• Leider ist es in letzter Zeit wiederholt vorgekommen, dass Newsartikel von anderen Seiten als Ganzes im Forum gepostet wurden. Weil dies in dieser Form gegen das Urheberrecht verstößt und uns als Seite rechtliche Probleme beschert, werden wir von nun an verstärkt dagegen vorgehen und die entsprechend Benutzer verwarnen. Bitte verzichtet fortan auf das Kopieren von ganzen Newsartikeln und meldet diese über die Report-Funktion, falls euch ein entsprechender Artikel auffallen sollte. Vielen Dank!

ConsoleWAR WAR: PS4 vs. One vs. Switch (Console Only)

Status
Nicht offen für weitere Antworten.
Hinweis
Auch wenn ihr "Zensiert" schreibt, ist es offensichtlich was ihr meint. Da es dafür einen eigenen Thread gibt, solltet ihr auch den benutzen, um über das Thema PC in Verbindung mit den Konsolen zu diskutieren.
Gut das stimmt, diese Games sind aber in ihrer Zahl quasi die Einhörner der Branche


sicher

aber das meine ich mit gegentrend

gerade wenn alle erstmal ne zeitlang in eine richtung rennen gibt es die chance das irgendwann umzukehren

angenommen alle mp games setzen auf lootbox deluxe, dann könnte das mp game das dann vielleicht nicht drauf setzt der grosse gewinner sein und die kundschaft auf sich ziehen
und wenn ein spiel erfog hat, ziehen viele andere ja rasch nach

sollen sie ruhig im mp ne zeitlang ordentlich melken, irgendwann ist der markt gesättigt und der kunde verlangt nach anderen erfahrungen und schwupps ist das gute alte sp only game vielleicht wieder in aller munde

einfach abwarten
 
Mal ganz ehrlich Bond welcher Trend wird sich wenden?

Schauen wir uns die Entwicklung der letzten 10 Jahre an:

1. DLC
2. Microtransactions
3. DLC + Microtransactions
4. Teurere Special Editions mit Extra Content
5. DLC + Microtransactions + Special Editions
6. Season Pass
7. Alles oben in einem
8. Lootboxen
9. Alles oben in einem

Was soll sich ändern? Der Trend zeigt eher in eine andere Richtung.

Spiele werden Bit für Bit durch monetisiert. Nicht weil man damit Mehr Projekte finanziert sondern um seinen Aktionären Jahr um Jahr den Bauch zu Pinseln.

Schöne Entwicklung für die wir uns bei Microsoft und ihrer Xbox bedanken dürfen.
 
atram hätte auch ruhig online passes oder wie die hießen erwähnen können.
also eine praktik wo der kunde am ende doch letztlich mit seinem geld entschieden hat.
 
Sorry, ich kann mich nicht an jede praktik der Branche erinnern :v:

ich erinnere mich momentan daran so gut, weil vor kurzem ein gewisser jaykay im nintendo bereich gerade hier allen erzählen will, dass gebrauchtmorden genauso so schlimm, wie raubkopieren ist.
 
mal was anderes:

Open-world games are broken, and Nintendo spent 2017 trying to fix them
https://www.avclub.com/open-world-games-are-broken-and-nintendo-spent-2017-tr-1820333889
We’ve grown overwhelmingly used to this format, whether it’s Rockstar’s various minigame-filled worlds or the vast empire of endlessly upgradeable Ubisoft series. It’s a design principle that always works, packing in the bang players so stridently demand for their buck, and it’s assimilated almost every genre of video game, like the RPG (Dragon Age), the shooter (Borderlands, Destiny), survival horror (The Evil Within 2), even racing (Need For Speed). It’s a massive, overriding principle defining this entire era of games, the way the platformer or first-person shooter once did, forged by the demands of players and the capabilities of designers.

Then The Legend Of Zelda: Breath Of The Wild came out, and it was, well, a game built around the filling-in of a map and its corresponding checklist of activities. And I loved it—I think it’s one of the best games of the decade, full stop. Part of what makes it a sea change in the open-world game is its obsessive focus on the map itself. Rather than a guide to activities, it is the activity. During the first couple dozen hours of the game, I’d lie there after playing for a while, poring over the map, plotting out new paths and how to uncover new territory. You climb towers to unlock new sections, sure, but icons don’t automatically fill in, detailing collectibles and mini-games to fill your time; rather, you find those yourself, manually stamping the map with a variety of symbols that you determine as you go.

In short, Nintendo stripped the open-world map game down to its very defining elements: a rich world to explore and a map to explore it with. Rather than leveling up, you got information about the world; rather than an endless flood of activities, you got stamps to place on the map yourself. Its main quest provided a structure for exploring the verdant world of Hyrule and a handful of set pieces, but little more. This clarity of vision alone would’ve marked the game as a turning point in the history of open-world games, but then Nintendo released Super Mario Odyssey—as daring in its own way as Zelda was, but for entirely different reasons.

Which is, ultimately, the defining maxim of Nintendo’s new theory of open-world game design: a respect for the player’s time. Sure, they say, we’ll load you up with more game than you can reasonably be expected to play—Super Mario Odyssey will be the first major Mario game I have zero intention of seeing through to its final collectible—but they make sure it’s a meaningful investment, no matter what the scale. Both games can be completed in surprisingly linear fashion in 10 hours or so, but both also reward long, sprawling, leisurely play, as well as the hockey-stick investment of completionists used to Ubisoft-like excess.

falls hier irgendwer zweifel hatte, dass nintendo dieses jahr etwa nicht den goty titel mitnimmt... zelda ist ein sicheres ding.
 
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
Ufff.......

I work in electronic media PR - I'll tell you what EA's PR strategy is regarding the "progression system."
u/Feminymphist
Edit: I don't need Reddit Gold, please guild the guy who made the spreadsheets instead if you want to.

Here is some information. Make whatever decisions you want with it.

EA spends tens of thousands of man-hours focus testing and doing market research on the optimum way to wring money out of your wallet. This means that one or two days (or weeks or months) of complaining will not get them to change their mind regarding the nature of the progression system. They will not truly "fix" it because they believe that it's working as intended and their accountants and marketing guys will tell them that it is. A certain amount of players are supposed to get sick of it and stop playing. That's built-in to the calculations, like when Wal-Mart assumes that there will be a certain amount of shoplifting.

That said, they understand that they have a clusterfuck on their hands, so since they are not interested in fixing it, they are going to use a technique referred to as "making the outrage outdated." This was very clearly what they did with the beta. The beta had a great deal of backlash and instead of fixing anything, they "made changes." The effect of these changes were negligible but it didn't matter because all the articles written about the flaws of the beta and the complaints by users became outdated and replaced by articles and comments about how they were making "changes." This allows them to control the narrative of their product without actually losing any money or making significant changes. The fact that the changes didn't help and potentially made the game worse didn't matter.

(Ubisoft did this in a much more elegant way with Assassin's Creed: Origins by the way - they prevented you from buying loot boxes with real money, knowing there would be a backlash, instead allowing you to purchase the currency needed for loot boxes with real money. The ONLY things that accomplished was allowing them to do interviews saying that you couldn't buy loot boxes with real money during pre-release and make people who wanted to use real money for loot boxes have to click two extra buttons. They didn't have to make the outrage outdated because they controlled the narrative from the jump.)

The reason this works is two-fold: 1. Journalists who cover the initial outrage feel that, ethically, they have to post the follow up but probably aren't going to do the research to figure out if the changes are substantial or effective at fixing the actual issue. (Edit: I've started seeing articles pop up already about the "changes" and at best, all they do is parrot the good research that various Redditors have done.) 2. Loyal fans who get fed up with it and decide not to buy the game are desperately searching for a reason to forgive EA so they can play their neato shooty game so they'll take any crumbs they are given.

Accordingly, I will guarantee this: They will "make changes" with a day 1 patch. That much is obvious, but specifically, the changes they make will be based around reducing the cost of heroes and loot boxes. Sounds good, right? Well, maybe. The actual reason why they're going to reduce it is because right now the complaints are that progression takes "too" long - specifically about 40 hours to unlock heroes. They will change it, negligibly, so that the story becomes "We fixed the 40 hour hero requirement!" Of course, the change will make it so that still takes about 37 hours (I'm obviously just making up a number here, but the point is that it's still an absurd requirement), but that will be lost in the news cycle of them "making changes."

And of course, inexplicably, forums will be filled with people who for whatever reason are desperate to point out that your outrage is outdated. You'll say "It takes too long to unlock heroes" and they'll pop up to tell you and everyone else that EA "made changes" to that. Complain about loot box percentages? They "made changes!" What changes? Who gives a fuck. Changes!!!! Every complaint you have will be met with someone who wants to tell you that the reason you have for being upset is outdated.

This is a very common strategy used for scandals that are linked directly to financials - they will fuck you a little less than you expected and hope that you don't do the math on just how much less it is. All the while they will take advantage of the PR resulting from the reduced fucking.

Edit: To clarify, you shouldn't feel like EA is "ignoring" you. They aren't. It's actually worse than them ignoring you. They have people pouring over these forums (And twitter, more importantly) trying to get a general idea of the negative sentiment. They will then try to quantify that negative sentiment and add it to the previous years of focus testing and market research they've done. The previous focus tests told them the the most financially viable thing to do would be to make the game as it is now, and they will add the current negative sentiment to that formula and come up with something like "reduce microtransaction costs by 1.5%" (Rounded up to the nearest 5 or 9 or 10, again, based on what focus testing tells them is most pleasing to the customer. They also will likely increase progression rather than decrease microctransaction prices to avoid alienating people who bought the microtransactions at the original price - of course, increasing progression speed and decreasing the cost are exactly the same thing, financially.)

Have fun playing!!!

Genau das passiert hier :v:
 
mal was anderes:

Open-world games are broken, and Nintendo spent 2017 trying to fix them
https://www.avclub.com/open-world-games-are-broken-and-nintendo-spent-2017-tr-1820333889

falls hier irgendwer zweifel hatte, dass nintendo dieses jahr etwa nicht den goty titel mitnimmt... zelda ist ein sicheres ding.

Zelda ist eher was für core Spieler, weniger etwas für Casuals wie sie selbst hier im Forum herumlungern. Das Spiel erwartet vom Spieler gespielt zu werden, es pflastert nicht die Map mit endlosen Objectives voll und deckt beim Erklimmen der Türme(die übrigens alle einzigartig sind) lediglich die Topographie auf, und man hält am Ende nichts viel anderes als eine gewöhnliche Karte in Händen, wie man sie vor Ewigkeiten in der echten Welt zur Navigation nutzte.

Hier stempelt man interessant aussehende Dinge noch selbst auf der Karte an und bestimmt wann und wie man sich ihnen nähert. Ich empfehle jedem dieses Meisterwerk, wie ich, mit der Pro-Hud zu spielen. Ab und zu kann man auf die volle Map blicken, die Minimap und das ganze andere Gedöns braucht man nicht, denn dieses Spiel ist wie eine spirituelle Reise, die Jeder einmal selbst erlebt haben sollte. Eine Reise die Breath of the Best auch zum besten Spiel aller Zeiten gemacht hat und mit sagenhaften 70 100er Scores bei MC selbst der Fachpresse den Atem verschlug.

DD_wn_IVYAE3Ayr.jpg
 
Zelda ist weniger was für Core-Gamer und mehr was für Gamer die es auch spannend finden Gras beim wachsen zuzusehen oder Farbe beim trocknen :aehja:
ist nicht umsonst das Zelda Game das von den Fans mit am härtesten abgestraft wurde.
 
Status
Nicht offen für weitere Antworten.
Zurück
Top Bottom