Stuff:Review
Marketing is a complicated thing. If you're about to release a new product, conventional wisdom might suggest that the more advertising spend you throw at it, the more anticipation you build, and the more successful the product will become.
A former Halo and Destiny executive producer has said the live service model is "so much better for developers and players" than the one-off $60 purchase model.
Alan Wake 2, BG3, Tears of the Kingdom, Elden Ring, GoW Ragnarok, Hades, Returnal, Fallout 4, Dishonored, It Takes Two, Untitled Goose Game, Breath of the Wild, both of The Last of Us, Ghost of Tsushima, Sekiro, Psychonauts 2, Control, Celeste, Super Mario Odyssey, Bloodborne, The Outer Wilds, The Witcher 3, Dragon Age: Inquisition, Cocoon, The Dredge, and more and more and more.
Up against Overwatch and Destiny as far as critical acclaim and recognition as 'better' for players.
And, let me be honest, even 'for developers' is a lie. Want to know why? Because it's only good for people who can pump out graphics constantly and not overall quest designers, coders, engine devs, etc.
What this guy means is "we can give a lot of cosmetic content to players, who we think players like more because people spend money on it, and it's best for us because we don't have to pay for a full team to create a new game and just the people to pump out new graphics from one season to another." In no way is his comment a true reflection of what is 'better for players' let alone 'better for the industry stability over longer periods of time.'
This is more investor mindset focusing on maximizing profits by getting consumers to buy less for more while they spend less making it. That's it.
You know what's best for players? Newer, better, and more content that is good and not just cosmetic. Live service isn't that unless you pay $60 a year to them to add more for it (like Destiny and CoD do). Then you might get some improvements and new content. Even then? Not usually.
In terms of player feedback/awards yes but the list you made are all nothing in terms of profit.
Call of duty mobile alone laughs at that list that game is a billion dollar money making machine.
Toss in your apex/mmo/rivals/fortnight/robl ox/minecraft monoploy go or back to console with elder scrolls fallout 76.
Basically there is alot more live service style games that hit or go above the billion dollar mark than your list and that is what the people at top want cold hard cash. Heck alot fo them make a billion + a year
Gta 5 single player profit vs gtao profit as a example now that ps5/series has gtao as a free standalone with gta + there printing cash like its going out of style over there.
Being more profitable isn't better for the consumer or developers. That's better for executives in suits.
@Christopher
Umm exactly who do you think pay's the bill's and hands out the games budgets?
They have 0 care about a games award's/feedback its all profit driven some use to care like sony back in the day now its profit first.
0 likes shows how many are still on copium thinking the big publishers care about them
Well the Poll on the website is suggesting he is massively wrong and out of touch.
A big majority of the vote going to "I prefer one off purchases with paid expansions"
Couldn't agree more.
I'll always think the concept is awesome. Back during the PS3 era I pictured a Spider-Man game that would be the traditional open world swinging playground that they typically are but every comic issue would be turned into dlc. It'd be the entirety of the Amazing line, 2 to 3 issues at a time, turnt to dlc until the entire Amazing line is told in form of a game. That concept eventually made it to the industry and they have consistently fk'd it up with every game that has been made as a "service".
There is nothing like sitting down , popping in a great single player game and blocking out the world.
Sometimes I like to log into Fortnite and Call of Duty and just sit and listen to 12 years call me a n*****, f**, m***** f***** just so I can remember why I like to play single player games.
Destiny has made over $160 million in MTX revenue, and these numbers only account the data from late 2017 to early 2019.
That's extremely low for microtransactions, especially for a game that's essentially designed around it
This was back when the game wasn't free to play.
The figures are from November 2017 to February 2019 (1 year and 4 months).
Based on that projection, the MTX revenue for Destiny 2 likely would have been closer to ~$240m for 2 years.
Not sure if premium expansions are included in that figure either although ... I'd hope that they are though and that most of the revenue was for actual content like Forsaken.
People spend way too much money on cosmetics.
Seasons($10 and just got bumped to $12) and dungeon keys($10 each, two a year) are through the eververse(micro transaction) store.
So for those two years, in order to play a season, you would pay through micro transactions.
Bungie Marathon will be worse since it's designed around it as well
It makes me sad to agree... but at the same time I am looking forward to giving it a go. Destiny 2 is so far in, I find it difficult to figure out what I am meant to do first.
Designed around it? It's cosmetics only and the core game is designed as a looter shooter with complex raids and tiered PvP for the best gear that you can't achieve with real money.
I'm very surprised people agreed with your comment.
Let's compare something similar. Apex Legends and its ridiculous $18/$40 skins make EA a billion each year.
For as much as ppl complain how much they hate microtransactions, they sure don’t act like it. No wonder they aren’t going anywhere.
By "people" you're referring to millions and millions of people. Obviously the ones complaining aren't necessarily the same as the ones spending all that money.
Replies(1)
In Episode 1 of Spot On, a new weekly news show, Gamespot talks about the dangers of chasing a trend.
The way they slag the game off in the article I'm surprised they didn't give it 3/10. Can't believe he thinks strikes are the worst bit about the game, they're awesome.
Could it be the ones that don't like the game just don't have the friends to play it with? Does make it much more fun playing with mates.
I was quick to jump all over this review...but I think it's spot on. Now, to me it's impossible to fully review a game like this until it's gets rolling, bit the author points out legitimate complaints.
Mmo fans may be frustrated by the lack of strategy involved (not including raids) and fps players may be frustrated by the repetitive nature of things.
Here's to hoping they hear any complaints and the game evolves nicely. So far, I love it.
no tutorial huh?
A good "honest" review
yay! stuff.co.nz's review is in! cause thats what we've been waiting for, right? can anybody review a game now as a "professional journalist"?
"At best, the always-online element adds nothing to the game"
umm, what? ive had an absolute BLAST playing with my friends, which wouldn't really be possible without it being online... although a single player only mode would be a nice addition, playing destiny alone is kind of missing the entire point.
"every boss is functionally identical and requires the same strategy - find and shoot the weak point while avoiding the big attacks"
just got done with FFXIV, and every boss fight could be described with the sentence above, find weakness while avoiding big attacks. or DmC. or almost any other game ever.
"The problem is that, despite being a co-op mode, they demand no cooperation or teamwork"
"To make matters worse, they're unreasonably, frustratingly difficult. And not from any kind of complexity that can be overcome by strategy, but from sheer weight of numbers"
sorry, but if you're playing your class correctly, and not playing like a kill stealing, rambo impersonating, 11 year old COD vetran, then you'll be fine. teamwork IS required, and the fact the author hit such a brick wall shows he doesn't understand the game as much as he would let on (hey, im no expert either!)
overall, i give this review a 6/10