Logic Artists - Expeditions Developer Closing Down

I think the sad part is that NFTs will influence the sort of games that will be made - essentially they are microtransaction games, but instead of one off in-game purchases, people will be able to trade their items, with the game making its money from a cut on every transaction. That way, each item goes on generating money for the company every time it's traded.

OK... but if we ignore all that, it's surely going to mean game designs affected to fit that essentially microtransaction model.

People simply need to take a firm stand here, this is a line that shouldn't be crossed no matter what, and don't do it no matter what. No game, no subject whatsoever is worth tolerating this kind of nonsense, vote with your wallets and the powers that be/corporations will eventually notice.

Stand as one, do not capitulate.

I've been saying vote with your wallets for the last 10 to 15 years yet Electronic Arts, Ubisoft and Activision Blizzard are still here despite the fact that they totally screw their customers over so I don't think that's going to work.

There's a sucker born every minute and apparently the younger generation of gamers does not seem to worry too much about these shady practices. Oh they will bitch and complain and scream when the company does something that pisses them off but they're right back to get the next game that comes out, buying it and getting screwed again so why should these companies worry about pissing off their customer base if it just keeps coming back for more abuse.

It's April 1st already?!

Ripper said:

I think the sad part is that NFTs will influence the sort of games that will be made - essentially they are microtransaction games, but instead of one off in-game purchases, people will be able to trade their items, with the game making its money from a cut on every transaction. That way, each item goes on generating money for the company every time it's traded.

OK… but if we ignore all that, it's surely going to mean game designs affected to fit that essentially microtransaction model.

Click to expand...

I agree. You need something where players constantly upgrade their equipment and can trade the old stuff at a market. A Diablo style game is the first thing that comes to mind as any piece of equipment might be useful for a couple of hours of gameplay, but then it becomes underpowered.

I learned my lesson with these kinds of shenanigans back when I played Everquest, and vowed never to give a penny of my money to any company that attempts something similar. At some point you just have to say no. Granted they weren't NFT's per se, yet I consider them of the same ilk.

When DLC was new people said vote with your wallet.

When GAAS SP Online games became popular people said vote with your wallet.

Guess what they did. It's now accepted and no one cares anymore.

Pladio said:

That makes me not want to buy Rome out of spite. I know its not logical, but I was buying their games on release before to support a small indie studio I liked. If they're just giving up on these games I may as well wait for the bargain bin.

Click to expand...

Same here, I typically buy games like this either before or upon release, to support the developer if nothing else. In this case, I'll just wait until I'm ready to play it someday (if I ever am...)

Couchpotato said:

When DLC was new people said vote with your wallet.

When GAAS SP Online games became popular people said vote with your wallet.

Guess what they did. It's now accepted and no one cares anymore.

Click to expand...

To be honest, those things in and of themselves aren't bad.

I've just played Age of empires 4 and Greedfall for £1 in 3 months...

Carnifex said:

People simply need to take a firm stand here, this is a line that shouldn't be crossed no matter what, and don't do it no matter what. No game, no subject whatsoever is worth tolerating this kind of nonsense, vote with your wallets and the powers that be/corporations will eventually notice.

Stand as one, do not capitulate.

Click to expand...

Buying or not buying this game, this non NFT game that has already been created, has got fuck all to do with taking some stand against NFTs or whatever it is you think you're protesting.

I have no interest in NFTs, cryptocurrency or any of that exploitative garbage, but I bought and have been playing this interesting, well made single player RPG.

There hasn't been DLC for either Conquistador or Vikings, so enough handwringing about "oh no, what about my DLC?" with Rome also, please.

Pladio said:

To be honest, those things in and of themselves aren't bad.

I've just played Age of empires 4 and Greedfall for £1 in 3 months…

Click to expand...

Then you voted with your wallet the wrong way.

Your part of the problem.

JFarrell71 said:

Buying or not buying this game, this non NFT game that has already been created, has got fuck all to do with taking some stand against NFTs or whatever it is you think you're protesting.

I have no interest in NFTs, cryptocurrency or any of that exploitative garbage, but I bought and have been playing this interesting, well made single player RPG.

There hasn't been DLC for either Conquistador or Vikings, so enough handwringing about "oh no, what about my DLC?" with Rome also, please.

Click to expand...

I highly doubt Carnifex was referring to Expeditions: Rome in that bit you quoted, it was a rant about not buying microtransaction/NFT/whatever games.

I haven't played very far yet because I've been working every day since it's release and I'm playing on Insane difficulty… But so far, the game seems very polished and I haven't encountered any bugs. The loading times are lightning fast (I do have installed on an SSD). And it's great fun. I still miss attribute scores but the skill trees seem pretty well though out & you have a good amount of options for each class.

Some of the developers, Jonas in particular, have been very active on the Expeditions Discord answering questions. I'm glad he isn't involved with the NFT rubbish. Perhaps he'll start a new indie studio soon.

No, I certainly wasn't complaining about Rome. I've not picked up the game as of yet, though I both played and enjoyed the prior Conquistador and Vikings, so I'm fairly certain I'll like Rome also.

daveyd said:

I haven't played very far yet because I've been working every day since it's release and I'm playing on Insane difficulty… But so far, the game seems very polished and I haven't encountered any bugs. The loading times are lightning fast (I do have installed on an SSD). And it's great fun. I still miss attribute scores but the skill trees seem pretty well though out & you have a good amount of options for each class.

Some of the developers, Jonas in particular, have been very active on the Expeditions Discord answering questions. I'm glad he isn't involved with the NFT rubbish. Perhaps he'll start a new indie studio soon.

Click to expand...

I agree with all that. Oh yes, the loading times are a big improvement, it's starting to bug me in Viking.

They have trimmed and polished everything in Rome. We retrieve the main skills that were in Viking but they are organized in tiers to make it more consistent with a character progression. No more character attributes but a starting point based on the class. I don't miss the details too much, but it could be a problem for people who love to optimize their builds, or want to use that as part of the roleplay.

The combat log and the chat log disappear once it's over, and the current tracked quest is always displayed at the top right. Little things to make the game more accessible (less geeky?) that I wouldn't have done that way but it's not really annoying either. The overall impression is something much cleaner.

I haven't met many bugs, just a few minor ones. The UI is beautiful but there are a few confusing descriptions, like the weapon below (is it applying bleeding or removing it?). The mechanics are not yet entirely clear to me because of that, but it's not preventing me from having a lot of fun with this game, I really like it.

And the team is great, I'm surprised to see some of the reactions here.

Terry said:

There's a sucker born every minute and apparently the younger generation of gamers does not seem to worry too much about these shady practices.

Click to expand...

Why would the practices be shady? As long as it's transparent what a customer gets for his money the term imho isn't justified.
That doesn't mean that we have to like these new sales models but I think it's wrong to generally condemn them. It depends on the implementation.

Morrandir said:

Why would the practices be shady? As long as it's transparent what a customer gets for his money the term imho isn't justified.
That doesn't mean that we have to like these new sales models but I think it's wrong to generally condemn them. It depends on the implementation.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with Terry here, but I'm afraid this is leading us out of topic. You can't give something dangerous or noxious to the public and pretend it's fine because the characteristics are supposed to be known. There's a part of responsibility that goes to the vendor, and people just don't behave naturally in a responsible way.

Besides, what good could possibly come to the public in general from using NFTs? It's detrimental to the environment, to the consumers and to the quality of the games themselves. Blockchain is not a bad technology in itself if we see that as a temporary, necessary step towards something more sensible (much like coal was a necessary step to cleaner energy sources), but has it any place in a game?

Sure it is shady. It is presented as a revolution for the good of the players in the same way the micro transactions in FIFA were advertised.

It wouldn't be shady if they said something like 'we will get lot of money from it and that is why we do it but we will try to make it worth for you'.

No, what they say is microtransaction and loot boxes are not us implementing casino mechanisms and NFT is that huge sacrifice we do for you, the players.

When you see them having to resort to Marketing/PR BS, it's shady.

Redglyph said:

The UI is beautiful but there are a few confusing descriptions, like the weapon below (is it applying bleeding or removing it?). The mechanics are not yet entirely clear to me because of that, but it's not preventing me from having a lot of fun with this game, I really like it.

Click to expand...

That is a bit confusing for sure, but it means that Gouge applies bleeding to an enemy who does not yet have the bleeding status. If they already have bleeding, using Gouge on them does extra damage and then removes the bleeding status.

JFarrell71 said:

That is a bit confusing for sure, but it means that Gouge applies bleeding to an enemy who does not yet have the bleeding status. If they already have bleeding, using Gouge on them does extra damage and then removes the bleeding status.

Click to expand...

Thanks! That's more or less what one dev replied on Discord but he wasn't entirely sure. And the other Slash always applies bleeding, without removing it. The fact the skill description changes when equipping / removing the weapon doesn't help either.

There are a few things like that which require some testing & practicing before one can understand it. They said they'd work on it, but they tackle the most important bugs first.