An Update on Anthem Next

by EA_Cade
Reply

Original Post

Re: An Update on Anthem Next

[ Edited ]
Champion (Retired)

@Silversurferguy wrote:

@cake404  Right, cuz charging $60 for an unfinished broken game with no content and then trying to sell skins for an additional $10-$15 is such a good deal for us players.....meanwhile future plans were canceled, the only permanent addition was one stronghold, the rest being temporary events. Good deal 👏👏👏 those micro transactions really paid off for anthem. 

 

I said it before and I’ll say it again. Keep the micro transactions in free to play games if you want to do that; not in games that charge an upfront price


For that model to work players have to actually buy microtransactions. If everyone sits there like you going “I paid full price for the game and I’m not paying you any more” then you’re gonna get what you paid for. They did what they could with the money they made off the initial sales. Then they had to cut the losses because everyone was buying those skins for coin instead of buying shards and there was no ongoing revenue stream to continue working on it.

 

To recoup the costs of development of a free to play game in a reasonable amount of time it has to have really low costs of development and/or really high volume of microtransactions/subscription fees/etc. Otherwise you risk never breaking even. You say you want them to make good games and not be greedy but the business model you’re asking them to use for it literally only works out financially in the long run if you do the opposite. I don’t know how to get that across to you.

Message 61 of 105 (966 Views)

Re: An Update on Anthem Next

@cake404  I pity you at times. Our games can be so much better. There’s a clear disconnection between EA and their customers. You push the idea that games simply can’t exist without micro transactions and that’s just not true. I even gave 3 examples but I guess that doesn’t matter. The model supported via micro transactions can work in free games like in Warframe. I love that game and it’s one I’ve supported over the years. But in AAA I expect better. You can call it whatever you want. I hold AAA games to a higher standard because I pay for the game upfront. If I’m not pleased with what I got, I don’t reward that with dumping more money. Maybe you will, but I won’t. Especially when you get what happened here with anthem. You mentioned that people bought stuff with coin instead of shards. That should be a hint both to you and EA how tired people are of these micro transactions. At some point people were set aside just to set up the micro transactions. That’s precious dev time that could’ve been put elsewhere.

 

I get that it’s a business and they need to make money but there’s a fine line between just making money and over reaching to milk players. EA in particular has gotten in a lot of trouble over this. They were under criminal investigation by Belgium for refusing to comply with their laws regarding their micro transactions and had a hearing in English Parliament for the same thing. That should show you where their priorities are. I hope one day you start holding these people to a higher standard cuz they can do so much better

Message 62 of 105 (941 Views)

Re: An Update on Anthem Next

Champion (Retired)

You’re still not getting it. Microtransaction-only model and single-purchase model both require the developers to basically give you half the amount of content for your money if they want to break even, compared to what Anthem tried to do. Granted, Anthem isn’t quite a success story it could have been, but that is due to multiple reasons and not any single one in particular. But it still worked out better than it would have otherwise, and I actually think we got more than we otherwise would have out of it.

 

If Anthem launched as free-to-play, with all of the same technical difficulties, it would simply be dead on arrival. It wouldn’t have generated any meaningful revenue via microtransactions, the devs would be in the hole after making it, there would be no budget to even fix the technical issues, much less release additional content like the Cataclysm or the Sunken Cell stronghold. It also probably wouldn’t have any significant content in it to begin with. It would have just been a bare bones looter shooter with no story at all, no fully voiced NPCs with facial motion capture, minimal context of who you even are and who the enemies are and why you’re fighting them.

 

If Anthem launched on a one-time purchase model they probably would have fixed the technical issues but that’s it. The amount of content there was at launch would have been all there would be. They would maybe try to sell Sunken Cell as a DLC. Few people would buy it so it would be even harder to find anyone to play it with. They would see that people are dissatisfied with the amount of content they can make for that price, decide there’s no point in making a sequel, and quit while they’re ahead.

 

What we got was them actually trying to show that they are committed to releasing additional content on an ongoing basis. The issues with the engine and the online services meant they could only deliver a fraction of what they planned, but you still got more content for the same amount of money you would have paid if it was single-purchase.

 

The irony is that you’re holding indie developers like Warframe to lower standards even though they have lower costs of operation, so you’re ok with them raking in microtransaction money and churning out comparatively low-effort content. But when a studio like Bioware is trying to come up with a model that allows them to stay afloat while giving you the most content for your money you call them greedy. I’m talking about Bioware specifically right now. The stuff EA got sued for in Belgium was related to their sports titles as far as I understand, which are under a completely different division. Of course they’re going to try to maximize profits on the sports games because when a bunch of people are willing to throw money at you for no reason, you let them. Doesn’t mean every studio under EA operates under the same model.

 

Obviously, upfront costs+microtransactions model can be abused for profit. But again, it’s the only model that doesn’t need to be abused for profit just to break even. And there are successful games that basically operate under that or similar models. Any online game that went free-to-play after initially requiring a purchase or subscription is technically an example of this. They recouped the initial development costs and figured out they can stay afloat with just microtransaction revenue, so they dropped the initial price tag. Of course if Anthem did that everyone would flood the forums demanding a refund for their preorders from two years ago because EA is evil. But they can’t do better if you limit them to the business models that force them to choose between maximizing profits and going bankrupt, instead of being able to just recoup losses and then have a predictable revenue stream.

Message 63 of 105 (929 Views)

Re: An Update on Anthem Next

@cake404  Warframe is free. That’s why I’m more forgiving. But you know what? You and I are just two different demographics. And that’s ok. I just won’t dump extra money on a game I paid for. Especially if the game doesn’t earn it. Simple as that. Perhaps you will and maybe that’s what EA expects from customers too. But that’s not me. Regardless, anthems dead and I’m tired of repeating myself. Take care 👋

Message 64 of 105 (912 Views)

Re: An Update on Anthem Next

Champion (Retired)

The problem is that as long as people have this mentality there will be no way to finance ambitious projects like what Anthem could have been. We’ll be stuck with exactly what you claim you hate – minimum content games that exist solely to extract maximum profit for minimum effort. But you’ll probably be ok with giving them hundreds of dollars over time because you didn’t “pay for them” up front. But hey, as long as you’re happy with that.

 

And yea, I think I’ve hit my quota on talking to a wall this week.

Message 65 of 105 (899 Views)

Re: Release the code

★★★★ Guide
@cake404 Tell that to Darkspore/Lawbreakers/Deathgarden Bloodharvest/Battleborn players
Message 66 of 105 (1,124 Views)

Re: An Update on Anthem Next

★★ Guide

I agree completely,we can argue about business models till no end.But real problem is that we were lied to from start till end and at our own expence, which is hard to accept.

Message 67 of 105 (1,073 Views)

Re: An Update on Anthem Next

★★★ Pro

Welp,  dat's dat.

 

See y'all in other games.  I'm still playing Destiny,  and I'm downloading the Outriders demo as we speak.  I'm also still playing Zombie War 4.  Hope to see some of you Freelancers elsewhere in the matrix.

 

Stronger together.

 

Cannon

Message 68 of 105 (1,049 Views)

Re: An Update on Anthem Next

★★ Guide

Got tired of Destiny ,but there is one more potential Titanic which I like.Unfortunatelly it doesnt have online,but there is still hope no matter what.I suppose all already guessed CP2077 in this description.

Message 69 of 105 (1,029 Views)

Re: An Update on Anthem Next

★ Novice

Hey I understand you’re upset but why are you blaming BioWare when to be honest things are out of their hands. This was all done because of EA and had they allowed BioWare to be The company they proved to be then all would have worked out. This is the issues when you have shareholders that only care about one thing and that’s to make money. It sucks because Anthem was a good game that had a whole lot of potential but now we will never see what it could have been unless another studio can buy it and do it justice.

Message 70 of 105 (1,000 Views)
Twitter Stream