Anthem: Bioware's next Mass Effect-like IP

[Baconeggcheese]

Weird is putting it lightly. Learning biowares current plans for the game, what is postponed and then reading that statement, it makes me question biowares current mental state.

What makes me question them is the way they acted on the stream in general, specifically Jesse Anderson. Watching how he handled that stream was a complete 180 from the previous streams. I was really impressed by the past ones where they didn't at all shy away from the tough topics and engaging with people. This time was pretty much a master class in how not to interact with the community.

When you have a live stream people are automatically expecting someone to be paying attention to chat, and this guy is making it painfully obvious that they're completely ignoring chat and then ridiculing them when we had 0 idea what to expect out of the stream and who would be on it. Whole thing seems like a PR nightmare.

[Shinzai]

So you've replied multiple times with no idea what you are replying to?

My point is it is dumb and irrational to attack bioware over using the term "early access launch" when that is what they have always referred to that period as. They didn't suddenly change it in order to spin the state of the game to something more acceptable. The state of the game is irrelevant to them using those wording they always have used.

Go look up the promotional material. At no point have they claimed their game is an early access game. That is what is irrational and dumb to attack them over. There are plenty of valid things to be upset about that people don't have to be stupid about it.

Yeah and all I did was explain the comparison. It's not irrational in the slightest.

[rhorle]

Yeah and all I did was explain the comparison. It's not irrational in the slightest.

It is irrational to even make the comparison. You can have access to a game before launch with out it being an early access game. It might have been dumb for Bioware to use Early Access in stead of Early Launch or something else. But it in no way is them comparing their game to the typical Early Access steam type products.

[Edge-]

That sentence makes absolutely no sense. 10 weeks since release but you get to play one week early. Another huge issue with this game is that dumbass chart.

It's poorly worded, but it's still clear that they're referencing the EA launch one week early rather than saying the game is still in early access.

Return the money to people who purchased this game, as if they call it early -- well its false advertising.

I'll say the same thing I've said to the dozens of folks talking about legal action -

File a complaint with the FTC (or the EU equivalent of that agency) if you think this. Reach out to lawfirms and pay the consultation fee to see if they think you have a case.

Otherwise this is more bullshit internet legal nonsense, which we see constantly and nothing ever comes of it.

[Shinzai]

It is irrational to even make the comparison. You can have access to a game before launch with out it being an early access game. It might have been dumb for Bioware to use Early Access in stead of Early Launch or something else. But it in no way is them comparing their game to the typical Early Access steam type products.

Who cares what they called the initial launch/pre-launch/early access launch?

Name one thing that separates the actual game from Early Access games on Steam. What defining trait sets it apart?

[rhorle]

Who cares what they called the initial launch/pre-launch/early access launch? Name one thing that separates the actual game from Early Access games on Steam. What defining trait sets it apart?

Because that is what people are taking offense to? Them using early access launch now because how the game is close to an early access game. Seriously. Did you even read the posts and understand the context before replying?

I haven't made one comment about the game being worthy of being called an early access game or not. This is about people irrationally saying Bioware "spun" their game into an early access game by saying early access launch.

[Edge-]

Name one thing that separates the actual game from Early Access games on Steam. What defining trait sets it apart?

They called it an official launch. Early Access is largely just a name nowadays, with the Steam version of it having long since lost any and all value as developers took advantage of many of the "protections" that EA afforded them so that they could soft-launch titles to reduce their risk.

I'm not even sure why it matters. Plenty of launched games have been garbage, and it's been that case for years. Especially for online games/MMO's as many of us know all too well. It's an odd thing to get hung up on IMO.

[Shinzai]

Because that is what people are taking offense to? Them using early access launch now because how the game is close to an early access game. Seriously. Did you even read the posts and understand the context before replying?

I haven't made one comment about the game being worthy of being called an early access game or not. This is about people irrationally saying Bioware "spun" their game into an early access game by saying early access launch.

Again, it's irrelevant. I'm pretty sure after the first hour that people were confused over the sentence and how it was worded, it no longer mattered.

The game is being compared to early access games and is being insultingly called as such now.

The comment you originally picked up on was criticizing the usage of the phrase "early access" as a descriptor. Which is what you argued against and said there was nothing wrong with it.

Myself and americandavey pointed out that they should've used a different term altogether, to avoid the comparison.

They called it an official launch. Early Access is largely just a name nowadays, with the Steam version of it having long since lost any and all value as developers took advantage of many of the "protections" that EA afforded them so that they could soft-launch titles to reduce their risk.

I'm not even sure why it matters. Plenty of launched games have been garbage, and it's been that case for years. Especially for online games/MMO's as many of us know all too well. It's an odd thing to get hung up on IMO.

To be exact, it was called a "head start" originally, which is a lot more clear cut and would've saved them this whole thing blowing up in their faces.

[Edge-]

To be exact, it was called a "head start" originally, which is a lot more clear cut and would've saved them this whole thing blowing up in their faces.

Clearly says "Early Access (Full Game) On February 15, 2019".

Again, I'm not disagreeing that they worded the statement poorly, but that seems pretty par for the course for BW. But it's also a pretty pointless/trivial thing that's being hyperbolically blown out of proportion by a ton of folks over the past few days (not saying you specifically), and at this point I'm legitimately surprised at how much effort and time folks are spending on that one line that was probably one of the least important lines of their update.

[Mister Cheese]

Clearly says "Early Access (Full Game) On February 15, 2019".

Again, I'm not disagreeing that they worded the statement poorly, but that seems pretty par for the course for BW. But it's also a pretty pointless/trivial thing that's being hyperbolically blown out of proportion by a ton of folks over the past few days (not saying you specifically), and at this point I'm legitimately surprised at how much effort and time folks are spending on that one line that was probably one of the least important lines of their update.

It's another thing to add on the other mountain of other things they've done wrong.

[Shinzai]

[IMG]https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--R7-MJ3Yu--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/lc8zhtul9ocfaszgoqrd.jpg[/I MG]

Clearly says "Early Access (Full Game) On February 15, 2019".

Again, I'm not disagreeing that they worded the statement poorly, but that seems pretty par for the course for BW. But it's also a pretty pointless/trivial thing that's being hyperbolically blown out of proportion by a ton of folks over the past few days (not saying you specifically), and at this point I'm legitimately surprised at how much effort and time folks are spending on that one line that was probably one of the least important lines of their update.

Must be me misremembering it being referred to as a head start. I thought it was touted as "Getting a head start with EA Play First.".

The badly phrased usage of "early access" has become a focal point, due to seeming displeasure with the stream as a whole, since a lot of people have issues with the loot still and feel it's gone untouched, despite being a primary concern.

The other moment being meme'd is the hyped up chest opening, which some regular purples came out of and no MWs. Which resulted in no player commentary or discussion, just awkward silence.

[Mister Cheese]

The theme of gaming.

- - - Updated - - -

So you are claiming that people wouldn't be outraged if they didn't use the same label as all of their marketing material? If they said Early launch no one would be upset at all. Gotcha.

Oh by the way you seem to really love defending corporations for some reason. They marketed this as a retail product and only now they are calling this game early access. Why the fuck are you surprised people are mad?

[Dhrizzle]

There is realy one good thing they could do in this case.

Return the money to people who purchased this game, as if they call it early -- well its false advertising.

Here is a Eu law if anyone wants to read:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-to...g-directive_en

Here is one part for example:
Article 6

Misleading actions

1. A commercial practice shall be regarded as misleading if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful or in any way, including overall presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer, even if the information is factually correct, in relation to one or more of the following elements, and in either case causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise:

(a)


the existence or nature of the product;

(b)


the main characteristics of the product, such as its availability, benefits, risks, execution, composition, accessories, after-sale customer assistance and complaint handling, method and date of manufacture or provision, delivery, fitness for purpose, usage, quantity, specification, geographical or commercial origin or the results to be expected from its use, or the results and material features of tests or checks carried out on the product;

(c)


the extent of the trader's commitments, the motives for the commercial practice and the nature of the sales process, any statement or symbol in relation to direct or indirect sponsorship or approval of the trader or the product;

(d)


the price or the manner in which the price is calculated, or the existence of a specific price advantage;

(e)


the need for a service, part, replacement or repair;

(f)


the nature, attributes and rights of the trader or his agent, such as his identity and assets, his qualifications, status, approval, affiliation or connection and ownership of industrial, commercial or intellectual property rights or his awards and distinctions;

(g)


the consumer's rights, including the right to replacement or reimbursement under Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (8), or the risks he may face.

2. A commercial practice shall also be regarded as misleading if, in its factual context, taking account of all its features and circumstances, it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise, and it involves:

(a)


any marketing of a product, including comparative advertising, which creates confusion with any products, trade marks, trade names or other distinguishing marks of a competitor;

(b)


non-compliance by the trader with commitments contained in codes of conduct by which the trader has undertaken to be bound, where:

(i)


the commitment is not aspirational but is firm and is capable of being verified,

and

(ii)


the trader indicates in a commercial practice that he is bound by the code.

Which specific parts do you think they have broken? Essentially they advertised a 3rd person shooter with story/campaign, loot acquisition, multiplayer aspects and repeatable "endgame" content, and that's what we've got.

[Faldric]

There is currently a rumor from a few usually reliable streamers that EA slashed the bonuses for its lower level staff by 50% and middle management by 25% following the performance of Battlefield 5 and Anthem. If its true, that can't be good for morale.

[Shinzai]

There is currently a rumor from a few usually reliable streamers that EA slashed the bonuses for its lower level staff by 50% and middle management by 25% following the performance of Battlefield 5 and Anthem. If its true, that can't be good for morale.

"Beatings will continue, until morale improves."

[Gorsameth]

There is currently a rumor from a few usually reliable streamers that EA slashed the bonuses for its lower level staff by 50% and middle management by 25% following the performance of Battlefield 5 and Anthem. If its true, that can't be good for morale.

Why would you get payed bonuses when you deliver bad products?
That defeats the entire point of a bonus.

[Eleccybubb]

There is currently a rumor from a few usually reliable streamers that EA slashed the bonuses for its lower level staff by 50% and middle management by 25% following the performance of Battlefield 5 and Anthem. If its true, that can't be good for morale.

If that's true then what a fucking joke.

I know I use this example a lot but again Nintendo. Wii U failed and instead of firing staff the then CEO Satoru Iwata took a huge paycut citing the failure was on him and that firing/lowering others salaries would not help morale.

It just goes to show that there are good people left in the industry out there.

However I will say and @Gorsameth makes a good point that if they are underperforming after being given so much free reign by EA (which is very rare to see) then of course they will make cuts to bonuses.

[Gorsameth]

If that's true then what a fucking joke.

I know I use this example a lot but again Nintendo. Wii U failed and instead of firing staff the then CEO Satoru Iwata took a huge paycut citing the failure was on him and that firing/lowering others salaries would not help morale.

It just goes to show that there are good people left in the industry out there.

Except the head of EA wasn't involved in developing Battlefield or Anthem.

[quras]

What makes me question them is the way they acted on the stream in general, specifically Jesse Anderson.
SNIP....
Whole thing seems like a PR nightmare.

I'm kinda amazed at the whole turn of events, the stream and their reddit post.. It's a complete shit show over there as if there is still no management or direction. No clear decision making or at least no one wanting to take lead and be a part of the "fixing" when it comes to bioware the gamers and the garbage they puled off with anthem.

There is something wrong in that company right now and it's showing in damn near everything they have had their hands on for the past while and it seems to be getting worse. I have been able to see it in swtor, MA and clearly anthem. Something in that company's fridge went sour.

[Selah]

Haven't been keeping too close an eye on Anthem, just what Bellular has been talking about it. Just from that alone I am so glad I never invested any amount of time or money in it.