Support NeoGAF

[leeh]

Then I'll ask one simple question, has MT's helped Halo, Gears, Forza, MLB, Uncharted 4, TLOU in terms of multiplayer?

The answer is no at looking how much players have dropped out from the series as a whole, uncharted may have sold a good amount, but go look at how many stayed with the multiplayer once Paid P90 and the likes game into the mix. Same with TLOU.

I'd say Halo yes definitely; Gears was a poor version of the Halo model, so I'd say so-so and Forza I'd say yes, as all the tracks were free post-launch. They weren't on previous ones prior to MT's.

Did UC4/TLOU have free post-launch updates with MT's? If not, that's beyond awful.

 

[Bits N Pieces]

WOULD you say Uncharted 4's campaign is better than gears 4, and halo 5? Because I WOULD. And it's not 5 hours long like halo 5 is. Uncharted is more known for it's campaign than anything else. People buy it for that, i did. Halo 5 had a lackluster campaign but great multiplayer. Which part of the game do you think seemed to get the most attention? Review wise it seems multiplayer. Even though gears 4 campaign is better than Judgement that's not saying much. But it's multiplayer is heavily talked about and seems to have a lot of fan service.

MT's in AAA games should not be a thing. it's one thing if 343 came out with a F2P Halo multiplayer that had the Req system. But baking it into a AAA game is really not a good long-term design decision.
Also in your previous post you say I'm omitting games? When you yourself was talking about Forza and saying how they unlock cars is how it's done now. Drive club unlocks by just playing the game, Need for speed learned their lesson and don't do MT's anymore.
Project cars doesn't have Microtransactions or at least baked into the game.

There are a decent amount of racers that don't have MT'S. The reason MS is having MT's and going hard on multiplayer is because they have failed to garner new;y successful franchises to help grow their platform. So now they are trying to mitigate those loss in possible numbers by trying to retain what they currently have for customer base.

So the hardcore xbox people are the ones keeping them afloat via MT's.

You just don't know when to quit, do you.

 

[Papacheeks]

I'd say Halo yes definitely; Gears was a poor version of the Halo model, so I'd say so-so and Forza I'd say yes, as all the tracks were free post-launch. They weren't on previous ones prior to MT's.

Did UC4/TLOU have free post-launch updates with MT's? If not, that's beyond awful.

Yes they have Free content updates such as maps, survival mode, but the actual weapons that you use in Multiplayer have to be purchased with in-game currency you get by playing matches to buy chest's that are random in what they give you.

Some give you perks, sometimes weapons. And trust me when I saw all the people with P90's I literally uninstalled that game. Only time I'll reinstall will be to play campaign again or survival mode.
I think that was a big issue also with Uncharted 3 if I'm not mistaken they brought in weapons that you could only get by buying. Same with Last of us there were some high powered weapons I saw people using when I reinstalled that game a year ago, and I was like where the fuck do you get these?

Big turn off, havn't reinstalled them since. Gears 4 horde mode I loved so much, I hated though they put a crafting, system in there that revolved around card packs.
Halo 5 was another turn off when I played a couple matches. I'm surprised my room mate bought this years MLB to be honest if it's true about the whole P2W scenario.

 

[Adam_802]

Consdering X1 is basically an abortion of a console with a terrible line-up of exclusives, Spencer really needs to deliver with this wave of big hits.
.

*facepalm

 

[leeh]

Yes they have Free content updates such as maps, survival mode, but the actual weapons that you use in Multiplayer have to be purchased with in-game currency you get by playing matches to buy chest's that are random in what they give you.

Some give you perks, sometimes weapons. And trust me when I saw all the people with P90's I literally uninstalled that game. Only time I'll reinstall will be to play campaign again or survival mode.
I think that was a big issue also with Uncharted 3 if I'm not mistaken they brought in weapons that you could only get by buying. Same with Last of us there were some high powered weapons I saw people using when I reinstalled that game a year ago, and I was like where the fuck do you get these?

Big turn off, havn't reinstalled them since. Gears 4 horde mode I loved so much, I hated though they put a crafting, system in there that revolved around card packs.
Halo 5 was another turn off when I played a couple matches. I'm surprised my room mate bought this years MLB to be honest if it's true about the whole P2W scenario.

That system is awful. I can't believe you've got P2W in the biggest AAA offerings Sony's 1st party have to offer. I don't really understand why you don't see discussions around that on here more tbh considering how much the MT's are brought up in MS' offerings.

Well, with Gears 4 I'll defend it as it isn't competitive and it was a fair progression structure without MT's. Gears has always been brutal with ranking up, so Gears 4 isn't really any different.

Halo 5 warzone is just a big mess around mode which is fun, they did well with it IMO and I like the concept of it. The competitive stayed the same though and there was zero MT influence, so I don't understand how you'd feel that way considering it had the best gun play of the series IMO.

 

[LukasTaves]

I think Scorpio is never about that. Scorpio will never be the mainstream Xbox device. A purely reactionary move against ps4 and ps4 pro power argument. xbox1 is just too underpowered ms has to do something about it mid gen.

Phil started Project Scorpio as soon as he took over the division. He said that he made 2 prototypes, one aimed for 2016 (which was essentially the Pro) and one for 2017 that is Project Scorpio.

Now, Sony has said a couple times that Pro was a result from the desire to stop people from migrating to Pc, but given how they mostly dump the info on to developers and how their platform wasn't ready for it (no super sampling at a system level yet, boost mode coming after release and prior to that doesn't even giving the games access to the overclock boost), and how it was just uneventful from presentation to launch and post launch support it becomes exceedingly clear that Sony got tricked thinking that Ms was coming at 2016 with a mid gen refresh and reacted to that.

Because other than that, Ps4 Pro has no focus. Yeah, it plays Ps4 at a higher res, but it doesn't improve most of them in any meaningful way, and often fails to meet the standard sony wanted, and according to DF (and results itself) many developers are struggling because the console doesn't offer the performance it was supposed to offer.

Now I agree that the main reason of having Scorpio now was the lack of power of xb1, but you can see how it aligns with their strategy going forward, and how they are promising no more generations with games just running better on new hardware, you see that even though the timing of Scorpio was defined to take the power out of Ps4, that the entire division is gearing towards a unified platform that spams across PCs, and many different spec'ed xboxes, while sony can't even justify the existence of the Pro or commit to either a generationless model or a new generation that will break compatibility again.

 

[Goalus]

Now I agree that the main reason of having Scorpio now was the lack of power of xb1, but you can see how it aligns with their strategy going forward, and how they are promising no more generations with games just running better on new hardware, you see that even though the timing of Scorpio was defined to take the power out of Ps4, that the entire division is gearing towards a unified platform that spams across PCs, and many different spec'ed xboxes, while sony can't even justify the existence of the Pro or commit to either a generationless model or a new generation that will break compatibility again.

I personally can't wait for the moment when Sony has to put their cards on the table how they are going to handle generations and backwards compatibility. Scorpio might push them to do so sooner rather than later.

 

[Zedox]

I personally can't wait for the moment when Sony has to put their cards on the table how they are going to handle generations and backwards compatibility. Scorpio might push them to do so sooner rather than later.

Yes. I'm hopeful that Sony will have BC with PS4 on the PS5 (cuz when I get mine, all digital) cuz if they don't, that will be a big miss but I don't think that they won't have it. I don't think Sony would be that foolish to not have that especially when we all see that MS will most likely have it. I'd rather Sony have it and compete on another front with MS. But this E3 first.

 

[Primethius]

I personally can't wait for the moment when Sony has to put their cards on the table how they are going to handle generations and backwards compatibility. Scorpio might push them to do so sooner rather than later.

It'll either have HW based BC or not at all. Sony's not new to BC but I don't think they care enough about BC unless it's easy to put in via HW.

Oh and they'll do generations. Generation-less is just PR wankery.

 

[Nac2Squared]

That's great for shareholders, but not what I want hear as a consumer.

Well, this is a Financial Briefing, not E3. This isn't necessarily designed to be fed to the consumers.

 

[Zedox]

Well, this is a Financial Briefing, not E3. This isn't necessarily designed to be fed to the consumers.

A lot of people here don't even care. If some news comes out, they'll treat it the same and say some spin or PR or something. The audience they showed it to probably came away more confident in what MS was doing in gaming as Nadella, backed by Phil's info, tried to educate the investors as to why Xbox is important.

 

[_Ryo_]

Sorry for not reading the entire thread but does this mean MS are working on a PS Home clone? Really not excited about games as a service at all. No thanks to Xbox forever for me if that is the way they are heading.

 

[hanspampel]

Sorry for not reading the entire thread but does this mean MS are working on a PS Home clone? Really not excited about games as a service at all. No thanks to Xbox forever for me if that is the way they are heading.

what is PS Home?

 

[irrotational]

Sorry for not reading the entire thread but does this mean MS are working on a PS Home clone? Really not excited about games as a service at all. No thanks to Xbox forever for me if that is the way they are heading.

No, not a clone of Home. One of the things they're working on is a "Netflix for games". You pay a monthly fee and get access to a library of games, like Netflix they will occasionally add in new content and swap out some old.

Some people seem to quite like the idea, obviously depending on what's in the catalogue and how often stuff goes in and out.

 

[Trup1aya]

I can't explain MLB I don't play it or pay attention to many sports titles, but it's still shitty and shouldn't be in there. Cosmetic stuff for teams, jersey's or whatever are fine. But if it truly is P2W that's garbage.




What? I acknowledge them as having shitty practices? But also know that the multiplayer for TLOU and Uncharted 4 are not as big, but doesn't excuse the shitty paid weapons in both games.

The popularity of the MP is irrelevant to the discussion... as your subjective views on the quality of the SP.

Your argument is that MS's implementation of MTs/GaaS is more prevelant and harmful, yet have no supporting evidence.

 

[blakep267]

The popularity of the MP is irrelevant to the discussion... as your subjective views on the quality of the SP.

Your argument is that MS's implementation of MTs/GaaS is more prevelant and harmful, yet have no supporting evidence.

Your acting like papacheeks doesn't have an agenda that he tries to push in every Xbox thread. Your just gonna go in circles

 

[Trup1aya]

Then I'll ask one simple question, has MT's helped Halo, Gears, Forza, MLB, Uncharted 4, TLOU in terms of multiplayer?

The answer is no at looking how much players have dropped out from the series as a whole, uncharted may have sold a good amount, but go look at how many stayed with the multiplayer once Paid P90 and the likes game into the mix. Same with TLOU.

Now you are assuming that people dropped out BECAUSE of MTs?

Again what evidence?

Halo and Gears both started seeing sales declines LONG before MTs were introduced. Halo's player retention, however, has been better than anything after H3. And FH3 has been a huge success..

 

[Papacheeks]

The popularity of the MP is irrelevant to the discussion... as your subjective views on the quality of the SP.

Your argument is that MS's implementation of MTs/GaaS is more prevelant and harmful, yet have no supporting evidence.

So MT's in games I talked about, fable legends,Killer instinct(even though it's proven to work for that game because of entry price) forza and conversations in the past where someone like Shinobi chimed in and talked about it isn't evidence?

Sony is not exempt, but they balance games like MLB the show, and shitty MT's in uncharted with other single player games, and third party Japanese support.

If Nintendo shows a bunch of games(not 1 or 2 like smash) from them this E3 that are very heavy online based with MT's then I'll eat crow.

 

[Trup1aya]

So MT's in games I talked about, fable legends,Killer instinct(even though it's proven to work for that game because of entry price) forza and conversations in the past where someone like Shinobi chimed in and talked about it isn't evidence?

Sony is not exempt, but they balance games like MLB the show, and shitty MT's in uncharted with other single player games, and third party Japanese support.

If Nintendo shows a bunch of games(not 1 or 2 like smash) from them this E3 that are very heavy online based with MT's then I'll eat crow.

It's not evidence that MS is doing anything different, or that MTs are harming MS games any more than any other publisher. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that suggests other publishers are much worse.

You list KI as an example of it done right. Halo makes it effect a single new mode (which is coincidently the most popular mode in the game, though most players don't spend a dime), Forza progression is standard w/o using them And Gears only effects a PvE mode (though it has negatively impacted Horde's design).

 

[Papacheeks]

It's not evidence that MS is doing anything different, or that MTs are harming MS games any more than any other publisher. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that suggests other publishers are much worse.

You list KI as an example of it done right. Halo makes it effect a single new mode (which is coincidently the most popular mode in the game, though most players don't spend a dime), Forza progression is standard w/o using them And Gears only effects a PvE mode (though it has negatively impacted Horde's design).

Do you think they would retain more players and grow without MT's or with?

Do you think it's a natural decline in interest for these games? Or is it something else?

Is it because of how Multiplayer in general has been treated this gen?

Reasons why I believe what I believe with how Xbox is going forward with Microtransactions:

"Microsoft on Xbox One microtransactions -- "We're still learning"

"Gears of War 4 Microtransactions Are Out of Control"

Talk about Single player vs Multiplayer for xbox

 

[Trup1aya]

Do you think they would retain more players and grow without MT's or with?

Do you think it's a natural decline in interest for these games? Or is it something else?

Is it because of how Multiplayer in general has been treated this gen?

I think it depends COMPLETLY on the quality of the game and the strength of the game and the strength of the brand.

Halo's decline started with Reach and continued through 4, MCC, and 5. I don't think the changes to the core gameplay, narrative, or QA resonated with new or old fans, so they moved on to other franchises. For Halo, This free DLC w/ MT model has been BETTER for retention than paid DLC has been. This is because players RETURN for the free content, rather that get fragmented by a paywall.

I don't see removing the MTs as make H5 a more attractive game- at least not to the point that millions of people come flooding in... that can only happen my making H5s core gameplay more appealing compared to its competitors.

You see games like Overwatch and CS:GO do massive numbers despite MTs. You see Forza doing well. You see Rainbow6 enjoy uncharacteristic growth since launch.

You can't just look at declining sales and point out MTs as the reason simply because you don't like them.

Edit: I see you links and it still appears you are cherry picking. Gears IS pretty ridiculous, we all agree... but that's not something unique to MS. And some publication wanting to speculate that Scalebounds lack of GaaS infrastructure got it cancelled doesn't really mean anything. That game demoed poorly every time it was shown.

 

[Papacheeks]

I think it depends COMPLETLY on the quality of the game and the strength of the game and the strength of the brand.

Halo's decline started with Reach and continued through 4, MCC, and 5. I don't think the changes to the core gameplay, narrative, or QA resonated with new or old fans, so they moved on to other franchises. For Halo, This free DLC w/ MT model has been BETTER for retention than paid DLC has been. This is because players RETURN for the free content, rather that get fragmented by a paywall.

You see games like Overwatch and CS:GO do massive numbers despite MTs. You see Forza doing well. You see Rainbow6 enjoy uncharacteristic growth since launch.

You can't just look at declining sales and point out MTs as the reason simply because you don't like them.

I will say though that in CS:go case the game is less than 14.99 and all MT'S are mostly all skins.

Doesn't do anything to buying guns in gameplay. Same with overwatch it's all cosmetic and the game is 40$ on average for PC. It is content light but all updates are free and MT's are just cosmetic.

 

[Synth]

Do you think they would retain more players and grow without MT's or with?

Do you think it's a natural decline in interest for these games? Or is it something else?

Is it because of how Multiplayer in general has been treated this gen?

There are a tons of potential reasons why certain Xbox IPs aren't as big as they used to be, and quite frankly, MTs aren't a very likely candidate considering the implementations in the biggest games available today. Halo before effectively stood alone in its genre, whereas now it has to combat a whole bunch of highly proficient FPS offerings, each with their own ways of retaining their playerbases. There's COD, Battlefield, Destiny, Overwatch, SW Battlefront, The Division and Rainbow Six all splitting the FPS pie, and all of them have the advantage of being available on multiple platforms, whilst Halo is limited to a console userbase that's roughly half of its direct competitor.

However, Halo 5 has been stated to have made more revenue than past games did via their DLC, and has a player retention that's supposedly better than any post Halo 3. It has a smaller audience than it used to have, but it's keeping that audience engaged, and the MTs have helped this, by ensuring that content updates are delivered to everyone that plays.

Forza Horizon 3 is currently consistently one of the top played games on XBL, generally hovering around Black Ops III (was one place above yesterday, is one place below today).

In fact, in the PAL charts we get each week, you can see that Halo, Gears and Forza all consistently sit within the Top 40 long after their releases, whilst even title like Uncharted 4 have long since disappeared from the list. As I said before, these charts are basically dominated by games design to keep their playerbases engaged long past the credits screen, and I don't feel that removing these aspects would benefit these games (much as it clearly didn't for stuff like Sunset Overdrive or Quantum Break), and would just cause them to die out faster.

 

[Trup1aya]

I will say though that in CS:go case the game is less than 14.99 and all MT'S are mostly all skins.

Doesn't do anything to buying guns in gameplay. Same with overwatch it's all cosmetic and the game is 40$ on average for PC. It is content light but all updates are free and MT's are just cosmetic.

I think your pricing exemptions are arbitrary. i mean, Halo has a SP campaign while those games do not, yet Overwatch launched at $60 with MTs.

I think the cosmetic VS gameplay debate is an interesting one, but some games handle it better than others. Halo does it better than Uncharted for example. Though, I prefer to play modes where it's cosmetic only, If there is a demand for modes where MTs can effect the game flow , there's no reason a dev shouldn't create one- But it shouldn't permeate the entire MP experience, and it doesn't in any of MS' games. It also shouldn't be a requirement for success like it is in Horde 3.0.

 

[LukasTaves]

It'll either have HW based BC or not at all. Sony's not new to BC but I don't think they care enough about BC unless it's easy to put in via HW.

Oh and they'll do generations. Generation-less is just PR wankery.

No its not. Same way right now a single purchase grants you a Xbox version and a pc version (for play anywhere titles), which can range from low to max, on Xbox side it will be the same. A future Xbox past Scorpio running already released games at 4k60 and ultra, and at the same time if the game can scale back even xbone could be supported.

 

[Primethius]

No its not. Same way right now a single purchase grants you a Xbox version and a pc version (for play anywhere titles), which can range from low to max, on Xbox side it will be the same. A future Xbox past Scorpio running already released games at 4k60 and ultra, and at the same time if the game can scale back even xbone could be supported.

I'm not sure how being BC means generation less. There will be generations. Scorpio is a mid-gen upgrade. Etc etc.

 

[Papacheeks]

I think your pricing exemptions are arbitrary. i mean, Halo has a SP campaign while those games do not, yet Overwatch launched at $60 with MTs.

I think the cosmetic VS gameplay debate is an interesting one, but some games handle it better than others. Halo does it better than Uncharted for example. Though, I prefer to play modes where it's cosmetic only, If there is a demand for modes where MTs can effect the game flow , there's no reason a dev shouldn't create one- But it shouldn't permeate the entire MP experience, and it doesn't in any of MS' games. It also shouldn't be a requirement for success like it is in Horde 3.0.

Overwatch launched at $40 for base game on PC. And on PC is where the majority of players are. $60 on PC is the origins edition. BUT base game is $40 on PC.

It launched for $60 on console for some odd reason.

 

[Synth]

Overwatch launched at $40 for base game on PC. And on PC is where the majority of players are. $60 on PC is the origins edition. BUT base game is $40 on PC.

It launched for $60 on console for some odd reason.

So in short, it's $60 without a singleplayer and with MTs, in the space that is being discussed.

 

[Papacheeks]

So in short, it's $60 without a singleplayer and with MTs, in the space that is being discussed.

Yup. And there's a reason more people play it on PC and not many got it for console.

You could buy it for $40 on pc. But were taxed on console for no reason.

The majority of players who play it payed $40. Which isn't bad since content wise it's really bad. It's one of the reason I don't own it. I didn't see enough there for $40. CS:Go is 14.99 and has more content in terms of maps, modes.

 

[Synth]

Yup. And there's a reason more people play it on PC and not many got it for console.

You could buy it for $40 on pc. But were taxed on console for no reason.

The majority of players who play it payed $40. Which isn't bad since content wise it's really bad. It's one of the reason I don't own it. I didn't see enough there for $40. CS:Go is 14.99 and has more content in terms of maps, modes.

Not many people have Overwatch on console?

You're just taking the piss now, right?

 

[Papacheeks]

Not many people have Overwatch on console?

You're just taking the piss now, right?

My understanding is it;s like 70/30 PC.

Not saying it excuses anything. There's a reason I don't own the game and people on console got shafted with a 59.99 dollar game with very little content, while PC got it for $40.

 

[Synth]

My understanding is it;s like 70/30 PC.

Not saying it excuses anything. There's a reason I don't own the game and people on console got shafted with a 59.99 dollar game with very little content, while PC got it for $40.

All that says is that the game is ridiculously successful on PC. On XBL it's currently beating BF1, Destiny and everything else that's not COD for active players, and has been doing so consistently for a while now. The game is fucking huge on console.

 

[MosquitoSmasher]

Wow, people are still doing this?

Besides I thought GhostRobo would be better than this clickbait crap.

https://www.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/6bi81o/the_spread_of_misinformation_begins