Support NeoGAF

[Spoo]

It's definitely kind of tone-deaf. It's the kind of idea that, you know, 6 years ago I could look at and say "Sure, why not?" But now? Sorry IO, but your competitors around the world have assassinated your options; consumers are, rightfully so, on the defensive, and in many cases are more enabled now than ever before to not only voice their disappointment with the idea, but protect their money.

Personally, I really want to play the game. My normal response would have been to snag a deal at GMG for 30-40, and I wouldn't care so much -- now, though, after Arkham Knight, I pretty much have to rely on buying straight through Valve so I can ensure that I can return the game no questions asked.

Which is definitely an option, for anyone, though I don't know how much a 2 hour limit can buy players in terms of evaluating a Hitman game.

I would say, sell the game at 40, and provide an 'upgrade' to the "season pass" for an additional 20. If people like what you have, they'll buy in no problem. Asking for the money up front just isn't a good idea when you don't have the content up front -- again, 6 years ago, maybe, but today? Look around you.

 

[ref]

This sounds great.

Now all we need is Jesper Kyd.

 

[Gator86]

Yup. Sell an unfinished game at full price with the promise of regular updates of 'Free Content' that would have been in the game anyway if they'd just waited a few more months and released a complete product. No buy.

Yup, fuck this trend. I'm looking forward to renting this when it's out on disc next year. I just don't buy games with these weird release models, excessive day-1 DLC, or other crap. If I don't feel like I'm getting a "full, complete" game, you're not seeing a dime of my money.

 

[Bebpo]

Maybe it's just me, but sometimes the game community seems way too jaded.

Then again, I rarely buy AAA games.

Nah, when it comes to small devs or publishers with good reputations, you can usually trust them and give the benefit of doubt. Take Falcom for instance or a lot of the kickstarters.

When it comes to big AAA companies that care about nothing but increasing shareholder profit and releasing buggy unfinished games with $30 season passes, yeah, I think most gamers have started to wise up that these companies are not looking to be "fair" to you, but rather how they can get you to pay increasingly more money for the same amount of content in order to help their bottom line. SE doesn't have the greatest track record, so there is no reason to give the benefit of the doubt to them and Hitman's entire release idea is based on giving them the benefit of the doubt when you hand them your $60.

 

[crazyrabbits]

This... sounds like something I absolutely do not want. WTF?

This sounds awful. How are people even going to review this game?

Yeah. This "clarification" made things worse, really. Now instead of wondering about episodic releases of content, we're focusing on the fact that the game is probably not going to be "complete" in a story sense until a year after release (and this was despite some people in another thread telling me otherwise).

If this had an setup where you could buy episodes on a piecemeal basis (like Telltale), I'd be fine with it. Asking to pony up $60 up front, based solely on a handful of alpha impressions and the promise of the "rest" of the content down the line (to say nothing of the limited "time-sensitive" missions, which sounds really dumb if offline players won't get access to it) is not enough to sway me.

 

[Roldan]

"so uh its not episodic and its not early access, but what we'll launch at day one won't be the full game!"

Kinda odd. But I'm still interested.

 

[Spoo]

"so uh its not episodic and its not early access, but what we'll launch at day one won't be the full game!"

Kinda odd. But I'm still interested.

Kinda sounds even worse when you claim your game isn't anything like Early Access and then say:

. We’ll also be improving and changing the game constantly whilst you’re playing it

Rigght... nothing like Early Access.

 

[ArjanN]

Nah, when it comes to small devs or publishers with good reputations, you can usually trust them and give the benefit of doubt. Take Falcom for instance or a lot of the kickstarters.

When it comes to big AAA companies that care about nothing but increasing shareholder profit and releasing buggy unfinished games with $30 season passes, yeah, I think most gamers have started to wise up that these companies are not looking to be "fair" to you, but rather how they can get you to pay increasingly more money for the same amount of content in order to help their bottom line. SE doesn't have the greatest track record, so there is no reason to give the benefit of the doubt to them and Hitman's entire release idea is based on giving them the benefit of the doubt when you hand them your $60.

Eh, maybe, but I still think a lot of people in the gaming community confuse being critical with being a cynical youtube commenter.

 

[Roldan]

Kinda sounds even worse when you claim your game isn't anything like Early Access and then say:


Rigght... nothing like Early Access.

No matter what wording they use there, they won't be able to make this sound like a common launch lol

 

[More_Badass]

Yeah. This "clarification" made things worse, really. Now instead of wondering about episodic releases of content, we're focusing on the fact that the game is probably not going to be "complete" in a story sense until a year after release (and this was despite some people in another thread telling me otherwise).

If this had an setup where you could buy episodes on a piecemeal basis (like Telltale), I'd be fine with it. Asking to pony up $60 up front, based solely on a handful of alpha impressions and the promise of the "rest" of the content down the line (to say nothing of the limited "time-sensitive" missions, which sounds really dumb if offline players won't get access to it) is not enough to sway me.

Why would it be based on alpha impressions? Beta access is coming before release, and the game is months away.

Wait till you're more informed and there are more impressions before deciding whether it's worth $60

And how are the time-sensitive missions any different from Spelunky's daily challenges?

 

[MUnited83]

Yup, fuck this trend. I'm looking forward to renting this when it's out on disc next year. I just don't buy games with these weird release models, excessive day-1 DLC, or other crap. If I don't feel like I'm getting a "full, complete" game, you're not seeing a dime of my money.

Then buy it when its full and complete? It ain't hard.

 

[crazyrabbits]

Why would it be based on alpha impressions? Beta access is coming before release, and the game is months away.

Honestly, I don't see that making a whole lot of difference. The impression is already out there that this is a $60 "early access" release (regardless of whether you think that's a fair term) that's going to have content parceled out. It's easy to see why some people are angered about it.

Wait till you're more informed and there are more impressions before deciding whether it's worth $60.

I already have. Blood Money was the last game I bought at full price, and I waited to buy Absolution on sale. Like I said, if this had the option to buy episodes piecemeal, that would be far more agreeable. Instead, I'll wait until it's "finished" a year later before buying. The fact that I have to say that is silly.

And how are the time-sensitive missions any different from Spelunky's daily challenges?

Because potentially important story content or major content pieces (levels/etc.) are far different from minor level challenges.

I get it. You're a die-hard fan. So am I. Doesn't mean I have to settle for stuff like this.

 

[Parsnip]

Because potentially important story content or major content pieces (levels/etc.) are far different from minor level challenges.

Come on now, they are not going to put any story in the daily challenges.
It's going to be custom assassination contracts on the levels that are already in, and you probably have limited amount of tries to make the perfect kill.

 

[commissar]

idk, this seems fine to me. If anything, I'm more likely to actually finish the game because it'll be in smaller chunks.


And if they tie in the year long release to the actual story (ie final episode is set a year after the first) that would be pretty neat.

 

[Interfectum]

Because potentially important story content or major content pieces (levels/etc.) are far different from minor level challenges.

Uh, daily challenges isn't going to have story content. It's going to be like "You have 12 hours to kill this dude with poisoned sushi, go." or "Kill this dude within 5 minutes of starting the level."

 

[Nuke Soda]

Well this seems really stupid. Also $60 for a digital episodic version is a little steep isn't it?

 

[tearsintherain]

I'll buy the game when its done and I can play the entire story. This feels like a cheap and super shitty way to deal with "people buy game at launch, finish in a week, trade it in and we 'lose' money from people buying used copies".

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

Square probably needed the extra revenue for the quarter and pushed the IO to do this garbage


The game probably would have came out next year completed

This is my feeling of the situation. They needed to hit the holiday season. This was their solution.

 

[threelights]

Interesting how people hate this, but are okay with stuff like Splatoon...

This is literally the same thing as Splatoon people...

It's not about not having money to complete the game, it's about keeping players playing the game for a longer amount of time... You know, just like Splatoon...


I don't much care for the game either way, but interesting to see these things in this thread.

 

[MUnited83]

Honestly, I don't see that making a whole lot of difference. The impression is already out there that this is a $60 "early access" release (regardless of whether you think that's a fair term) that's going to have content parceled out. It's easy to see why some people are angered about it.



I already have. Blood Money was the last game I bought at full price, and I waited to buy Absolution on sale. Like I said, if this had the option to buy episodes piecemeal, that would be far more agreeable. Instead, I'll wait until it's "finished" a year later before buying. The fact that I have to say that is silly.



Because potentially important story content or major content pieces (levels/etc.) are far different from minor level challenges.

I get it. You're a die-hard fan. So am I. Doesn't mean I have to settle for stuff like this.

? It's quite obvious there won't be any major content or story pieces locked out. It will literally be like the Contracts mode on Absolution: kill randomly guy x on one of the regular maps in a certain way

 

[Metal-Geo]

Kinda sounds even worse when you claim your game isn't anything like Early Access and then say:



Rigght... nothing like Early Access.

Are CS:GO and TF2 early access? I don't think it's uncommon for game developers supporting their game(s) even after release. Especially if the games have online features that play a pretty big role.

Hell, UT3 nearly set a world record for biggest changelog several months after its release haha.

 

[Spoo]

Are CS:GO and TF2 early access? I don't think it's uncommon for game developers supporting their game(s) even after release. Especially if the games have online features that play a pretty big role.

Hell, UT3 nearly set a world record for biggest changelog several months after its release haha.

It's not that there's anything inherently wrong with it -- it's a good thing. It just usually comes in an ad hoc way down the road, though. With Early Access, the assumption is: your game is incomplete, and is not as good as it could (or will) be. So my main point is it doesn't help their case to in very much the same breath as trying to distance yourself from Early Access, you draw a parallel between it and your title -- one that already has the immediate parallel implicit in being fundamentally incomplete at launch.

It kind of sounds like they are trying to set up an expectation for the game to be not only incomplete, but what is there to be, well, somehow not as good as it could be. Obviously this happens, and we know and they know it, so it could be viewed as a kind of transparency on their part, but it still sticks out like a sore thumb. :\

edit: Also, I know next to nothing about CS:GO or TF2, other than they are ostensibly used as a test bed by Valve to explore community features (I have played both of them, but not recently, and I don't follow developments in either). I reiterate: supporting your game after launch is a great thing -- setting people up by saying not only is the game incomplete, but it will become better over time, sets up a slightly different expectation.

 

[PrimeTime]

It's an interesting strategy that SE is taking because i think the net effect is to keep people talking about this game. Much like how movies depend on their opening weekend sales, games rely on their initial launch weeks to sell the most. This is effectively extending the initial sales week (to several months) to entice gamers to buy early, generate interest in the community and keep the game relevant.

I think DLC attempts that but I don't presume it makes a substantial difference to game sales. With this strategy, you're still promised the full game before the retail release but since the new pieces are integral to the main game, as opposed to being tacked on afterwards, this will keep fan's attention.

It's a gamble because if this is a turd, it could kill sales for the full release.

 

[Big_Al]

Honestly don't mind them releasing it like this and tbh I think Hitman is the perfect game to try it out with if you have a very thin main story and lots of little stories in each level/contract. As long as it's more Blood Money 2 than Absolution I'll be very interested.

 

[Messofanego]

Because potentially important story content or major content pieces (levels/etc.) are far different from minor level challenges.

I get it. You're a die-hard fan. So am I. Doesn't mean I have to settle for stuff like this.

Where are you getting this info from that the live challenges will be "potentially important story content or major content pieces"? It's the opposite of that, from what the devs have said. These ARE similar to Spelunky's daily challenges.

From the OP:

"But there is also a ton of other content including live events, which have nothing to do with the story."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFT2UvrGI34&t=2m
"You'll get live events. For example, imagine that all the Hitman players in the world will have 48 hours where you have to take the target out. If the target escapes, gone. It's done. One shot, one kill."

https://hitman.com/en-gb/news/announcing-hitman-
"Our primary goal is to keep HITMAN players fully engaged, so between bigger drops we will be creating one-off live events and live targets to keep you immersed in the experience.

Imagine a target appearing for every player in the world, for a limited time only… let’s say 48 hours. Where your one shot counts. And when that target is gone, it is gone forever."

 

[crazyrabbits]

Where are you getting this info from that the live challenges will be "potentially important story content or major content pieces"? It's the opposite of that, from what the devs have said. These ARE similar to Spelunky's daily challenges.

From the OP:

"But there is also a ton of other content including live events, which have nothing to do with the story."

I am mistaken, then.

 

[Malik Starks]

I personally would have preferred a sequel to Absolution to this. I played some of both Silent Assassin and Blood Money and couldn't be bothered finishing either.

 

[Interfectum]

I personally would have preferred a sequel to Absolution to this. I played some of both Silent Assassin and Blood Money and couldn't be bothered finishing either.

I don't think Hitman is the series for you. Perhaps Splinter Cell or even Call of Duty?

 

[Malik Starks]

I don't think Hitman is the series for you. Perhaps Splinter Cell or even Call of Duty?

Splinter Cell yes, COD, no. Your right though, since they appear to be going back to the old style it's not for me.

 

[FrontalMonk]

Splinter Cell yes, COD, no. Your right though, since they appear to be going back to the old style it's not for me.

Yeah, Absolution definitely played more like a traditional stealth game. I'd put it in the same conversation as Splinter Cell, definitely.

 

[Komo]

What a crummy practice. It's basically Early Access.

As big Hitman fan, I'm not going to purchase this until it's fully released

 

[Reckless Onion]

What a crummy practice. It's basically Early Access.

As big Hitman fan, I'm not going to purchase this until it's fully released

early access is content that is still being worked on, the stuff they will deliver on release will be finished and polished