EA and BioWare's Anthem

[X Knight]

That’s what they need to do. No point creating additional projects when you aren’t doing your main babies well enough.

Agreed.

Anthem could have turned into a nice 3rd franchise for Bioware. But as you said, I would rather they make good games in their present franchises than dilute their efforts by pursuing additional projects.

It sounds like Anthem's failure already had a positive effect on DA4, since EA has now dropped the live-service mandate for DA4. At least if you believe recent reports.

I hope that is indeed the case, because a live service DA or ME game would have been mediocre at best or a disaster at worst. Just look at Avengers and how that has turned out. That should also serve as a cautionary tale against live service games.

 

[psylockolussus]

Anthem looked great from.the trailers. If I didn't know it was an online multiplayer and it received bad reviews, I would have bought it.

 

[TheVileOne]

Agreed.

Anthem could have turned into a nice 3rd franchise for Bioware. But as you said, I would rather they make good games in their present franchises than dilute their efforts by pursuing additional projects.

It sounds like Anthem's failure already had a positive effect on DA4, since EA has now dropped the live-service mandate for DA4. At least if you believe recent reports.

I hope that is indeed the case, because a live service DA or ME game would have been mediocre at best or a disaster at worst. Just look at Avengers and how that has turned out. That should also serve as a cautionary tale against live service games.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Games as a live service are a scam.

EA has no idea what gamers want. They have no clue. And you know what? Neither does BioWare anymore. This is the third strike for them.

 

[X Knight]

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Games as a live service are a scam.

EA has no idea what gamers want. They have no clue. And you know what? Neither does BioWare anymore. This is the third strike for them.

Hopefully the industry will learn from the failures of Anthem and Avengers. Most likely, they won't, though.

Bioware has the chance to redeem themselves with the next DA and ME games. However, their star has since lost its luster. So, if either of their next big games fails to deliver, then that would not bode well for their future. Especially after this Anthem disaster.

 

[TheVileOne]

Hopefully the industry will learn from the failures of Anthem and Avengers. Most likely, they won't, though.

Bioware has the chance to redeem themselves with the next DA and ME games. However, their star has since lost its luster. So, if either of their next big games fails to deliver, then that would not bode well for their future. Especially after this Anthem disaster.

The fact is they no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt, nor does CDPR with how badly they handled Cyberpunk 2077 and its aftermath.

What even is the next Mass Effect game? Andromeda was a failure and they dropped it. They are remastering the original trilogy. But can they even handle a new game?

 

[X Knight]

The fact is they no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt, nor does CDPR with how badly they handled Cyberpunk 2077 and its aftermath.

What even is the next Mass Effect game? Andromeda was a failure and they dropped it. They are remastering the original trilogy. But can they even handle a new game?

I'm willing to give Bioware one more chance with their next game - be it DA or ME, whichever comes first.

However, if they screw it up, then it will really be hard for them to recover, and I certainly won't give their future games the benefit of the doubt.

 

[metaphysician]

Honestly, I think the lessons to be learned from Anthem and Avengers are almost completely different, and neither is *really* about GAAS. With Anthem, its mostly about dysfunctional development processes, while with Avengers, its "tie ins are not a cheap way to print money anymore". I'm not sure the publishers will actually change their overall attitude about GAAS until either:

-Quite a few more years pass with an 80%+ failure rate in new entries

-Broad legal changes make MTX far less appealing

 

[henzINNIT]

Honestly, I think the lessons to be learned from Anthem and Avengers are almost completely different, and neither is *really* about GAAS. With Anthem, its mostly about dysfunctional development processes, while with Avengers, its "tie ins are not a cheap way to print money anymore". I'm not sure the publishers will actually change their overall attitude about GAAS until either:

-Quite a few more years pass with an 80%+ failure rate in new entries

-Broad legal changes make MTX far less appealing

Both games launched bereft of meaningful content but with a promised future of mythical wonder. Both games were comically undercooked, relied on looter-shooter mechanics but without interesting loot, and only seemed to have the microtransactions ready at launch. They may have unique stories of incompetence behind the scenes, but both are textbook examples of the lie that is 'Games as service'

 

[metaphysician]

Both games launched bereft of meaningful content but with a promised future of mythical wonder. Both games were comically undercooked, relied on looter-shooter mechanics but without interesting loot, and only seemed to have the microtransactions ready at launch. They may have unique stories of incompetence behind the scenes, but both are textbook examples of the lie that is 'Games as service'

OTOH, was their launch state less fully cooked than other looter shooters that *have* been successful, like Destiny and The Division? I recall both of those games being content light on release.

Which does suggest another lesson to be taken: just because Game X succeeded in spite of Flaw Y, doesn't mean *you* can succeed with your game having Flaw Y, too. The early entries into a genre and market can succeed in spite of a lot of flaws ( because its new and innovative and growing into an empty market niche ), but you aren't competing with them as they existed at launch. You are competing with them as they exist now.

 

[henzINNIT]

OTOH, was their launch state less fully cooked than other looter shooters that *have* been successful, like Destiny and The Division? I recall both of those games being content light on release.

Which does suggest another lesson to be taken: just because Game X succeeded in spite of Flaw Y, doesn't mean *you* can succeed with your game having Flaw Y, too. The early entries into a genre and market can succeed in spite of a lot of flaws ( because its new and innovative and growing into an empty market niche ), but you aren't competing with them as they existed at launch. You are competing with them as they exist now.

Was the Division that successful? I never played or ever really noticed it, but that's just me of course. Destiny was a disappointment at launch but in a better place than Anthem I'd say, and at least had a decent game play loop. It also benefited from coming first* and having fresh excuses.

I do think it's tough to launch a new thing against competition that has been updating theirs. Something like Anthem at launch may be be unfairly compared to Destiny 2 in its second year. But that's not really the issue. Anthem didn't suck because it couldn't compete with a fully updated rival, it sucked in general. Cobbled together and kicked out the door, it died as a live service the way most do: post-launch support was minimal. It's always an agonizing drip-feed of underwhelming content after the main money's been made, and that's only if the game survives long enough to fix the base game first.

*Not really first but first prominent console game to have a good old '10 year plan'.

 

[metaphysician]

Oh, Anthem absolutely sucked on its own merits, yes. My argument is just that the industry won't learn the lessons they *actually* need to learn from Anthem, vis a vis GAAS, because anyone can always say "But our game will be better, and won't have a dumpster fire of a development cycle". Whereas even without the development horror show, Anthem probably still would have been a failure, because its not enough to be simply be as good as the competition. You either need to deliver a fundamentally different experience such as to draw in new or lapsed players, or else you need to be *better* than the dominant games on the market, as they stand currently. The former is hard, and the latter is probably impossible, leaving you with the likely outcome of "your game hits a player populace ceiling that may not be enough to be sustainable at all, let alone profitable".

 

[Calvin Ellis]

Was the Division that successful? I never played or ever really noticed it, but that's just me of course. Destiny was a disappointment at launch but in a better place than Anthem I'd say, and at least had a decent game play loop. It also benefited from coming first* and having fresh excuses.

I do think it's tough to launch a new thing against competition that has been updating theirs. Something like Anthem at launch may be be unfairly compared to Destiny 2 in its second year. But that's not really the issue. Anthem didn't suck because it couldn't compete with a fully updated rival, it sucked in general. Cobbled together and kicked out the door, it died as a live service the way most do: post-launch support was minimal. It's always an agonizing drip-feed of underwhelming content after the main money's been made, and that's only if the game survives long enough to fix the base game first.

*Not really first but first prominent console game to have a good old '10 year plan'.

The Division was or is very successful. You should really give it a try it is a fun but hard game if you go solo.

 

[henzINNIT]

The Division was or is very successful. You should really give it a try it is a fun but hard game if you go solo.

Too normal for me sadly. I like a little more genre in my games, never been fond of military shooters and that ilk.

 

[Calvin Ellis]

Too normal for me sadly. I like a little more genre in my games, never been fond of military shooters and that ilk.

Trust me you'll like it it's soo much more than military shooter because of the story.

 

[Iceman]

Was the Division that successful? I never played or ever really noticed it, but that's just me of course. Destiny was a disappointment at launch but in a better place than Anthem I'd say, and at least had a decent game play loop. It also benefited from coming first* and having fresh excuses.

I do think it's tough to launch a new thing against competition that has been updating theirs. Something like Anthem at launch may be be unfairly compared to Destiny 2 in its second year. But that's not really the issue. Anthem didn't suck because it couldn't compete with a fully updated rival, it sucked in general. Cobbled together and kicked out the door, it died as a live service the way most do: post-launch support was minimal. It's always an agonizing drip-feed of underwhelming content after the main money's been made, and that's only if the game survives long enough to fix the base game first.

*Not really first but first prominent console game to have a good old '10 year plan'.

The Division was Ubisoft’s biggest ever launch and is still popular. Agreed on the rest of your post yeah.

 

[Iceman]

Too normal for me sadly. I like a little more genre in my games, never been fond of military shooters and that ilk.

I am the same. I always prefer something like a sci-fi twist over a standard military shooter. Division has more to offer than just that though as @Calvin Ellis mentions.

 

[henzINNIT]

The Division was Ubisoft’s biggest ever launch and is still popular. Agreed on the rest of your post yeah.

Fair enough. I knew it got a sequel but I didn't follow the game much beyond that.

I am the same. I always prefer something like a sci-fi twist over a standard military shooter. Division has more to offer than just that though as @Calvin Ellis mentions.

I had a mate who quite enjoyed the first at launch. He tried to sway me but I'm stubborn. The premise has some appeal just not to me. I'm a pretty solitary gamer too, so I'd get no use out of the co-op.

 

[Iceman]

Fair enough. I knew it got a sequel but I didn't follow the game much beyond that.



I had a mate who quite enjoyed the first at launch. He tried to sway me but I'm stubborn. The premise has some appeal just not to me. I'm a pretty solitary gamer too, so I'd get no use out of the co-op.

Yeah, the game is probably not as much fun solo and given you’re not into the military stuff might not be for you.

 

[Calvin Ellis]

Yeah, the game is probably not as much fun solo and given you’re not into the military stuff might not be for you.

Agreed I beat the game solo my first go around and that took almost forever it was one of the hardest games I ever played on solo mode.