@Wuufi: No one is forcing them to include PvP. People are expressing that they have an interest in PvP, which is entirely valid. This is in essence the reverse argument to people saying that they expect single player campaigns to be present in multiplayer games because they want that additional value to their dollar - no one is wrong for saying that they wish Titanfall had a proper single player campaign (and Titanfall 2's inclusion of it got them positive attention), just like no one is wrong for wishing that Anthem had PvP. It just becomes about greater valuation for ones dollar by introducing more to do, and more stable content. It becomes doubly a potential discussion when talking about the extended life cycle that they are aiming for with this game. We know that PvP is not in the game at launch - there's zero debate about this - but it's not like the door is permanently closed on that.
@DemonicDerrax: Training simulations and wargames would fit within the development of it fairly easily. There's ways to tackle it that fit the lore, if they are so inclined. Hell, there's even two groups of outright human opponents - outlaws and the dominion.
Problem is that PvP would conflict with the story of the game. As the trailers pretty clearly show, humanity is in danger and would very likely not waste time destroying itself when there are millions of hungry monsters waiting to chomp their faces off.
Conflict with the story ... The dominion guys are a military factions who is one of the main enemies of the freelancers. Why shouldnt you be able to join them later after for example a plot twist. Like i said somewhere else.
@Viperions0 I've already made my case about this. Whether yoy believe it to be true or not by a community constantly voicing they want a PvP the developers will feel pressured to do so and likely end up prematurely focusing resources and releasing a half baked PvP mode while diverting the manpower from developing Anthem's main content, PvE.
Also value for dollar is 100% debatable. If they add PvP for 'value' and I never wanted to and never will play it does this add value to me? Not really. Especially if it delays PvE content that I orginally paid for the game to come out with in a timely fashion for or if PvP effects PvE content in turn would detract from my value for dollar. Not everything needs to include PvP. For Titanfall I knew what I signed up for when I bought the game and didn't complain one bit about non single player campaign and just as they didn't roll one out until TF2 Anthem shouldn't feel the need to add PvP until way down the road when they feel like they are ready it and not just because PvP players want it so readily before the core game is even out. That's my issue.
December - last edited December
@lBalrogklThe argument is valid. Just as I wouldn't complain about a PvP heavy game not having a lot of or any PvE content why should a game that was made to be extremely PvE heavy have a PvP mode even considered right now if at all? Why can't games come out without PvP? It's a valid question. With all the games out there with PvP why can't this one just stay pure PvE? It hasn't even come out yet and people are voicing for PvP modes. Can't we just enjoy the game and updates for a while before voicing for PvP before launch already?
As for "screaming for no pvp" it is the same for the opposite perspective, we don't feel the need for everyone wanting a PvP so readily when this game was essencially MADE for PvE content at its core. Why can't it just stay that way? That's my question.
Edit: It's not the same. Because they were already not doing PvP at this time. But when pressured to actually do it they might devote time and energy into it and delay PvE content as well as end up releasing a half baked PvP experience for those who did want it just because they were calling for it before the game was even released. They know people eventually want PvP at this point so it doesn't have to be a shouting match just to get your or their way. Just let the game be pure for a while so they can have the time to devote to actually making a PvP work on yheir time and not just because the community is shouting for it.
There will always be people in communities that want PvP in a PvE game. But to be straight with you if they never produce a PvP and you expected it in a game that was supposed to be PvE intensive to begin with then you shouldn't have bought the game especially knowing that there wasn't a PvP at launch or even in the near future (though they left the door cracked for a POSSIBILITY).
On the other hand I would have no issue with a PvP down the line. However only if it was made on their time and was actually GOOD and not a pressure made PvP baby to satisfy PvP players. As long as it didn't effect PvE content or update timelines then I personally have no issue with a PvP mode.
It's just at a point of personal agitation that all I see is the community dividing itself in the forums over PvP when the game isn't even out yet. That is the main reason I didn't post in the other pvp discussion thread because it turned unto a dumpster fire shouting match.
@Wuufi: It is very important to remember that 'this community' represents at best only a minute subsection of engaged players. There's how many dozen people posting here, and then the last stream picked up five thousand plus people? And that's a further small subsection of players. Lets say Anthem sells a million copies, less than half of what Andromeda sold - even if there's 100 people here demanding PvP, you're talking about 0.0001% of the player base. A smart developer is not going to be using this as a substantial source of information about what the players desire - they have their own metrics and feedback mechanisms. *If* they bring PvP to Anthem - and this is a big if - it will be at their pace. We know flat out that there is not PvP at launch, this isn't even a debate aspect. They also likely know that half assing something is seriously going to create a backfire effect. My assumption is Anthem is probably going to be focusing on its core systems for quite awhile after launch.
The 'value for dollar' isn't necessarily intrinsically tied to you, but tied to the greater whole. Content can be added that players never make use of, but it enriches the value of their dollar by enabling them the POTENTIAL to make greater use of it. Similarly, just because you didn't complain that there wasn't a single player campaign doesn't mean that there wasn't complaints about it's lack of single player campaign. I'm not arguing that everything needs to have a single player campaign, nor that everything has to have a PvP mode - I'm just pointing out that it's not really a 'us versus them' argument that everyone seems inclined to turn it into. A concern about assets getting diverted away is entirely valid, but that doesn't in turn have to mean that they should permanently shut the door on PvP. Similarly, if we end up saying "Well the games not out yet so stop talking about it", when *does* someone talk about PvP? The way the premise of the argument is set up, you can just as logically go "Well the game just came out lets enjoy the PvE content for a bit before we talk about this" ad infinitum.
My stance here is more about arguing for the validity of the discussion.