holy forget Deus Ex: Mankind Divided is getting trashed

Author Topic: holy forget Deus Ex: Mankind Divided is getting trashed  (Read 5625 times)

« Last Edit: August 24, 2016, 07:47:35 AM by d »

is it truly single player, or do you need an internet connection to play?
I think modding it to give access to the store items for free would fall under fair use

I get why people are mad, But Assassins Creed did this stuff All the way back to Black Flag, Granted Unity was CO-OP, But syndicate was literally just ridiculous, Its stupidity when Developers get so greedy they trash they're franchises name for the sake for a few extra dollars

afaik:



Wait wait wait wait, I can buy the tranquilizer? Reeeeeallly?

It's time for another "McJob Roasts A forgetwit".

Today's forgetwit has decided to trample on my toes by providing this extremely antiquated opinion:

Its stupidity when Developers get so greedy they trash they're franchises name for the sake for a few extra dollars

Firstly, it's the PUBLISHER that determines how products will be sold and distributed, and they usually have a big say in profitably aspects of their products.

Here's a fun fact about AAA development; it costs a lot. You have 100+ developers (as well as administration staff and everybody inside the publishing office). You have computers for all of those 100+ staff, probably running dual-monitors and pretty high-spec, high-power consumption systems. Those PCs require software licences, some of which will be royalty based, some are yearly subscriptions. You have the cost of all the furniture in the building, all the paper materials used by the developers and administration staff, all of the business registration costs, all of the taxes and salaries, all of the water and internet bills, compensation for employees on paid leave or who are entitled to a severance package, marketing costs (which can skyrocket into the hundreds of millions), lawyer costs and so on, so forth (there's way more costs to cover). Then you have to remember that the longer it takes a developer/publisher to release a game, the more time it takes for them to both earn back the cash they've spent on development but also make some kind of profit to fund future projects (businesses can't survive if they're only ever equalling up on losses). Furthermore, every single year, the prices of just about everything increase. Taxes increase, the minimum wage increases, inflation increase and so on.

If AAA Publishers push their developers to continually make gradually smaller games that'll be at the same cost, gamers will (appropriately) bitch, moan and complain because the games aren't improving and getting bigger, as they should.

Yes, it feels like a stuffty practice and there needs to be a better way to cover costs, but there's a reason that publishers are trying to find new ways to make money. At the moment, these practices aren't really obtrusive to the game experience. Bullstuff yes, hindering no.

It isn't "a few dollars" on the line. It's the ability to pay their employees and keep making games that's on the line.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2016, 09:31:51 AM by McJob »

Basically what McJob said. Costs of development are rising, revenue needs to rise in order to stay in business.
This means either:
- Charge more per game
- Make smaller games at the same price
- Find other things to charge for

Take your pick.
It's stuffty, but it's how it is


It's time for another "McJob Roasts A forgetwit".

Today's forgetwit has decided to trample on my toes by providing this extremely antiquated opinion:

Firstly, it's the PUBLISHER that determines how products will be sold and distributed, and they usually have a big say in profitably aspects of their products.

Here's a fun fact about AAA development; it costs a lot. You have 100+ developers (as well as administration staff and everybody inside the publishing office). You have computers for all of those 100+ staff, probably running dual-monitors and pretty high-spec, high-power consumption systems. Those PCs require software licences, some of which will be royalty based, some are yearly subscriptions. You have the cost of all the furniture in the building, all the paper materials used by the developers and administration staff, all of the business registration costs, all of the taxes and salaries, all of the water and internet bills, compensation for employees on paid leave or who are entitled to a severance package, marketing costs (which can skyrocket into the hundreds of millions), lawyer costs and so on, so forth (there's way more costs to cover). Then you have to remember that the longer it takes a developer/publisher to release a game, the more time it takes for them to both earn back the cash they've spent on development but also make some kind of profit to fund future projects (businesses can't survive if they're only ever equalling up on losses). Furthermore, every single year, the prices of just about everything increase. Taxes increase, the minimum wage increases, inflation increase and so on.

If AAA Publishers push their developers to continually make gradually smaller games that'll be at the same cost, gamers will (appropriately) bitch, moan and complain because the games aren't improving and getting bigger, as they should.

Yes, it feels like a stuffty practice and there needs to be a better way to cover costs, but there's a reason that publishers are trying to find new ways to make money. At the moment, these practices aren't really obtrusive to the game experience. Bullstuff yes, hindering no.

It isn't "a few dollars" on the line. It's the ability to pay their employees and keep making games that's on the line.
aren't there plenty of games out there that have plenty of content, non-stuffty DLC, and are still AAA game titles? like Witcher 3? or Fallout 4? I've watched the story of Deus Ex: MD and it's pretty rad, and could definitely make a lot of sales, it's just their DLC is absolute trash and aren't even worth a single penny.

aren't there plenty of games out there that have plenty of content, non-stuffty DLC, and are still AAA game titles? like Witcher 3? or Fallout 4?
Projekt CD Red own the Good Old Game storefront, and just like Valve they're able to cover costs by taking a percentage of every sale. They also have far less employees, and they're based in Iceland (IIRC) which has a reduced cost of living.

Bethesda is owned by Zenimax, and they're known for being quite the money-whores. They've got Elder Scrolls Online with microtransations and a lot of the DLC you see is generally started pre-release to keep development costs down. Zenimax's revenue is about $1.5b higher than Square Enix, yet Square Enix owns more subsidiary studios and franchises.


is the actual game still good
because it isn't exactly difficult to ignore the dlc

is the actual game still good
because it isn't exactly difficult to ignore the dlc
yeah it's good. essentially the same as Human Revolution, just better looking, and no mini-bosses.

The "optional items" are only valid for one save file. In a game as reliant as choice as Deus Ex is, being able to make a brand new save to start from fresh is really important, so it means that if you want those items again (to make your playthrough a bit easier, especially on the harder difficulties), you'll need to pay again.
why do they think they can get away with something like this
what makes them think "this is a good idea" after games like evolve got smashed for similar reasons


for anyone who cares:
the game itself is good, if u ignore the DLC and the microtransaction, which is totally not hard to do, ull have fun. its not as good as the other two, but damn is it a good ride