Destiny Is Problematic - Let's Make It Better
-
That is the kind of thing I was expecting Tbh.
The reality is the vast majority of the game you spend in a small squad maxing out at 6 players, hardly massively multiplayer.
I would say GTAO has more MMO about it than Destiny. -
@Chalice: as ever, I can't be arsed with videos. Summary? -
Liveinadive wrote:The reality is the vast majority of the game you spend in a small squad maxing out at 6 players, hardly massively multiplayer.
You just described Final Fantasy XI. -
-
I really can't be arsed to watch it, I don't think anything he says will make me believe that content was held back so it could be sold later (unless he has some proper evidence, like leaked emails, for instance), that's just paranoid conspiracy theory madness.
-
I mean, I don't deny that there are issues with the game, I don't deny that it seems like stuff was cut late in the day, it's even possible that one or two of the things that were cut were later reworked and reused as DLC, but the idea that someone looked at everything that had been done and went 'nah, just remove those bits, we'll flog them later' is mental.
-
It's a thought provoking watch and worth it for an opinion on how the business model of big videogame franchises might change after Destiny.
When you think about it, it's really not mental.
Don't be narrow minded! *makes for door* -
Do you think it's mental that this may have happened with any game? Or is it just Destiny? Fwiw, I doubt it really happens in that order. Like they might have a plan for all the content, then they decide which bits to siphon off, then they make the stuff they're releasing first.Yossarian wrote:I mean, I don't deny that there are issues with the game, I don't deny that it seems like stuff was cut late in the day, it's even possible that one or two of the things that were cut were later reworked and reused as DLC, but the idea that someone looked at everything that had been done and went 'nah, just remove those bits, we'll flog them later' is mental.
-
It's a good watch that (if a little rambley), and it's not conspiracy theory bollocks, it's how big businesses work.Come with g if you want to live... -
monkey wrote:
Do you think it's mental that this may have happened with any game? Or is it just Destiny? Fwiw, I doubt it really happens in that order. Like they might have a plan for all the content, then they decide which bits to siphon off, then they make the stuff they're releasing first.Yossarian wrote:I mean, I don't deny that there are issues with the game, I don't deny that it seems like stuff was cut late in the day, it's even possible that one or two of the things that were cut were later reworked and reused as DLC, but the idea that someone looked at everything that had been done and went 'nah, just remove those bits, we'll flog them later' is mental.
Quite. Or, they don't finish something in time for release and polish it off for DLC, what I don't believe is that Bungie/Activision decided, late in development, to remove content that was planned to ship with the game in order to sell it later. -
stonechalice wrote:It's a thought provoking watch and worth it for an opinion on how the business model of big videogame franchises might change after Destiny.
When you think about it, it's really not mental.
Don't be narrow minded! *makes for door*
This is the bit I don't get. I'm sure what's happened with destiny has happened before. I'm sure we've discussed content on disc to be sold later before. I'm sure p1 existed. The industry won't change after destiny. It'll keep doing what it's been doing.
I'm still great and you still love it. -
Yes, but judging by the middling/scathing reviews Destiny received, the game is still a massive success, and therefore a benchmark for other devs/pubs to centre their business model on. It sets a precedent. You can get away with shipping less content in your game than ever before, and flog the rest of the game to us in installments.
In the case of CoD:AW, that game shipped with less content than any other CoD released, yet was in development for the longest. The days of big, yearly franchises releasing titles packed to the ceiling with content appear to be over. -
Destiny's to blame for that? It seems that there was far more content in there than, say, any CoD I've played in the last 5 or 10 years.
-
I honestly can't believe you can argue that Destiny has a wealth of content. It's a meagre offering at best. Four planets with fairly large, empty battlegrounds and some MP maps. The content you seem to be alluding to is the massive amount of largely identical weapons and armour.
A few years ago, Black Ops released with a fully fledged sprawling campaign, a comprehensive multiplayer suite, combat training, theatre mode and Zombies with not one but two multiplayer maps.
AW was released in November with a campaign and multiplayer.
Nothing else. What does that tell you? -
Nothing about Destiny, AW would have been long finished and in the process of being pressed by the time Destiny came out.
And I seem to remember the controversy over the content in CoD:MW2, but that sold like gangbusters. Don't you think that would have been taken as a benchmark as opposed to a game that was still in development? -
hahahahaha not this again.
Some people think destiny has lots of content, some not. Do your opinions really need to align?Today is the shadow of tomorrow. -
The video starts of quite well, he makes pretty reasonable points about them tweaking things like materials to push players to the DLC. This isn't a revelation though, Bungie used to make the playlists on Halo suck if you didn't buy the DLC.
Long ramble in the middle about capitalism could have been cut.
The end section about value seems really down to opinion. How much playtime you get out of Destiny compared to GTAV seems to depend on the player. Skyrim maybe has more, but a lot of that content is pretty cheap - reused assets and bad acting. The thing most obviously missing from Destiny is story and cut scenes. If they're holding that back for DLC, it would be a film not a game. -
The only truth is this: however good Destiny is, it is totally in spite of Activision's involvement beyond the cash they offered.
I look forward to reading the story of how it all went down during development in the next 10 years or so. -
I_R wrote:The video starts of quite well, he makes pretty reasonable points about them tweaking things like materials to push players to the DLC. This isn't a revelation though, Bungie used to make the playlists on Halo suck if you didn't buy the DLC.
Actually, by the time of Reach, they didn't at all.
-
No this again...
The story, while not present in-game is represented in similar fashion to Dark Souls lore, you actually have to go looking for it in the details. Too tired to type any more:P -
Tempy wrote:The only truth is this: however good Destiny is, it is totally in spite of Activision's involvement beyond the cash they offered.
I look forward to reading the story of how it all went down during development in the next 10 years or so.
There's going to be one fucker of a postmortem book to be written. -
Book will be released as DLC one chapter at a time.regmcfly wrote:
There's going to be one fucker of a postmortem book to be written.Tempy wrote:The only truth is this: however good Destiny is, it is totally in spite of Activision's involvement beyond the cash they offered. I look forward to reading the story of how it all went down during development in the next 10 years or so.Come with g if you want to live... -
You probably are.
-
Tempy wrote:The only truth is this: however good Destiny is, it is totally in spite of Activision's involvement beyond the cash they offered. I look forward to reading the story of how it all went down during development in the next 10 years or so.
Oh it will be fascinating reading I'm sure. I find the whole idea of Activision pretty much monopolising the console FPS genre with CoD and Destiny to be very interesting, and I'm surprised at people's refusal to believe that such a plan to stint on content on one game, for a time, to maximise on sales of their other baby, would exist.
It makes too much sense to me, and I still firmly believe that if Destiny had released alongside another big AAA title, we would have seen one, if not both, DLC expansions on that disc ready to go. -
Activision don't own Bungie or destiny, they're just publishing the games. It's not impossible that they have an influence on development, but that sort of level seems kind of odd. What would be the incentive for Bungie to help COD sales?stonechalice wrote:I'm surprised at people's refusal to believe that such a plan to stint on content on one game, for a time, to maximise on sales of their other baby, would exist. It makes too much sense to me, and I still firmly believe that if Destiny had released alongside another big AAA title, we would have seen one, if not both, DLC expansions on that disc ready to go. -
stonechalice wrote:Tempy wrote:The only truth is this: however good Destiny is, it is totally in spite of Activision's involvement beyond the cash they offered. I look forward to reading the story of how it all went down during development in the next 10 years or so.
Oh it will be fascinating reading I'm sure. I find the whole idea of Activision pretty much monopolising the console FPS genre with CoD and Destiny to be very interesting, and I'm surprised at people's refusal to believe that such a plan to stint on content on one game, for a time, to maximise on sales of their other baby, would exist.
It makes too much sense to me, and I still firmly believe that if Destiny had released alongside another big AAA title, we would have seen one, if not both, DLC expansions on that disc ready to go.
This madness rests on Bungie/Activision being 100% sure, several months before release, that the most expensive videogame ever made, and a brand new franchise, would turn a profit regardless of how much content they included. That could clearly never have happened, which is why it's conspiracy cobblers of the highest order. -
I'd find it more unlikely if Activision and Bungie hadn't strategised a way to prevent cannibalising each other's sales.
-
I don't think it's 'conspiracy cobblers' at all Yoss. Sounds like good business practice to me.
-
stonechalice wrote:
Oh it will be fascinating reading I'm sure. I find the whole idea of Activision pretty much monopolising the console FPS genre with CoD and Destiny to be very interesting, and I'm surprised at people's refusal to believe that such a plan to stint on content on one game, for a time, to maximise on sales of their other baby, would exist. It makes too much sense to me, and I still firmly believe that if Destiny had released alongside another big AAA title, we would have seen one, if not both, DLC expansions on that disc ready to go.The only truth is this: however good Destiny is, it is totally in spite of Activision's involvement beyond the cash they offered. I look forward to reading the story of how it all went down during development in the next 10 years or so.
Forgot to add on the end there that, oh yeah, the content was already on the disc!! Lol.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,718
- Games1,881
- Off topic837