Anthem (PS4, Xbox One, PC)

[Sheikah]

 

11 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

I'd rather pay for the expansions.  At a basic, ethical, level, it's wrong to exploit a vulnerable minority to subsidise the majority.

 

It is never justifyable and it's disgusting that anyone would be ok with exploitation.  It's even worse when you consider the insidious damage it also does to the inherent game design (as it inevitably turns into an endless grind that is purposely designed to suck the fun out of the game unless you pay up).

 

Why anyone would even want to play a game that is fundamentally designed to be unfun is beyond me really ; but it is the acceptance of exploitation of a vulnerable few that really irks me.  The Fuck You, Got Mine mentality is absoluttely toxic, insufferable and should not be tolerated.

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?

Edited February 20, 2019 by Sheikah

[Ronnie]

18 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

At a basic, ethical, level, it's wrong to exploit a vulnerable minority to subsidise the majority.

Exploit a vulnerable minority? It's not like people who buy the occasional emote (if they're not just using the freely available and earnable in game currency to buy it as most people will in Anthem) are being forced to do so, nor are they in any way "vulnerable".

20 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

It's even worse when you consider the insidious damage it also does to the inherent game design (as it inevitably turns into an endless grind that is purposely designed to suck the fun out of the game unless you pay up).

Except that doesn't happen in Anthem. Completely optional cosmetics (on top of the enormously robust and indepth customisation that comes in the game itself) impacts the game in no way whatsoever.

20 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

Why anyone would even want to play a game that is fundamentally designed to be unfun is beyond me really

Sorry, what game are you talking about here? Which game is designed to be unfun?

21 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

The Fuck You, Got Mine mentality is absoluttely toxic, insufferable and should not be tolerated.

As is the gaming community at times. Utterly toxic, entitled, lacking in maturity and swimming in hyperbole.

[Ronnie]

 

13 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

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?

It's a free to play game. Don't be an idiot and spend $500 on it. In fact that's literally his message to everyone in that thread. No annoyance towards EA or Respawn.

No lootboxes in Anthem.
All MTX cosmetic and don't impact gameplay.
All cosmetics earnable in game.
All future story content free of charge.

No one is kicking up a fuss online, because there's nothing to kick up a fuss about. It's MTX done the right way. Some people might prefer content expansions to be £10 or £15 each time but I think the majority much prefer the model EA/Bioware have chosen.
 

[Sheikah]

@Ronnie

17 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

 

It's a free to play game. Don't be an idiot and spend $500 on it.

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.

[Shorty]

On 2/19/2019 at 11:18 AM, Ronnie said:

Most (non Nintendo) games are to be fair. You can buy Assassin's Creed Odyssey for £25 on Amazon, or Shadow of the Tomb Raider for £28. Great time to be a gamer, if you're trying to save money.

I can't wait to play it this Friday but these days unless it's Red Dead you might as well just wait and it'll drop in price pretty quick.

Just in case that sounds like a bargain to anyone, I should point out that Shadow of the Tomb Raider is £21.95 at The Game Collection

[Ronnie]

20 minutes ago, Shorty said:

Just in case that sounds like a bargain to anyone, I should point out that Shadow of the Tomb Raider is £21.95 at The Game Collection

Wow. Gaming really is cheaper than it's ever been.

[Goafer]

59 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

@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.

Absolutely this. Can't comment on Anthem specifically, but these systems are entirely designed for that "one more go" mentality. The cheap price, the design elements (satisfying animations etc) and the mandatory wait times for free alternatives are all there to manipulate people into spending "just a bit more".

It's nothing new. Capsule machines, blind bags and trading card games have all used this system for decades.

It's gambling, pure and simple. Sure, you don't have to take part, but gambling, like a lot of vices, is addictive and like all things that can be addictive and harmful, it should be regulated. Especially when featured on a platform that can be accessed by children or vulnerable adults, often without supervision.

To say "oh well, you don't have to do it" is at best ignorant to how addiction works, and at worst completely callous.

[Ronnie]

I take back what I said about not being an idiot. Now, he's obviously not completely blameless in this but I do realise addiction is a major problem and needs regulating like some other games do.

All I'm saying is Anthem is MTX done right. Would EA have done it like that if Battlefront II hadn't happened, maybe not, but they obviously learned their lesson from that debacle.

[Sheikah]

3 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

I take back what I said about not being an idiot. Now, he's obviously not completely blameless in this but I do realise addiction is a major problem and needs regulating like some other games do.

All I'm saying is Anthem is MTX done right. Would EA have done it like that if Battlefront II hadn't happened, maybe not, but they obviously learned their lesson from that debacle.

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]

2 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

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.

You can get everything in there without paying a penny. That's the point.

If you're really that bothered about having a gum on the shoe emote in the first place.

[Sheikah]

56 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

You can get everything in there without paying a penny. That's the point.

If you're really that bothered about having a gum on the shoe emote in the first place.

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.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Sheikah

[Ronnie]

16 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

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.

People who've played the game after a few days were finishing the campaign having earned 180k coins, enough to buy everything in that shop, and that's NOT including the 40k they get for free when starting the game.

And even if the game didn't give out coin at a generous rate, like Anthem does, isn't the whole point of games... to play them for a long time? Especially in a looter shooter where it's all about "one more run".

You're assigning far too much value to a bunch of cosmetics that the vast majority of people won't care about, and those that do will likely have enough money to just get in them in game anyway without spending a penny.

[Sheikah]

People who've played the game after a few days were finishing the campaign having earned 180k coins, enough to buy everything in that shop, and that's NOT including the 40k they get for free when starting the game.

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.

And even if the game didn't give out coin at a generous rate, like Anthem does, isn't the whole point of games... to play them for a long time? Especially in a looter shooter where it's all about "one more run".

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?

You're assigning far too much value to a bunch of cosmetics that the vast majority of people won't care about, and those that do will likely have enough money to just get in them in game anyway without spending a penny.

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.

[Ronnie]

19 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

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.

It's a looter shooter where most of the content comes in endgame. Doing dungeon and mission runs over and over for better loot is the whole point. That's part of the equation.

19 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

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?

Well you're the one that first mentioned the word "grinding", so which is it? You can't have it both ways. Are you playing dozens and dozens of hours having fun or are you tediously grinding to be able to buy a new emote? If a game is fun then you should have no problem with putting lots of hours into it.

And for all we know cosmetics will unlock for completing challenges in the near future. The devs are teasing a new feature for cosmetics that the're talking about this week.

19 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

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.

Apex Legends doesn't have a robust, incredibly rich customisation feature built into the base game. You're doing yourself a disservice not looking into how good it is, and how it renders a lot of the cosmetics easily skippable in the vast majority of cases.

19 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

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.

It's very easy to sit on a soapbox and say that EA should make future story expansions paid, and not put any MTX in the game to balance that out but the reality is, that is a very flawed way of doing things just so that they can call themselves ethical and not rely on the handful of people who'll spend big on MTX. It'll piss off most of the player base who are quite happy to never give the cosmetics store a penny and keep getting content for free over the months and years, and the game itself will split its userbase which benefits no one.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Ronnie

[Glen-i]

19 hours ago, Ronnie said:

It's a free to play game. Don't be an idiot and spend $500 on it.

Wow...

[Ronnie]

20 hours ago, Ronnie said:

I take back what I said about not being an idiot. Now, he's obviously not completely blameless in this but I do realise addiction is a major problem and needs regulating like some other games do.

Wow indeed @Glen-i

[Glen-i]

1 hour ago, Ronnie said:

Wow indeed @Glen-i

Sorry, morning rush.

[Julius]

From Polygon:

I know that a Day One (/Eight) patch is coming to deal with the loading times and some other miscellaneous things, but the game just seems poorly designed. 

What I read over on PCGamer about them not learning from the problems that games like Destiny -- released like five years ago! -- have had is pretty damning, too. 

In my opinion, they should have just given the game more time -- and this is EA we're talking about, so if next gen is coming next year, then they're likely more than aware of this. Why not give the game more time to be developed, and wait until next gen so that the hardware -- across the board -- is in a position to best support it? The simple truth is that they announced this game far too early: nearly two years from announcement to release is just far too long for anything that is a new IP that isn't made by a developer at the top of their game in their genre, such as CDPR with Cyberpunk 2077. 

The real reason that it's launching now is very simple, too: money. Yes, every business is a cash-driven one, but EA making very public mistake (criticising Belgium for their stance on MTX in FIFA) after very public mistake (hiding the fact that Battlefront II was literally structured around MTX) is silly, and is it really any wonder, @Ronnie, that their handling of MTX in any situation grabs a lot of attention now after the scar that Battlefront II has left?

Because this industry isn't just driven by money -- it's driven by passion. 

I would understand the defence of microtransactions if this were anyone but a gigantic multinational company like EA. It's not like they need the money to pay their developers, or for upkeep of games. My biggest problem with Battlefront II honestly wasn't even that the game was structured around MTX and now has a terrible progression system that it's been taken out -- it's that they felt the need to put microtransactions in to begin with. They make nearly $1 billion a year in revenue alone from FIFA Ultimate Team (let's not even take into account that the game is practically the same every year, and has the nerve to be put out with a £59.99 RRP), and you know for a fact that very little of that money gets pumped back into the game, so why didn't they just take the hit with games that are virtually passionless so that they didn't have to include MTX in games like Anthem and Battlefront II, which should be built on nothing but passion for good game design and practises? And the truth is, from everything I've read, the MTX "problem" is just one on a long list of problems with Anthem. 

This whole situation reminds of what's gone on over at Activision, with nearly 900 people out of a job despite the company posting record profits. This MTX money is going nowhere but to the profits column, because it requires very little upkeep, and to the back pockets of overpaid CEOs and shareholders. 

@Ronnie, you're right: in some ways, games are cheaper and bigger than ever before. But the truth is that microtransactions just don't need to be as commonplace as they are in the gaming landscape, and especially not in games releasing at an RRP of £59.99 published my mega companies like EA. They're making money hand over fist in one of the most cutthroat industries in the world. 

I wouldn't be surprised if their heads have already turned away from Anthem and their eyes are fixed on Apex Legends, a game that is getting praised from every direction. Sadly, Anthem will probably be buried by the end of next year -- I just hope that the fine folks over at BioWare aren't the ones that see life-altering repercussions as a result of that. 

[Ronnie]

I read that Polygon snippet and was like, ok? Sounds like a pretty normal way of equipping new items? Just with a few load screens, some of which last a few seconds which of course the article doesn’t mention. They designed the game to be fast paced so you don’t have players stopping, checking what they got, reequipping in the middle of a mission.

I’m sure if Anthem released with a fraction of the content, was totally free, had a cast of characters that screamed diversity and representation and came out out of blue and bypassing all the toxicity you get with big budget EA games and hype cycles then I’m sure it’ll have fared similar to Apex. 

Did this game need more time? Absolutely. Thankfully it’s an ongoing game that the devs say will be supported for years. The day 1 patch fixes a lot of issues and everyone thought Destiny would be dead and buried at launch. 

I’ve said my bit on the MTX discussion. No one apart from a few on this message board seem to care about it in Anthem and the situation is more nuanced than simply MTX = bad. This game’s (frequent) future story updates will be free of charge, for the lifetime of the game. Games are cheaper and more expensive to make than they ever have been. 

Edited February 21, 2019 by Ronnie

[Sheikah]

 

3 hours ago, Julius said:

From Polygon:

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.

Edited February 21, 2019 by Sheikah

[Ronnie]

6 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

What Anthem is doing sounds like a massive step back from even the original Destiny.

And a massive step forward in many more aspects.

Anthem has a story-based hub world. Destiny didn't. There would be no need to wander around the Tower in Destiny because there was nothing to do there. There's tons of narrative in Fort Tarsis, and so the game was designed around roaming around there. Or you can just use the Launch Bay to fast equip and go in missions quicker.

Edited February 21, 2019 by Ronnie

[Sheikah]

 

 

 

And a massive step forward in many more aspects.

Anthem has a story-based hub world. Destiny didn't. There would be no need to wander around the Tower in Destiny because there was nothing to do there. There's tons of narrative in Fort Tarsis, and so the game was designed around roaming around there. Or you can just use the Launch Bay to fast equip and go in missions quicker.

 

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.

[Ronnie]

Just now, Sheikah said:

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 form what I've seen of it. This looks like a game that will bomb.

Raids and Trials of Osiris were in from day 1 were they? Genuine question.

What is there to do around Fort Tarsis? That's where all the narrative, storytelling, side missions, world building etc happen.

[Sheikah]

20 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

Raids and Trials of Osiris were in from day 1 were they? Genuine question.

What is there to do around Fort Tarsis? That's where all the narrative, storytelling, side missions, world building etc happen.

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.

Edited February 21, 2019 by Sheikah

[Ronnie]

8 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

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.

It really doesn't work like that. The Anthem devs are purposefully holding back content for the same reason the Destiny devs did, to give players enough time to reach the level cap. It doesn't matter if Destiny did it 5 years ago or 20. That's how these things work. It's an ongoing game, not everything should be avaialble from day 1. That's the whole point.

Not only is the next chapter of story content coming in March (so similar timeframe to how Destiny did it), the devs were on a live stream last night and announced a couple of new features that'll come in a few weeks. Cosmetic chests at the end of strongholds (that need keys to unlock, which are rewards for doing daily challenges), so making the MTX even less necessary than it already is, and Legendary missions (replaying storyline missions at varying degrees of difficutly).

Edited February 21, 2019 by Ronnie