Opinion - Anthem Doesn't Have an Excuse

USGamer argues that Anthem doesn't have an excuse for repeating Destiny mistakes.

I've seen responses that compared Anthem's problems to the teething periods of the first Destiny and The Division. Both of those online games launched with severe issues, both in content and design. Both required their developers to knuckle down and improve them over time. In Destiny's case, not all those lessons made their way in Destiny 2, which caused more problems. For The Division 2, Ubisoft has promised that it's learned from the first game, a title that it whipped into solid shape, with an "endgame first" focus on the upcoming title. Anthem is in a better launch state, so it should be cut some slack, is part of the sentiment I'm seeing.

First, the assumption that Anthem is a better launch than close competitors Destiny, The Division, and Warframe, or other online games like World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy 14 is arguable. The truth is that it doesn't matter though, because Anthem isn't launching in 2013 next to the original Warframe, or 2016 next to the original The Division. It's launching in 2019, next to the current version of Warframe, Destiny 2 post-Forsaken, and alongside the upcoming The Division 2.

[...]

Click to expand...

Thanks Farflame!

More information.

What happened to all the don't call Anthem a Destiny clone articles? If I remember the linked site above also had one of those articles saying it's not fair to do so. Hypocrites.

Oh well it's better then the usual kiss ass high scores given for past BioWare games.

This product has an excuse, even more a justification and a motivation: the praise the crowdfunded scene for using similar methods.

People like the reviewer are so deep in double standards they can not accept people are watching and drawing conclusions.

The diluted content distribution model as featured by the crowdfunded scene is a much better way to handle expectations.

The more players play the incomplete versions, the lower their expectations run toward the complete version. Up to the point they usually play much less the complete version than they did the previous versions. They put themselves an end to their disatisfaction. Players who keep playing beyond the complete version release are satisfied.

Stuff like hiding the lack of content behind grinding is praised when done by the crowdfunded scene. It wont go away because big corps did not get the idea first and are late comers to the party.

This product might have hard times but it is pointless because the next one will be designed with a similar intent etc

Honesty, having put now around 15 hours into Anthem over the weekend, being level 17 I can't still fully comment on the endgame merits of the game. I can tell that the gameplay is terribly addictive and so far repetition hasn't worn me out (and I know it will, sooner or later)

What I can tell is that the game feels much more complete and meaty than The Division or Destiny. The physics, the mechanics, the visuals and the gameplay in general are fully stunning, possibly thanks to the Frostbite engine.

As for endgame content and the future of the game, I can't tell yet, I'll make sure to comment when I get there, though there is this: https://media.contentapi.ea.com/content/dam/eacom/anthem/common/anthem-gameplay-calendar-16x9.jpg

Well, Anthem never fooled me! I can't say I couldn't see all this incoming.

ChienAboyeur said:

This product has an excuse, even more a justification and a motivation: the praise the crowdfunded scene for using similar methods.

Click to expand...

No, it goes back further than Crowdfunding to the Beta Test. They used to be actual tests but they were so popular they became more like game demos because getting to play the Beta version was usually free. This then evolved into paid Early Access, but there are other factors involved in delayed content releases such as paid DLC. It's far more common a practice with the big budget publishers than it is with crowdfunded games.

If they made the game they wanted to then they don’t need any excuses.

If it doesn’t measure up that’s a consequence of their decisions they’ll have to deal with.

Not all games are made for everyone and company’s change. BioWare is haunted by ghost of they past. People keep expecting games their no longer equipped to make. The very genre that anthem is in should have clued people to that.

Oddly enough most of the people i know outside of the internet think the game has flaws but is pretty fun anyway.

I have it on origin premier but wont be trying it for a while. Way to busy at work and any gaming time i have is being sucked up modding Skyrim.

EA Andrew Wilson came in at #98 onto a report about the most overpaid CEO's. He earned $35.7 million last year. Oh boy.

SirJames said:

No, it goes back further than Crowdfunding to the Beta Test. They used to be actual tests but they were so popular they became more like game demos because getting to play the Beta version was usually free. This then evolved into paid Early Access, but there are other factors involved in delayed content releases such as paid DLC. It's far more common a practice with the big budget publishers than it is with crowdfunded games.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with that. Two different things.

Releasing a beta is a case of outsourcing. The job that is expected to be done internally is done by customers. It is a form of theft.
This product does not fit the bill by the way: this version is a decent gold (not possible to iron out every single bug) It is not a beta.

The crowdfunded scene introduces a different form of theft.
Distributing content over multiple releases. In order to get the benefits listed before.

Each version delivering new content could be as bug free as it could be.

Words on this part: this situation has grown so much in the crowdfunded scene that devs are forced to release betas of each version.
Version 0.x comes with its beta. Version 0.y comes with its own.

Of course, as a result of double standards, and a limited numbers of words, they can not be called betas, they are called developpment builds, experimental builds, atyourownrisks builds etc

They did not release a beta for this product. They released an on purpose truncated version to manage the disatisfaction level. As the praise of the crowdfunded scene led them to.

This way of proceeding has tons of benefits for them (as it has for the crowdfunding scene)
They cant be blamed for doing what is best for them, especially when they copy methods that got praised when performed by the crowdfunded scene.

henriquejr said:

Well, Anthem never fooled me! I can't say I couldn't see all this incoming.

Click to expand...

Anyone aware of the crowdfunded scene could not be fooled.

Some might have double standards though, others might have one standard.

ChienAboyeur said:

this situation has grown so much in the crowdfunded scene that devs are forced to release betas of each version.

Click to expand...

The idea that crowdfunded scene (where indies are not funded or barely funded) make other devs (publishers?) to release betas like they have no choice and its helpful for them in eyes of players is hilarious.

This product is not a beta. It is a decent gold release version with a model of planned distribution of content over time.

Crowdfunded products are funded.

Usually, options are determined by assessment of pros and cons.

Planning distribution of content over time is a way to maintain interest in a product through ways of promises. Players are kept hooked by incoming new content.

Process works well by itself.

It is received differently by double standard players. Double standard people are characterized by it is bad only when certain people do it. When others do, it is the apex of civilization.

Hilarious, sad or whatever, who cares. The process was adopted by people who listened to their customers.
Process was praised when done by crowdfunded projects. So it is here to endure now.

ChienAboyeur said:

double standard players.

Click to expand...

You mean me.

I vomit on mention of consoles, yell about mushrooms inferiority and bullshit over outdated hardware - at the same time I buy Horizon Zero Dawn to a neighbor who doesn't have PC but owns PS4 and asks me do I, an ignorant fool, know any good game on consoles. I should have bought him a PC, right?
No, not to play games. But to waste time on twitch!

Critics don't have an excuse either

I'm no friend to the type of game Anthem is, but I do have to say, I think Bioware is in a no-win situation. The original Bioware team none of whom are still with Bioware managed to produce a number of successive unforgettable games. I just read an article about them and they had like one programmer originally, and most of the rest of the technical people were hired on later. The core of the team were not computer people, but people who actually played and enjoyed both tabletop and crpgs. James Ohlen was hired because he was the DM everyone heard ran good games. They had a vision and just made a lot of rpgs like they wanted to play. But they are gone, and now Bioware is a team of what I'm sure are talented computer technicians, artists, and writers. But anything they will create will be compared to their golden age. I've said it once and I'll say it again, I think Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 are pretty decent games if one doesn't go in with the expectations that they will be a Mass Effect or a Dragon Age: Origins, or even remotely like Baldur's Gate. Too be a studio that once crafted masterpieces is really tough, especially when they are now in a corporate AAA world.

ChienAboyeur said:

Releasing a beta is a case of outsourcing. The job that is expected to be done internally is done by customers. It is a form of theft.

Click to expand...

One of the reasons Betas became the new Demo is that the vast majority of "testers" had no interest in reporting bugs and just wanted to play the game as soon as possible and for free. You'll notice Betas once were the full game but eventually they only offered one or two maps. This is especially evident with EA games like the Battlefield series.

Developers also employ a Quality Assurance team to do most the testing, but in online games it's often useful to do a "stress test" and load the servers with as many players as possible and see how it holds up. Having a Beta test often serves this purpose and gives some indication of how many players are likely to be playing on launch day. It's very important to be able to deal with launch day without having any connectivity issues otherwise players will rage and post 0/10 reviews as we've seen in Diablo3 and many other games. It's certainly not theft!

ChienAboyeur said:

This product does not fit the bill by the way: this version is a decent gold (not possible to iron out every single bug) It is not a beta.

Click to expand...

It did have an early access period and a consequential "day one patch" addressing the issues for the full launch.

ChienAboyeur said:

The crowdfunded scene introduces a different form of theft.
Distributing content over multiple releases. In order to get the benefits listed before.

Click to expand...

Again, this is nothing new. Expansion packs have been around since Warcraft. The bigger threat is withholding launch content as part of the DLC plan. You would have noticed that all games from big publishers MUST have a DLC plan and often full priced games, like Anthem, have the same paid cosmetics that you'd expect from a free2play game. This is far more to do with corporate greed than it is "copying crowdsourced games".

ChienAboyeur said:

They cant be blamed for doing what is best for them, especially when they copy methods that got praised when performed by the crowdfunded scene.

Click to expand...

Can you give me an example of a crowdfunded game that the big publishers are copying for their business model?

As far as I can tell crowdfunding is an alternative to the traditional publisher/developer model and they all play the same game of post-release DLC.

In some special circumstances, like Star Citizen, where the funding doesn't end, you can see there's no point in ever releasing a game because it's far more profitable to continue selling people their dreams than allowing people a chance to write negative reviews which could harm further funding, but this does appear to be an isolated case. I'm sure the big publishers would love to make Star Citizens $250,000,000 without having to release a game, but it's not something they can actually emulate.

Good thing I didn't care for this from the beginning. It being mentioned on this site I attribute to the studio being Bioware.

As has been said above the now Bioware has nothing to do anymore with the then Bioware. More than enough other great games to be played out there and you can go back to BG anytime you want.

ChienAboyeur said:

Releasing a beta is a case of outsourcing. The job that is expected to be done internally is done by customers. It is a form of theft.

Click to expand...

SirJames said:

One of the reasons Betas became the new Demo is that the vast majority of "testers" had no interest in reporting bugs and just wanted to play the game as soon as possible and for free.

Click to expand...

Can we please have a separate thread dedicated to current use of beta versions as early access or demo, why it generally fails and why are we still seeing amateurish releases thanks to "independant" beta testers?

I mean everyone is doing it and as such it's not Anthem's sin directly. Can the process be improved?

Can we have a separate thread for joxer agenda drivel?