fixed 2 months after you have paid for it. It really blows my mind too... how some people got to a point where "It will be a good game in 6 months" justifies buying a game in day 1 at full prize. And its more frequent every year. Someone said above that EA is "stepping up the current business". He should know that their objective is taking our money, so a step up for them means a step back for us, because we are not getting a better product in exchange of that money, on the contrary as we are seeing with many AAA lately... And I can get through DLCs like the Total War ones, you know, 15€ for a race and a short campaign, even when I think they are WAY overprized, because you get already a full content with the base game. But this "you will get the game you paid for in 6-12 months, because we know you are ok with it" shit is getting annoying. | ||
|
Latham
9573 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
12082 Posts
On February 23 2019 08:11 Elmonti wrote: Times have changed dude, things are different... I don't know about you, but I'm 27 yo, so I have grown in an era when you got what you paid for, and THEN you could like the game or not. They had their flaws for sure, but bugs didn't break the game, and you got the full content... maybe a couple of expansions in the future... You didn't pay for a game hoping to become what you were told after many months. I don't know, maybe in the future when you buy a car it will have flat tires and damaged suspension, which will be fixed 2 months after you have paid for it. It really blows my mind too... how some people got to a point where "It will be a good game in 6 months" justifies buying a game in day 1 at full prize. And its more frequent every year. Someone said above that EA is "stepping up the current business". He should know that their objective is taking our money, so a step up for them means a step back for us, because we are not getting a better product in exchange of that money, on the contrary as we are seeing with many AAA lately... And I can get through DLCs like the Total War ones, you know, 15€ for a race and a short campaign, even when I think they are WAY overprized, because you get already a full content with the base game. But this "you will get the game you paid for in 6-12 months, because we know you are ok with it" shit is getting annoying. The only genre where it works is multiplayer games. Where you want to be on top of the curve from the start and have full servers for fast games. A single player game doing the same would tank much harder since there is much less premium about a release. Though the biggest titles sadly get a pass here as well. If you take a niche multiplayer RTS game you likely can't find multiplayer games after a year. So waiting for them to fix it wouldn't work if you want to play it at all. Personally I play single player games and Dota, so doesn't really effect me that much. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17462 Posts
| ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7150 Posts
The combat is really fun. Did go for the storm immediately and raining down hell is awesome. Story is okay, nice cutscences, funny dialogues. Freeplay with a pug is super boring cause everyone does their own thing. Haven't tried strongholds yet I guess it's not worth 60 bucks, but if it goes down to 40' ish in a few month and when the bugs are fixed I can definitely recommend this. Problem might be that Division 2 launches in 3 weeks and then nobody cares about Anthem anymore | ||
| ||
