E3 2014

[Code_R]

Eh, as usual I will catch the highlights the morning after. The current cross gen release era will be full of duds anyway while everyone gets their act together. The industry is slowly killing itself now that technology is allowing so much DLC and digital distribution, but honestly I've removed myself from the problem recently and hardly ever buy things at retail price anyway. Rushing out and buying stuff to realise that a bunch of content has been chopped out... haven't done it in a long time, the lesson has been learned. This next batch of consoles might kill of my interest entirely soon enough, time will tell.

[Dracarys]

Yeah, but now you're being picky over it.... just because you like the COD map packs doesn't mean they aren't still part of the problem you've outlined. The games have very limited SP campaigns of increasingly shorter and shorter lengths, and the MP and the DLC map packs are mostly only as popular as the latest game. As soon as the new annual title comes out, the drop off in MP for the last is high... meaning both the MP content and the DLC content are almost wasted. People have issues with the churn, I probably wouldn't myself if the game was complete from the get go (barring any patching)... but it's not.

The single player is another issue to DLC entirely, as far as CoD is concerned. If they were selling story as DLC then I'd say was a DLC problem. There are still thousands of daily players on old CoD games, not everyone buys it every year.

Just look at this XBL activity chart (dated from December, too lazy find a newer one). Five CoD games in the top 15.

They aren't 'part of the problem I outlined'. The problem is games having important content cut (literally or not) to be sold as DLC instead, or games offering less in the base package than older games or similar games and sticking the missing parts behind a DLC or CE paywall, or as pre-order bonuses. CoD does not do this*, Battlefield does, Mass Effect 3 did, Dragon Age did, Street Fighter/MvC3 did.

The only thing I dislike about CoD DLC is timed exclusiveness. As I said above somewhere this isn't a reward for players, just a punishent for the ones who need wait. Nobody should be happy about it.


*edit: Actually they did put maps up as pre-order bonuses for the last couple games, so yeah, dislike that.

[MeganGrass]

I find my myself ignoring games completely just because of excessive bloom and unnatural lighting.

I really thought that I was the only one who noticed this.

...everything just looks like animated plastic, very unnatural, as you well-put it.

In all sincerity, that shit needs to end and developers really need to step-up their game.

[Rombie]

The single player is another issue to DLC entirely, as far as CoD is concerned. If they were selling story as DLC then I'd say was a DLC problem. There are still thousands of daily players on old CoD games, not everyone buys it every year.

Just look at this XBL activity chart (dated from December, too lazy find a newer one). Five CoD games in the top 15.

They aren't 'part of the problem I outlined'. The problem is games having important content cut (literally or not) to be sold as DLC instead, or games offering less in the base package than older games or similar games and sticking the missing parts behind a DLC or CE paywall, or as pre-order bonuses. CoD does not do this*, Battlefield does, Mass Effect 3 did, Dragon Age did, Street Fighter/MvC3 did.

The only thing I dislike about CoD DLC is timed exclusiveness. As I said above somewhere this isn't a reward for players, just a punishent for the ones who need wait. Nobody should be happy about it.


*edit: Actually they did put maps up as pre-order bonuses for the last couple games, so yeah, dislike that.

And what about the subscriptions/micro transactions of the ill-fated Elite service when it first launched? It might have failed, but had it not... I can bet you Activision would have pushed hard on micro transactions and other fee options if it was profitable for each and every new CoD title after MW3...

The stats for me of having so many title on the top played list isn't that much of a triumph, it's still a split user base. Instead of better long term support for their title by providing a mixture of paid and free updates and providing incentives for the community to support the game for say, 24 months instead of 12, it's much easier seemingly to have this multiple studio-yearly release-dlc-dlc-release etc. schedule. I'm still not buying this as a good idea, and they are still all part of the problem you outlined with the meme pic of the status of gaming.... splitting games into content, paid content, and even possible micro transactions.

This isn't just a CoD problem either, I'm saying that still systemic of the industry as whole - save for when Criterion gave decent long support for Burnout Paradise and most internal Rockstar games (they still do XP weekends for RDR and MP3 years after release currently). But that's it in a nutshell. CoD and Activision certainly aren't making this any different than the regular gouging most companies will do so why you're trying to treat it any differently is beyond me.

[Canas Renvall]

Let's see what I'm looking forward to here...

Uncharted 4
Super Smash Bros. Wii U
Ratchet and Clank movie news (maybe?)
Final Fantasy XV
Kingdom Hearts III

and some other stuff here and there. What makes me sad is that FFXV was confirmed not to be showing up at E3 this year, and I doubt KHIII will either since Nomura admitted that it was way too early to be announcing KHIII publicly. On top of that, it's very odd. Why make a big announcement of FF Versus XIII being FFXV and then a year later, completely go in the dark about it? I understand that the game must be going through some changes, but there's really nothing to show after a full year? Just throws me off.

[Rombie]

Let's see what I'm looking forward to here...

Uncharted 4
Super Smash Bros. Wii U
Ratchet and Clank movie news (maybe?)
Final Fantasy XV
Kingdom Hearts III

and some other stuff here and there. What makes me sad is that FFXV was confirmed not to be showing up at E3 this year, and I doubt KHIII will either since Nomura admitted that it was way too early to be announcing KHIII publicly. On top of that, it's very odd. Why make a big announcement of FF Versus XIII being FFXV and then a year later, completely go in the dark about it? I understand that the game must be going through some changes, but there's really nothing to show after a full year? Just throws me off.

The photos people have shown from inside the show floor already support this too, with banners showing FFXIV and KH 2.5 up, so I'd say those comment are the truth and I don't expect they'll be making much more noise about XV and KHIII other than to continue to say they're still being worked on to anyone who asks.

E3's prior to console launches always have titles that are announced far too early for their own good, because the studios want to present their ideas in future of games - even if the titles in question may take three, four years to actually arrive. So I can't be that surprised. Normally the hope is that the title will eventually make it though, because sometimes they don't or take several years but i think the expectation of sequels to FF titles and these KH re-releases show Square-Enix is committed to these title and they will arrive, eventually.

My list, which is horribly mainstream:
Alien Isolation
Batman Arkham Knight
The Evil Within
Mad Max
MGSV: TPP
Mirror's Edge 2
MK: X
Star Wars Battlefront
Uncharted (PS)4

[Dracarys]

And what about the subscriptions/micro transactions of the ill-fated Elite service when it first launched? It might have failed, but had it not... I can bet you Activision would have pushed hard on micro transactions and other fee options if it was profitable for each and every new CoD title after MW3...

Elite when it first launched was effectively a season pass. I don't see anything wrong with those as long as they advertised what you get before buying and stick to it. THe ones that just say "Get all DLC content" and don't say what are bogus, and the ones that lie about the content like Uncharted 3 are worse (it advertised 4 map packs but only offered 3, then added a co-op level for a map players already had and claimed it was still a map pack).

The stats for me of having so many title on the top played list isn't that much of a triumph, it's still a split user base.

As long as the comunity for each game is large enough to let you play it without dead hours or half empty games, what does it matter if it is split? Those are the problems with splitting a playerbase, numbers becoming low enough that it is a problem. Does not apply to CoD.

Instead of better long term support for their title by providing a mixture of paid and free updates and providing incentives for the community to support the game for say, 24 months instead of 12, it's much easier seemingly to have this multiple studio-yearly release-dlc-dlc-release etc. schedule.

From a content PoV 3 maps packs which cost about £36 offer 12-15 maps, for £40 you get a new CoD game with about 14-16 new maps and a 3-4 hour campaign. Buying a new game instead of a second years worth of map packs is the same if not much better value. If you wait a few months you can get that new game cheaper too while a second years worth of map packs isn't going to be cheaper.

If someone loves CoD the system then what they got going is a great thing. Because it a constant stream of content every few months with a big content release all at once every November also.

I'm still not buying this as a good idea, and they are still all part of the problem you outlined with the meme pic of the status of gaming.... splitting games into content, paid content, and even possible micro transactions.

Except CoD map packs if anything are the very first picture, they aren't recycled content from the main game like the second picture and aren't bits of the game cut out and sold instead like the third and fourth. Yearly releases isn't even part of that image.

This isn't just a CoD problem either, I'm saying that still systemic of the industry as whole - save for when Criterion gave decent long support for Burnout Paradise and most internal Rockstar games (they still do XP weekends for RDR and MP3 years after release currently). But that's it in a nutshell. CoD and Activision certainly aren't making this any different than the regular gouging most companies will do so why you're trying to treat it any differently is beyond me.

What great long term support did Burnout get, seeing as when it released it seemed to be an unfinished product? Patched in the missing multiplayer modes. A bike mode almost nobody used after a month because it didn't fit with the rest of the game, night/day cycles which just seemed to be left out on ralease. That was the "free content". Then they re-released it as a "We finished it" edition, the Ultimate Box.

For the rest, which all cost money; A party pack that didn't actually add any new content and could be done by players anyway, then microtransaction cars, then microtransaction toy cars, then two more lots of microtransaction toy cars, ten two more microtransaction cars (so this is 5 releases of microtransaction content at this point, as well as a DLC that added nothng). Only after all that did we get some proper content, the Cops n Robbers pack and Big Surf Island, neither of which were released on PC.

Terrible example of 'decent support'. Spent months finishing the game in patches, fleeced the community for microtransactions and contentless DLC, only then adding two worthwhile new content packs. Flipping a XP bonus switch is hardly support either, but CoD games get this too. All the changes GTA V seems to be getting since release encourage microtransaction purchases, not sure what support that is?


As for what looking forward to at E3,

Uncharted 4 reveal
Resident Evil for some reason still
Usual MGS trailer of wtf?

Hoping we see something fresh and original.

[Renard]

I'm hoping for footage of Pokemon Omega Ruby and Pokemon Alpha Sapphire.

[Dark_Chris]

MGSV:TPP trailer

[Rombie]

Drac, I still think you're still fighting an uphill battle here man. You're the one who came in guns blazing showing us the magic of the reused history of gaming purchase, and then somehow won't see that one of the biggest contributing companies to that exact thing is there. You know all I need to do is replace each of those generic art prints with a history of Call of Duty games and I could make almost the same picture, especially if Future Warfare goes down that microtransactional route, full retard style and all. But I'll let you keep denying it from after this post on out if you're really that adamant.

Your defense on map packs not being part of the game is weird. Yes, from a figurative point of the current time we're in they won't be because they're only intended for MP. Or they're planned as later DLC or all maps are planned at once, but given a pipeline of development. And SP is so marginalized and MP is the main focus, yup we covered that... so that maps are the thing so it's backward trying to say if they're outside of the DLC. You're just changing the hurdles here man. Yes, the system allows new maps. But in the old days you wanted more maps for players you either had to extend your development time/cost/manpower to include them from the start or add on discs and packs. So I'm kinda at a loss as why you're trying to move the hurdle here? Did I hurt your feelings for picking on CoD or something? Just let me know what the true reason for this unblinking resistance is here?

To take it on my 2 year release example though.... say that each CoD game currently is 2 years of development on the cross program cycle that Acti has for CoD (I am aware Acti has recently switched to a three level development over 3 years anyway, but stick with me as it was like this till recently), and then around 6 or so months for the extra DLC packs .... mostly maps as you note. If the development was 3 years per game/studio instead, with a new game every 2 years that would provide the equivalent of one current game and eqivilent two lots of the current amounts of DLC (twice as many maps overall currently) but just included with the game from day one.... So again, I'm still not sure what this part of your argument is about? How is a longer support for any game by providing more content for it (even from day one or as I originally said by longer support in general) than just replacing it with more game and more DLC for that game worse? I just don't see the argument there from you.

From a content PoV 3 maps packs which cost about £36 offer 12-15 maps, for £40 you get a new CoD game with about 14-16 new maps and a 3-4 hour campaign. Buying a new game instead of a second years worth of map packs is the same if not much better value. If you wait a few months you can get that new game cheaper too while a second years worth of map packs isn't going to be cheaper.

If someone loves CoD the system then what they got going is a great thing. Because it a constant stream of content every few months with a big content release all at once every November also.

I'd love to agree with this, I really do... because if you do make sensible purchases, of any franchises, season passes, DLC pack, etc. you can do well (just waiting for a bundle pack or GOTY edition for example can also save big bucks) but the simple fact is most CoD fans don't wait for cheaper games, cheaper DLC, and the like (and you can say that about any franchise fans, look at us RE fans who gobble up re-release after re-release as another great example). For CoD, they're day one purchasers, they buy collectors and Hardened editions, and they play the crap out of the maps so much they'll snaffle up new maps on day one (or earlier if pre-order select bonus' will work just to get an edge). It's the same reason Activision keeps releasing a game each year and multi DLC sets that people snap up. I didn't say I blame Activision for stamping a production line on this series, I can entirely see why when people gobble it up, but then that wasn't the original point here was it? It's chicken and the egg. Did we demand that sort of cycle or did the studios convince us that it was good?

I think most of your complaints about Burnout are subjective. I played it from day one (in fact earlier than day one, I remember spending hours playing the demo with Dot and others from here in Nov 2007) and no one complained about the missing MP they knew they were going to get, as both SP and MP were massive already. The bog standard open world MP options were enough from the start and the fact that free updates were at all provided was nice in an age of still heavy growing nerves about stupid cost DLC at the time (Yay, Horse Armor from 2006/2007). Outside of our own subjective opinions anyway, the games lengthy updates, bug support, and extras won several 'Best DLC' GOTY awards over a year after it came out because simply at that time, and still for a number of years later, most development studios never stuck providing support for that long. In total the DLC and updates from Criterion, good and bad I'm happy to admit but still support, went on for over 19 months (game launched in Jan 08, last DLC and major update in mid July 09).

That's what I mean by 'decent support' - most games/studios you're lucky to get more than 8 months at max. Indeed if you think it's uncool to keep to your word and provide the 'unfinished' content for free (in an already fairly massive game that is probably self-explanatory as to why the content wasn't entirely finished at launch anyway) and keep supporting a game for over a year and half, then okay, random thought to have. Should we all celebrate the EA's of the world who will sell you a Batman Arkham Origins DLC Season Pass for the WiiU and then decide not release it, or studios who change up the meaning of their DLC arangements like the Uncharted 3 thing in lieu of saying 'fuck you' to a studio who not only kept their promices, but continued to provide content for their game for over a year and a half?

You're a weird guy Drac. Again you're defending lazy actions of development studios when you support the idea that releasing one game every 12 months and 2-3 lots of DLC in the 8 months after release and do it all again, and then tell me a studio who went the extra mile on updates is somehow a terrible example in your bizzaro world. But hey, if thats your bag... all the best to you. No point in us going further in circles.

Again with R* my point was not the XP weekends as themselves but what they represent... the continued community support for games for almost four years - Red Dead still got a bonus XP and extras weekends, yet it came out in May 2010 (the last bonus weekend was in mid Feb of this year). In fact the biggest impact to it has been the GameSpy closure at the end of last month which removed some Social Club stat tracks, and probably has been the only likely way it wouldn't have continued to have them. Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm farily certain Acti doesn't run bonus weekends for CoD MW2 or Black Ops, or even perhaps MW3? You might know better than I. If I'm wrong about their support then please show me, but I suspect that after 2 new games are have been out unless they just leave double or triple xp running all the time they don't bother?

I hadn't touched GTAV's extended online content by Rockstar so I didn't mention it. I'd seen they'd done free limited time bonus weekends with themed content and sometimes un-timed ones (Christmas, Valentines Day, Gangster, Beach, etc.) via e-mail but indeed looking at it now I figure the most expensive items need cash and would push people towards microtransactions, so fair enough.... in this case I'm happy to tip my hat to you.

However I'll be interested in seeing how long term the online support for the title is, and what Rockstar does to keep people playing for years like they did with Red Dead - bonus' I suspect. In about 3 and half years we'll know... ;)

[MeganGrass]

Ah, E3.

Alien Isolation looks like it might be a decent survival horror title. We'll see... but too much hiding in lockers 'n such and I'm sure it will get boring.

I really dislike the Battlefield franchise, so I'm pretty shocked by my own sudden interest in BF: Hardline.

...and dat Felicia cosplay for Dead Rising? Yes! Please!