Anthem: Bioware's next Mass Effect-like IP

[stellvia]

We've derailed the thread quite a bit. I'm just as guilty as everyone else.

Here are the details of Anthem's monetization based on what the devs have said so far -

• There will be no paid story content. They don't want to fracture the community. This makes sense as they're competing with F2P games such as WarFrame and to a lesser extent Fortnite (everyone in the gaming space is competing with Fortnite)
• There is no pay for power. All MTX are cosmetic only.
• Almost every thing you can buy for real money, you can earn in game.
• There will be no lootboxes. Anything you buy, you will know what you're getting

Going off of what the devs have said, this seems like a more than fair monetization plan. It doesn't seem predatory.

It amazes me how bad the stockholme syndrome is with MTX in AAA games these days. So many people have completely bought into the koolaid on a level they don't even realize they have.

>No paid story content so they don't fracture the community
A convenient PR excuse to spin MTX in a AAA game as a good thing. While also having cognitive dissonance that you literally just said they plan to compete against F2P titles. If they want to compete against F2P then they should go F2P, not charge full price AND use the same F2P monetization tactics after the fact.

>It's just cosmetics! / Paying to bypass the game
Wanting to look cool and customize your character has a history that long predates the MTX era. Cosmetics matter to players, therefore they are part of the game experience and are fair game for criticism. This point is good to mention, but of course we have to wait for the game to come out to make any fair commentary. Companies don't have a good track record, however. It's too easy to pare down the number of included models/textures and throw them into the cash shop instead. Or say they "can be earned in-game" with a shit-eater grin as they're earned only after hundreds of hours of grinding monotonous things vs. traditional skill-based challenges to earn special or cosmetic items in oldschool games. And WoW is a great example of how a playerbase becomes disillusioned and collapses when you remove exclusivity and accomplishment from acquiring cool items. It's a major buzzkill when you bust your ass for an item while someone else merely whips out their +5 AMEX.

>No lootboxes, know what you're getting.
Yay, we're being fed organic grass-fed bullshit instead of GMO!

MTX should not be tolerated at all in a full-priced game, plain and simple. The fact that the entire AAA market just about fell over themselves all scrambling to implement these schemes at the same time should tell you something about their intentions: It's not for a better experience for games and gamers, it's better for their quarterly earnings.

- - - Updated - - -

Have you actually put in 60 hours into Odyssey?

It's called a hypothetical example, I don't know the exact numbers. It illustrates the tactic involved, however.

[Edge-]

>No paid story content so they don't fracture the community
A convenient PR excuse to spin MTX in a AAA game as a good thing. While also having cognitive dissonance that you literally just said they plan to compete against F2P titles. If they want to compete against F2P then they should go F2P, not charge full price AND use the same F2P monetization tactics after the fact.

Also, just a statement of fact. They're not trying to sell you on MTX stuff by telling you the content is free, they're just telling you the content is free.

All the cash shop is doing is providing another source of revenue that would normally be filled by DLC (which is monetized less often in multiplayer games specifically due to how it can fracture the playerbase), a subscription, or...a cash shop. They need a steady flow of revenue to keep a full team working on future updates. Shit isn't free, dog, and if they're only monetizing cosmetics that's perfect. That's literally what folks have been asking for with monetization methods since forever, only sell cosmetics.

>It's just cosmetics! / Paying to bypass the game
Wanting to look cool and customize your character has a history that long predates the MTX era. Cosmetics matter to players, therefore they are part of the game experience and are fair game for criticism. This point is good to mention, but of course we have to wait for the game to come out to make any fair commentary. Companies don't have a good track record, however. It's too easy to pare down the number of included models/textures and throw them into the cash shop instead. Or say they "can be earned in-game" with a shit-eater grin as they're earned only after hundreds of hours of grinding monotonous things vs. traditional skill-based challenges to earn special or cosmetic items in oldschool games. And WoW is a great example of how a playerbase becomes disillusioned and collapses when you remove exclusivity and accomplishment from acquiring cool items. It's a major buzzkill when you bust your ass for an item while someone else merely whips out their +5 AMEX.

So if cosmetics are off limits. If convenience items are off limits. If power is off limits. If they're not splitting up the playerbase by selling DLC...how exactly are they supposed to continue funding the game?

You can dislike the implementation of their cosmetic monetization in the game if you want, but considering we don't know what it'll look like I'm not sure how we can be critical of their implementation beyond just assuming it's bad "because EA".

>No lootboxes, know what you're getting.
Yay, we're being fed organic grass-fed bullshit instead of GMO!

Are you just shitting on them to shit on them? If they're not having any RNG boxes at all that's good, and sadly worthy of praise in the current market.

MTX should not be tolerated at all in a full-priced game, plain and simple. The fact that the entire AAA market just about fell over themselves all scrambling to implement these schemes at the same time should tell you something about their intentions: It's not for a better experience for games and gamers, it's better for their quarterly earnings.

Then figure out how to financially sustain a full development team working on free content updates and potential expansions (that need to be funded) without them and you'll be the savior of the industry.

This isn't AC:Od where it's primarily a single player experience with paid DLC and optional MTX. This is more akin to a scaled down B2P MMO than anything else, and a cash shop isn't remotely out of place in a game like this.

[kaelleria]

Also, just a statement of fact. They're not trying to sell you on MTX stuff by telling you the content is free, they're just telling you the content is free.

All the cash shop is doing is providing another source of revenue that would normally be filled by DLC (which is monetized less often in multiplayer games specifically due to how it can fracture the playerbase), a subscription, or...a cash shop. They need a steady flow of revenue to keep a full team working on future updates. Shit isn't free, dog, and if they're only monetizing cosmetics that's perfect. That's literally what folks have been asking for with monetization methods since forever, only sell cosmetics.



So if cosmetics are off limits. If convenience items are off limits. If power is off limits. If they're not splitting up the playerbase by selling DLC...how exactly are they supposed to continue funding the game?

You can dislike the implementation of their cosmetic monetization in the game if you want, but considering we don't know what it'll look like I'm not sure how we can be critical of their implementation beyond just assuming it's bad "because EA".



Are you just shitting on them to shit on them? If they're not having any RNG boxes at all that's good, and sadly worthy of praise in the current market.



Then figure out how to financially sustain a full development team working on free content updates and potential expansions (that need to be funded) without them and you'll be the savior of the industry.

This isn't AC:Od where it's primarily a single player experience with paid DLC and optional MTX. This is more akin to a scaled down B2P MMO than anything else, and a cash shop isn't remotely out of place in a game like this.

Some people just want to be angry to be angry. I'm done with them.

I'm just going to continue posting Anthem news and content.

Here's an article from IGN with their 20 hour impressions - https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/01...rs-of-gameplay

[Katchii]

It amazes me how bad the stockholme syndrome is with MTX in AAA games these days. So many people have completely bought into the koolaid on a level they don't even realize they have.

[SNIP]

MTX should not be tolerated at all in a full-priced game, plain and simple. The fact that the entire AAA market just about fell over themselves all scrambling to implement these schemes at the same time should tell you something about their intentions: It's not for a better experience for games and gamers, it's better for their quarterly earnings.

The alternative is to just not play video games with MTX in them at all, which is just not possible in this day and age. Saying it's like Stockholm syndrome is insinuating that we love that they added them which I don't think is true at all, it's just that we have to deal with this as the way things are right now because the games we want to play have MTX in them (I say "we" because I'm sure I'm not the only one who has this feeling, not trying to say ALL gamers, just people with similar feelings).

Are you boycotting playing and/or buying any and all video game with any kind of MTX in them?

[Jtbrig7390]

He literally says what legal action in the post you quote.

False advertising.

Good luck with that, Let me know how it turns out.

Spoiler: You would lose your ass off and that's due to the TOS you agree to before you play it.

[Krastyn]

It's called a hypothetical example, I don't know the exact numbers. It illustrates the tactic involved, however.

It's a fucking terrible example though. Because if you've actually played the game, or even read the reviews, it's overwhelmingly positive. So the "complaint" that you might have to play more of the game to progress, is laughable. We're not talking go out and randomly kill people. Just do in game quests.

But apparently encouraging players to play all the content is heresy.

[Lahis]

He literally says what legal action in the post you quote.

False advertising. They are using their monetization method as a marketing gimmick (for lack of a better word), a selling point of the game. In interview after interview they repeatedly go on about their monetization method, how they have learned their lesson from past games, how fair it is, etc...

You cannot lie/be deceptive about your product to sell it, that is against the law (here in the US, at least). And there is no cop out for them in this regard; they haven't been like "oh we hope for it to be this way" so they can say it didn't work and weasel out of it later or anything like that, they have flat out said, "it will be this way, full stop". So if it is not that way, there would be a case for false advertising.

Show me the advert where they say "NO MICROTRANSACTIONS!"

Anything said in interviews and conference presentations can be changed, or else Blizzard would have been sued to hell after every single Blizzcon.

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

I got a 2070 so i got anthem for free so ill see how bad it is for free

Do you have a spare I'm sitting here with a gtx 1060?

[Lahis]

So if cosmetics are off limits. If convenience items are off limits. If power is off limits. If they're not splitting up the playerbase by selling DLC...how exactly are they supposed to continue funding the game?

Maybe the industry should go back at looking games as games, not live service platforms that need to earn infinite amount of money for the next ten years?

[Baconeggcheese]

Afaik the story is a single player affair and they've said future story content will be free. So if there story is even mildly decent or robust you can easily get your 60$ worth just from the single player alone. There isn't much floating around out there but from what I've seen so far (I literally only started looking like last week cause some friends want to give this game a go) the story looks promising. It is a bioware game.

As far as the multiplayer stuff goes, we'll see I guess.

Its not hard to get 60$ worth of value out of even the scummiest of games so even if it ends up scummy then just don't support the scumbag parts and move on. Dunno why this conversation needs to be had to death.

/tinfoilhat there's also the idea that EA may want to attempt to use this game to repair their image after the battlefront fiasco before getting back into the especially scumbaggy stuff. I'm not holding my breath, but its possible.

[Edge-]

Maybe the industry should go back at looking games as games, not live service platforms that need to earn infinite amount of money for the next ten years?

Do you think games weren't viewed by business people as products? This myth that there was once a "pure" era of gaming where developers and publishers all just did it for the love of the art and gaming and there wasn't an underlying financial motivation is silly. It's always been this way, hence why we had endless licensed LJN shovelware dumped on us during the old Nintendo days.

You're coming to a game that's designed to be a live-service game to complain about it being a live-service game. I'm not sure what else to tell you other than...well...don't bother coming back to the thread if it bothers you this much? Not every game is going to be an offline, single player game. Not every game is going to be a live-services game. It'll be alright.

[CrossNgen]

>It's just cosmetics! / Paying to bypass the game[/B][/I]
Wanting to look cool and customize your character has a history that long predates the MTX era. Cosmetics matter to players, therefore they are part of the game experience and are fair game for criticism. This point is good to mention, but of course we have to wait for the game to come out to make any fair commentary. Companies don't have a good track record, however. It's too easy to pare down the number of included models/textures and throw them into the cash shop instead. Or say they "can be earned in-game" with a shit-eater grin as they're earned only after hundreds of hours of grinding monotonous things vs. traditional skill-based challenges to earn special or cosmetic items in oldschool games. And WoW is a great example of how a playerbase becomes disillusioned and collapses when you remove exclusivity and accomplishment from acquiring cool items. It's a major buzzkill when you bust your ass for an item while someone else merely whips out their +5 AMEX.

Some recent comments from a developer on reddit:



Just thought people should know that cosmetics aren't going to be locked behind the MTX shop.

[Edge-]

Oh, you can earn cash shop currency in-game? That makes monetizing cosmetics even less of an issue for me. Slowly passively acquire currency via normal gameplay (assuming the game is good and I pick it up), drop it on something cool every once in a while.

[CrossNgen]

Oh, you can earn cash shop currency in-game? That makes monetizing cosmetics even less of an issue for me. Slowly passively acquire currency via normal gameplay (assuming the game is good and I pick it up), drop it on something cool every once in a while.

No, there's Coin, which is your in-game currency which you can only earn through gameplay, and it can be used to purchase cosmetics and other things like crafting materials and whatever else there is to purchase in-game.

Then there's Shards, which is your premium currency, and it's only good for buying cosmetics off the store.

[Edge-]

No, there's Coin, which is your in-game currency which you can only earn through gameplay, and it can be used to purchase cosmetics and other things like crafting materials and whatever else there is to purchase in-game.

Then there's Shards, which is your premium currency, and it's only good for buying cosmetics off the store.

But it sounds like you can use either to buy the cash shop cosmetics, at least. And as long as that's possible that addresses many concerns - assuming that it's not a truly absurd amount of Coin needed to purchase at least some of the basic cosmetics.

[kaelleria]

But it sounds like you can use either to buy the cash shop cosmetics, at least. And as long as that's possible that addresses many concerns - assuming that it's not a truly absurd amount of Coin needed to purchase at least some of the basic cosmetics.

Last I saw it's either a coin value or a shard value for cosmetics.

[yasiru]

List me the last "AAA" game from EA,Ubisoft,Activision that actually felt like a AAA game ill wait.

Also don't goal post move by adding in DLC, I was clearly talking about MTX's. People like you act like just because it is a "AAA" then its ok to nickel and dime you to death.

Yet company's like Nintendo and Sony both show you don't need to do that shit.

Edit: Fun Fact you can actually find quotes where both EA and Ubisoft have said they don't need MTX's....

There's something else I don't think anyone has even touched on yet: maintaining dedicated servers and the costs/manpower it takes for upkeep on them. That's just another simple reason why a big game like God of War didn't need any Mtx or anything. Once the game was launched they were basically done. The game was single player and could be played offline (as far as I remember). There were no upkeep costs on this game. But wait, Sony isn't exactly an innocent party even for this game. You want cloud saves? Oh, you have to pay for those, oh, and you have an max storage space for those saves. To be honest, that burns my bottom more than optional MTx that I don't have to bother with.

Anthem is going to have dedicated servers for play. There has to be at least something of a revenue stream after launch to maintain them.

One game that also got it really right honestly is Monster Hunter World. Except for the big expansion coming out later this year every update/extra content patch was free for everyone. But they also didn't have dedicated servers. Playing MHW was peer-to-peer over PSN.

[stellvia]

The alternative is to just not play video games with MTX in them at all, which is just not possible in this day and age. Saying it's like Stockholm syndrome is insinuating that we love that they added them which I don't think is true at all, it's just that we have to deal with this as the way things are right now because the games we want to play have MTX in them...

Are you boycotting playing and/or buying any and all video game with any kind of MTX in them?

Outrage over BF2 helped see a change in tactics for MTX: You still have the power to eliminate them if you show some mental fortitude and indeed, don't buy games with MTX. 1-2 years of that would solve the issue quite nicely. And there are still plenty of games without MTX in them, you just have to look past AAA studios (other than I guess new God of War)

[Bugg]

Any chance they will allow first person view?

[apelsinjuice]

He literally says what legal action in the post you quote.

False advertising. They are using their monetization method as a marketing gimmick (for lack of a better word), a selling point of the game. In interview after interview they repeatedly go on about their monetization method, how they have learned their lesson from past games, how fair it is, etc...

You cannot lie/be deceptive about your product to sell it, that is against the law (here in the US, at least). And there is no cop out for them in this regard; they haven't been like "oh we hope for it to be this way" so they can say it didn't work and weasel out of it later or anything like that, they have flat out said, "it will be this way, full stop". So if it is not that way, there would be a case for false advertising.

No Man Sky literally said they had online multiplayer in interviews when they didn't and nothing happen. EA added p2w lootboxes to battlefront 2 after they said they won't, and nothing happen. Interviews do not count as advertisement