Sheikah

Ok looking back I was being a bit harsh. It's not so much that it has nothing, more that it has nothing special other than the javelins. I played the demo, have seen a handful of videos, and have read enough reviews to come to that conclusion. You can go look at almost any review and they will mention the well worn and derivative mission structure, providing examples of how so - this is something very off-putting to me, and I imagine most. Hit up Jim Sterling's videos for instance and note his comment that the game is more fun to talk about than play. That's basically how I felt after the demo. I don't feel I am unfair to criticise this game despite not actually owning it; particularly since the complaints I have are precisely why I don't own it. Also, 6.0 on Metacritic (not 6.5 like you said) isn't a game bombing critically? I'd say in this day and age it is. Or at least has all the same effects of a game scoring badly. In a perfect world it wouldn't be, as 6.0 would mean above the middle point, but we all know the way games are scored today, and how they are perceived, means that this pretty much reads as poor. This is also considerably lower than the other live service games you mentioned. You say that the reviews will be out of date in a month - I think it's more likely this game will be out of our thoughts in a month. [emoji14]

Couldn't agree more with you. @Glen-i I think you're missing the point in talking about how many changes there are - they're not changes that really matter to anyone but the hardcore. I've played quite a few Pokémon games over the years and like Ronnie says, the things that don't change are the things that need to change. Pokémon is probably the most conservative franchise out there and it's frustrating to me that they don't challenge themselves to improve their main titles in big ways. Just a minor example, but why does Pokémon need to have a fire, water and grass Pokémon starter? Would it kill them to do something different at the start?

I was thinking that. The graphics in these games look disappointing - I first thought of a PS2 game when I saw this. They could have done much better.

This game is intrinsically flawed; beyond the fact "javelins feel fun to fly", this game has pretty much nothing. The game has review bombed for good reason.

"You see that Pokemon over there? You can climb that."

To be fair it happens with most games, I remember seeing the RDR2 thread I started resurrected from ages back once the game got closer to release. Also you don't really need to have bought the full game to have an opinion on this, there is plenty of information/video coverage (and the demo) out there to form a reasonable opinion on the kind of game this is. Most of all though I am hearing over and over that this game is just incredibly dull and uninspired. I am getting the feeling from you that you're taking it personally and think the game is being witch hunted or something, which is just not true. There are so many reviews out there that point out the problems with this game, either it's all a big conspiracy or there is merit to the negative press. It's not just that people love to hate on EA either - look at Apex Legends (EA published) that just came out. If it was a good game this conversation wouldn't be happening.

Oh, a BOTW knockoff! Great idea, Dcubed.

Those figures don't include digital sales through Origin on PC, which I suspect is how many PC gamers purchased it (think early access to the game was tied to that). Still, the sales are not good.

Man, that's brutal. [emoji14] Lighten up man, that image is pretty funny. Also: Bit of an assumption there, you have no idea if the game's problems will be gone in a month. In fact I would be gobsmacked if they were. From the sounds of things the game is also flawed on a fundamental level in terms of quests involving menial tasks and the like, to the point it can't just be easily patched. If this game doesn't sustain a player base (which looks likely) then I wouldn't expect the game to be supported as long as something like Destiny was. But what about the sales of Anthem (new IP) versus Destiny (new IP)? Selling only 10% of Destiny sounds very low. Much lower than I expected.

For people who don’t want digital, basically. You can still share physical copies too.

Wouldn't make a difference, whether you buy a PS4 game on disc or digital the install size is pretty much the same.

It's almost as though some people liked him, and some people didn't.

Oh what a shame. Said nobody.

My concern with that approach is that I can see player dropoff/disappointing sales meaning that the game isn't supported very well or for very long. Especially if they are promising free story content, it feels like it won't be as substantial as what has been seen with Destiny.

Raids were basically there at the beginning (locked for a few weeks while people reached level cap). Trials appeared after something like 6 months. However none of the "was it there at the beginning" really matters because this was a 5 year old game, so Anthem has had plenty of time to incorporate such content or systems (like basic inventory management during load screens, app inventory management) or better. At the time, Bungie were making content that hadn't really been seen before in a shooter, whereas now what they've done could easily serve as a template for people designing another game.

What exactly is there to do around Fort Tarsis? How many hours of things to do can you expect to get from it? I'm not buying that Anthem is this massive leap over Destiny. Destiny in its day with raids, Trials of Osiris and gunplay was a genuinely novel social experience and for all this it attracted a huge and loyal following. I can't see this game reaching those heights from what I've seen of it. This looks like a game that will bomb.

This is basically what the original Destiny was doing, but that's now a 5 year old game. Why they would want to copy this outdated and longwinded format, I don't know. It's also worth noting that Destiny allowed you to do inventory and equipment management during load screens while this does not. And Destiny allowed you to transfer weapons and armour from the hub to your character using an app, while in missions. What Anthem is doing sounds like a massive step back from even the original Destiny.

Well according to that guy who played it extensively and recorded it, it's 20k per 6-7 hours. Someone is lying.Either way, even if you get a lot of bonus coins for finishing the campaign (and the 40k starter amount), that's a one-and-done deal. Once the shop refreshes, if you bought all the last lot you're back to 0 again and have to grind 6-7 hours for 20k. As I say, this unattractive economy is why real money microtransactions work. The microtransactions exist to "skip the grind" - an artificial grind that was put there. Call me old fashioned, but surely the point of the game is for it to be fun? They could have made these items unlock for clearing difficult challenges in the game. Why the fuck does real money come into this? I can't agree there. Again if you look at the Apex legends example, people can become addicted and will blow this kind of money to get hold of the cosmetic item(s) they want. There is no point using logic in this situation because you and I know that we are not the target of these microtransactions. We won't spend this kind of real money, because we use logic to determine there is no sense to it. The people suckered into spending a lot are not using logic, and that's the point. And you mention "the vast majority of people don't care" - you are right! But that's how it works - the vast majority do not spend a lot (or anything), while the minority spend a lot. But you are using the argument that because it's a minority, it doesn't matter. And that's where you are wrong.

Most people can't while maintaining a healthy life. 6 hours a day, every day, for 10 days is not sustainable for the majority. Also it doesn't need to be impossible, it just needs to be unattractive. If it takes a serious amount of grinding to achieve naturally, the option of paying real money becomes a hook for the kinds of people who succumb to microtransactions. And the prize on offer can be a hook even if cosmetic. That Apex legends guy who dropped 500 dollars was doing it for a purely cosmetic item.

A game with a store where you can't buy all the rotating cosmetic items without paying real cash or literally having no job/life isn't MTX done right. It taps into FOMO the same way many systems before have done. Another example of this is Overwatch - every limited time event they do comes with a bunch of expensive skins that cost 3k in-game money each. You can't afford to buy them all (not even close), and yeah, enough people want them all to splash out real money to get them.

@Ronnie Lootboxes are gambling - people aren't spending $500 due to idiocy, they're doing it because the systems in place are addictive and manipulative. Great talk as ever though, Ronnie.

Very good points. @Ronnie you make the argument that it is better for the majority to not pay for expansions and whatnot, instead having this system whereby no doubt fewer people are paying a lot more to subsidise everyone else. I wonder, what are your thoughts on this person's situation, in which they regret paying $500 in Apex Legends (a F2P game)? People like this paying vast amounts of money are the reason why the vast majority pay get to pay nothing. But the way the game is designed to hook in people who fall to addictive systems...this isn't good, is it?

The dangerous thing about the complacency that Ronnie points out more or less shows how conditioned people are coming to this kind of practice, to see it as just a normal part of big games these days.

It sure does. That the rest of the game is such a mess that nobody is batting an eyelid over it.

Ehm...I'm not shifting the argument? You typed the following: "Glad we're agreed on the bullshit comment about how the game "makes you invest real money" though, a review to be discounted for sure." But at no point did either myself, nor the reviewer, say the game makes you do anything! The review said the game/economy is designed to squeeze money out of those who are hooked...this is a common (and shitty) microtransaction model, and I wouldn't have thought it'd be a point of contention? The point is that the the things you can buy for real money in the game are sold for silly amounts of game currency to encourage people to spend real cash. It's what EA did with Battlefront 2. It's what they're seemingly doing here if we take the reviewer's words to be true. In a full price game. I've looked into this a little more now and I can say without doubt the pricing of their store stuff is steep. 40k wouldn't even buy you just the one on the left: Then, the biggie; the shop's contents reset every 10 days. Adding up the total value of the contents on that screenshot, that's 176,000 coins for everything. Suddenly 40,000 seems like very little. Let's say you've spent your 40,000 coins and the shop has reset. I found a post over on GameFAQs that linked a YouTube video which reported in about 6-7 hours of play, the guy playing earned 20,000 coins. We can extrapolate that - in order to buy everything (176,000 coins), assuming 20,000 coins earned every 6.5 hours, you'd need to grind 57.2 hours every 10 days. Which is indeed absurd - almost 6 hours a day, including weekdays! Now you might not want everything, sure, but the way these goods are priced in-game is so that spending real money becomes an attractive alternative. Or in some cases, a supplement for people without the total amount of in-game funds to buy everything. At the very least, this cost breakdown supports the reviewer's initial comment regarding absurd pricing; the one which you strongly called out as "bullshit".