213374U Posted August 22, 2017 Share Posted August 22, 2017 (edited) Anyone who may be inclined to defend EA here haven't been keeping up with their practices regarding MP monetisation, btw. I'd see MP monetisation as a separate issue. I also fundamentally don't care about it, since I don't play it. But by and large I wouldn't defend anyone's MP policies, I was even mildly annoyed by something as trivial as Larian having the MP rps minigame in SP DivinityOS, and stuff like the 'forced' MP in ME3 to get war score was obnoxious- but it was only 'forced' since I never did it. In Andromeda's case I'd need a fair bit of convincing that MP or EA's policy towards it was the reason the game failed, and BiowareM knew the requirement for it before development started. It's also, in the end, the player's collective fault that such focuses on MP happen, if nobody bought premier packs and loot boxes and game currency and trivial skins etc etc etc then the companies would not do them. Can't generally say the same for a poor SP game though there are examples (Fallout 4). The reason? Probably not. A reason? You bet. Andromeda MP managed to both expand the scope of microtransactions and deliver less value for them. ME3 had several unplanned MP DLCs that were the result of the success of the model -- they got it "just right", and folks were willing to shell out some cash every time a new content patch dropped to get some new stuff. The DLCs were absolutely fantastic. In Andromeda, there rarely was genuinely new stuff to be had, mostly just reskins or trash repurposed from SP, and no DLC either: they went with a drip-feed model that spread the delivery of what little they had produced over months. Not to mention the initial move away from biower points to Andromeda points, just in case you had some left over from purchasing stuff in ME3 and DA. And as their final parting gift they decided to crank loot pool bloat up to 11 by adding a ton of minute +% garbage that doesn't expand on mechanics and appears designed solely to slow manifest progression to a crawl, while creating the illusion of "content". I wouldn't say it's a separate issue because many MPers are also SPers and vice versa. The MP adds staying power to the game as a whole and provides additional revenue, which may justify and help towards development of SP content. By all accounts, this is what happened with ME3. However, unlike in 2012-13, consensus on Reddit and the BSN is that biowEA can get bent with their approach to monetization in this game. It is perhaps true that, with a publicly traded company, the success of a specific microtransactions model entails an expansion of said model in future titles. What I'm not so sure is that naked greed must be the design cornerstone for the whole thing. We'll never know for sure because companies don't release that kind of data, but if we accept that players encouraged it with ME3, then it also holds true that players have discouraged it this time around. I'd sooner expect EA to bury biower than turn the ship around, though. Edited August 22, 2017 by 213374U - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now