Qouivandes Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 "The greatest story every told...yours." Would love to see another open world sandbox MMO from Star Wars. Still enjoying this game, now, so lets see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orangenee Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Too linear probably means not enough ways to crowbar in lootboxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qouivandes Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Too linear probably means not enough ways to crowbar in lootboxes. (insert Morgan Freeman meme) He's right you know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gearmasterblitz Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 (insert Morgan Freeman meme) He's right you know... Indeed. With Shadow of War putting in lootboxes and players defending it because "it can't be pay2win if it's PvE" things are only going to get worse from here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzsi Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 If anything it buys SWTOR some more time but it also means that this game will be a stronger competition for SWTOR when it comes to my game time if indeed these changes make the game more interesting to play over a longer period of time. It's typical EA style though to just close Visceral down. These guys have no sense of history and it's no wonder that people hate them when they take names that have meaning and just cast them aside as if they mean nothing. If Anthem falls short then Bioware might be next on the chopping block. It's a bleak vision but christ, what else to expect of this EA investment company? They will never care as much about the games as the companies they buy out and exploit. I really hate this world sometimes. I guess this catches me on a bad day really. I know it's easy to pick on EA for this but the fact of the matter is most companies that sell out to EA do so because they are in financial trouble in the first place and EA has the funding they need. This means they get life for longer than they would have otherwise. Its expensive to make a game and without the correct publishing backing a lot of indie companies just cant sustain themselves forever no matter how popular their games are. Some manage to go on and become EAs themselves but its a rarity especially if they only focus games and not other areas (-eg Lucas arts did more than just games ). Blizzard got lucky with WoW supporting much of their other work but that wont last forever either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thruine Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 The thing about EA you have to keep in mind is they want ALL their games to be a live service. In other words, a store front for virtual goods. Look at what they did to Battlefront II to see how they perceive their own games. Studios must add some component that lets you bypass playing the game for those that don't like playing games (is pretty much most companies explanation why loot boxes are shoved into single player games). Same sort of thing Warner did with Shadow of War. We must have a method to bypass having to play the game and we need to sell it. It makes no sense to create a game you want people to skip through and when it comes to selling things then sure, sacrifice the game if it helps. I was never expecting this game myself. There had been too much hype without any true movement in its development. Or at least what they shared. The idea sounded great and like a cool SINGLE player game (I'm so tired of multiplayer in every freaking thing now). But it just seemed like vaporware. I would have played it regardless how linear since the whole concept (that I heard) of playing a smuggler interacting with the entire Star Wars universe is cool itself. So I'm really not buying this excuse. I'm more likely to believe they didn't want to force some artificial method of skipping the game itself just to sell some crates which we know for certain EA is all about now (since they've released press saying as much) so EA helped them to the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renata_Roselli Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 The game is being redesigned, it will be a new Star Wars MMO to replace this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AscendingSky Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) Visceral today, BioWare tomorrow. In truth BioWare has been dead for years now; EA has used its name and past reputation to help sell games like they're Buffalo Bill wearing a skin suit. Now that EA has done their best to drag BioWare's name through the mud with the crappy product TOR has turned into and the 'meh' response to ME:A, it's only a matter of time before the EA suits decide putting the name BioWare on their games might actually do more harm than good at this point. I think we can look forward to seeing BioWare being officially shut down within the next year as well, two years at the absolute outside. Jim Sterling did an excellent video on the situation with Visceral (NSFW warning: lots of salty cursing) which is pretty much a 'second verse same as the first' description of what's happening to BioWare as well: Edited October 17, 2017 by AscendingSky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pietrastor Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) Destiny, Division, Anthem etc. ARE the new "MMOs" of the AAA industry, no major publisher will do a WOW/TOR/ESO big-budget MMO for another 10 or 20 years, the whole industry got burned by it way too hard chasing WOW money, none replicated the success. Meanwhile, 'shared-world' shooters proved to be able to co-exist with each other without 1 title monopolozing the entire genre the way WOW did with MMO market so that's what the big players including EA will be chasing for a while Edited October 17, 2017 by Pietrastor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansultares Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 The game is being redesigned, it will be a new Star Wars MMO to replace this one.I would certainly expect that if EA expects to maintain the license past 2023 (or whatever the date is). Given the time involved in developing an MMO, and the time required to recoup the investment, they can't possibly entertain the idea of starting a new MMO from scratch and expect it to release in time to recoup their investment in the event Disney does not renew the license agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthDymond Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 The thing about EA you have to keep in mind is they want ALL their games to be a live service. In other words, a store front for virtual goods. So, as much as gamers -myself included - bemoan this trend, the reality is that the costs of producing a AAA video-game are radically higher than before, and continue to climb. But, at the same time, charging more for the box (or, more often, download) is usually a non-starter, people will balk at paying $80+ for a standard version of a game - myself definitely included. Hence, companies turn to 'added content' and micro-transactions instead to offset the rising costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaRya Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 So, as much as gamers -myself included - bemoan this trend, the reality is that the costs of producing a AAA video-game are radically higher than before, and continue to climb. But, at the same time, charging more for the box (or, more often, download) is usually a non-starter, people will balk at paying $80+ for a standard version of a game - myself definitely included. And yet people pay $15 a month here with an extra $20-$60 dollars depending on how appealing the cosmetic gear is. Seems like a no brainer to keep games like SWTOR moving along just like WoW and ESO. Give us big giant sized sand box planets to explore and we'll keep paying our subs. Throw in the occasional operation, fp, pvp, gsf map and we'll be happy. Even the career gamers that have to play all the latest and greatest will rotate back to good old SWTOR to sample the new content or even relive the nostalgia of the vanilla content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth-Obvious Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 Oh. I just looked up who Amy Hennig is. She was in charge of the Uncharted games? I hated those games, mostly because of the really unlikeable characters, mostly the main character. I'm not that upset by this news. You realize that the main character in Uncharted is basically Han Solo right? The Uncharted series is essentially a Han Solo series without the Star Wars IP. The game is being redesigned, it will be a new Star Wars MMO to replace this one. No it won't. This game makes money for EA without them having to spend nearly anything on it. The new game might have an online component to it, but it's in no way going to be competing for/with the audience of this game which is why this game will stay active even when the Visceral game is released. This isn't a Star Wars Galaxies situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kodrac Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 You realize that the main character in Uncharted is basically Han Solo right? The Uncharted series is essentially a Han Solo series without the Star Wars IP. I thought it was Indiana Jones. Wait... same actor played both. Mind blown... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth-Obvious Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 Give us big giant sized sand box planets to explore and we'll keep paying our subs. Throw in the occasional operation, fp, pvp, gsf map and we'll be happy. Even the career gamers that have to play all the latest and greatest will rotate back to good old SWTOR to sample the new content or even relive the nostalgia of the vanilla content. The amount of money required to do what you're suggesting would come at a greater cost than the game could generate. Dumping a bunch of new money into SWTOR to make the game better isn't suddenly going to get them a million new subs. All it will do is please the existing and only for a short amount of time on top of it. There is no fix or solution for a number of the problems MMOs have. There's no way to stop the player base from dipping, there's no way to keep producing content that the players consume/demand it, the market is over saturated with currently active MMOs but not enough people willing to play MMOs to make them all successful, and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth-Obvious Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 I thought it was Indiana Jones. Wait... same actor played both. Mind blown... It's that too kind of. After Henning got the Star Wars gig I saw her speak at a panel at GDC where she briefly talked about how Star Wars inspired Uncharted and that the Star Wars gig was a dream job, something she had always wanted to do, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gearmasterblitz Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 You realize that the main character in Uncharted is basically Han Solo right? The Uncharted series is essentially a Han Solo series without the Star Wars IP. This was talked about by one of my favorite video game critics when he was asked why a d-bag character like Nathan Drake is annoying and a bad main character, while others like the Prince from Prince of Persia were good characters. To paraphrase how he put it, it's because characters like the Prince or Han Solo have character growth. They grow and change from their respective journeys and become better people for it, while still retaining their humorous and likeable qualities. Nathan Drake on the other hand, starts as a d-bag, and over the course of three or so games is the same d-bag he always was. He doesn't grow or change as a character. In the end he continues to neglect the people he supposedly cares about so he can keep going on his treasure hunts. Disclaimer: I know nothing about Uncharted 4, so maybe things change there. Didn't care enough to find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth-Obvious Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 This was talked about by one of my favorite video game critics when he was asked why a d-bag character like Nathan Drake is annoying and a bad main character, while others like the Prince from Prince of Persia were good characters. To paraphrase how he put it, it's because characters like the Prince or Han Solo have character growth. They grow and change from their respective journeys and become better people for it, while still retaining their humorous and likeable qualities. Nathan Drake on the other hand, starts as a d-bag, and over the course of three or so games is the same d-bag he always was. He doesn't grow or change as a character. In the end he continues to neglect the people he supposedly cares about so he can keep going on his treasure hunts. Disclaimer: I know nothing about Uncharted 4, so maybe things change there. Didn't care enough to find out. I'm talking about Han Solo pre-movies as in if someone made a series of Han Solo games it would basically be Uncharted and the character would have no room to really grow/change because that happens in the movies. Also fun fact every lead character in video games is basically Han Solo/Nathan Drake now, ie the lovable the jerk with a heart of gold. Even the Prince of Persia turned into that character when they rebooted PoP back in 2008. Of course it didn't help that he was played by Nolan North who since playing The Prince has stated Ubisoft told him to play the character exactly like Nathan Drake. In other words the Nathan Drake character isn't going anywhere. You're still going to see him as the lead character in various games even if he isn't named Nathan Drake. For a long time we had the gruff Steve Blum voiced protagonist. Then we got the Nolan North every man lead, then the Troy Baker every man lead, and even though we seem due for another new lead type we're still just seeing Han Solo over and over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gearmasterblitz Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 I'm talking about Han Solo pre-movies as in if someone made a series of Han Solo games it would basically be Uncharted and the character would have no room to really grow/change because that happens in the movies. Also fun fact every lead character in video games is basically Han Solo/Nathan Drake now, ie the lovable the jerk with a heart of gold. Even the Prince of Persia turned into that character when they rebooted PoP back in 2008. Of course it didn't help that he was played by Nolan North who since playing The Prince has stated Ubisoft told him to play the character exactly like Nathan Drake. In other words the Nathan Drake character isn't going anywhere. You're still going to see him as the lead character in various games even if he isn't named Nathan Drake. For a long time we had the gruff Steve Blum voiced protagonist. Then we got the Nolan North every man lead, then the Troy Baker every man lead, and even though we seem due for another new lead type we're still just seeing Han Solo over and over again. Hey, I can always go play some JRPGs where the protagonist always is and always will be a teenage boy that somehow is stronger than every adult in the world and is liked by all the girls that surround him despite his obvious character flaws but is somehow oblivious to all the attention. ...on second thought, maybe I should give Uncharted a second chance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eshvara Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 (edited) Such a shame! Kinda makes me fear for swtor's future. But maybe I'm just paranoid.🎅 EA is way too ruthless. Edited October 18, 2017 by Eshvara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thruine Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 So, as much as gamers -myself included - bemoan this trend, the reality is that the costs of producing a AAA video-game are radically higher than before, and continue to climb. But, at the same time, charging more for the box (or, more often, download) is usually a non-starter, people will balk at paying $80+ for a standard version of a game - myself definitely included. Hence, companies turn to 'added content' and micro-transactions instead to offset the rising costs. I abhor loot boxes. I'm okay with micro-transactions of cosmetics. Ad I'm not that bothered by DLCs. I think DLCs are a better way to go as long as the base game is complete. But if its a good game that I enjoy, I'll buy the DLCs. Every one of them. I know people have issues with some of the games but I loved the entire run of Dragon Age. I really loved Inquisition and saw there they added too much which would have actually served the game better as DLCs. I think there are four land masses which barely tie to the base game and don't have that clear of an identity. But if they had been removed and given their own main quest then they would have done better. To me. I know folks hate DLCs but at least there if they do them right you can pick and choose. With the way loot boxes are ruining games today, you can't even try to ignore them. Battlefront has made them the progression of the game. I get enough RNG without paying for more. I was actually going to pick that game up day of release but now I'm soured on it. There's nothing that hasn't been tainted so guess I'll see what next year brings. I get that games are expensive to make and they should recoup their investment. I just don't believe that's all they want and they are doing anything to get more cash. Except allow a game to play as if loot boxes didn't exist. They're annoying in free to play games but now single player games coming that are full of them. And so much focus on multiplayer when we're just looking for a decent game. Not expand our social circles more than they are already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeweledleah Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 (edited) sigh. I was actualy looking forward to uncharted style Amy Henning helmed star wars game. getting really really tired of open world single player games, since usually what that means is lots and lots and lots of busywork padding, while the story takes a back seat. tired of multiplayer being shoved into everything whether it fits or not. guess more time for me to make a dent in my backlog and/or replay old faves. P.S. people who claim that Nathan Drake (not to mention the rest of the cast) didn't experience any growth across the first 3 games, must not have been paying attention. but /shrug... kinda used to it at this point. i mean its enough to look at the forums here and see all the character hate. Edited October 18, 2017 by Jeweledleah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 I like the take that ARS took. My favorite part: What's to come, then? The above description describes the game's story-based, linear origins in the past tense. Söderlund's vague description about "a Star Wars adventure of greater depth and breadth to explore," along with his acknowledgement of marketplace shifts, suggest anything from a Destiny-like, always-online adventure to some sort of Ewok-driven loot-box nightmare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaRya Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 The amount of money required to do what you're suggesting would come at a greater cost than the game could generate. Dumping a bunch of new money into SWTOR to make the game better isn't suddenly going to get them a million new subs. All it will do is please the existing and only for a short amount of time on top of it. There is no fix or solution for a number of the problems MMOs have. There's no way to stop the player base from dipping, there's no way to keep producing content that the players consume/demand it, the market is over saturated with currently active MMOs but not enough people willing to play MMOs to make them all successful, and so on. When the MMO is already built you can endlessly create new dungeons, new fashions, new pvp maps. Where these companies fail is they put all their money into a game like Mass Effect Andromeda where people pay one time , play maybe twice and abandon it. It's much much more feasible to keep the WoW's, ESO's, and SWTOR's going by adding things piecemeal to them. So I paid $60 to play Dragon AGe And around $6000 into SWTOR since launch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUXs Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 Destiny, Division, Anthem etc. ARE the new "MMOs" of the AAA industry, no major publisher will do a WOW/TOR/ESO big-budget MMO for another 10 or 20 years, the whole industry got burned by it way too hard chasing WOW money, none replicated the success. Meanwhile, 'shared-world' shooters proved to be able to co-exist with each other without 1 title monopolozing the entire genre the way WOW did with MMO market so that's what the big players including EA will be chasing for a while Very well said. This is where I believe the market is going as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts