Is it though? It looks like they saw Payday and decided to make a BF mod.
It's a fresh take on a new series since BF and COD have been doing the same thing for years. Giving people the chance to try it right away is pretty significant.
Am I saying the 360 will enjoy the same long lifespan as the PS2? Not at all, the PS2 was a market share freak. The point still stands that most consoles don't immediately get dropped once their successor is released as there's still a massive user-base to sell software and services to, which is where the big money lies. The install-base of the 360 is huge, there's no reason to immediately stop first party support of it.
It's hardly a 'red flag'.
I agree they don't immediately get dropped. Infact prior to most recent generations, older consoles tended to live on for quite some time (SNES, PS1 and Nintendo hand helds actually had very long life spans by today's standards).
I think the issue is that this game is what they are attaching the price drop too, no?
Let me put it this way: If the game is what you want, why would I shell out $300 when I can just get it for the system I own? Would Wii U have seen these huge sale numbers if Kario Mart 8 came out on the Wii? I doubt it. If it's not on the 360 then suddenly that $300 look appealing.
Why do you say ME3 was rushed? Technically it felt more polished than any of the other ME games.
I think my comment is a bit unfair because you are right, the game play and what matters is well done and super polished. It was more some of the corners cut at the end, as I have absolutely zero doubt in my mind that that was not the original planned ending. When they managed to have the new ending DLC out within months of the complaint makes me think they had it half done and someone said "Nope, taking too long. Save some time somewhere."
Why do you say ME3 was rushed? Technically it felt more polished than any of the other ME games.
For the entire series, you made choices that impacted the story and carried between games, and the developers flat out said that those choices will affect how the story ends. Then at the end of ME3 the rug is ripped out and you're left with 3 canned endings that in no way relate to any choice you've made in the series. There's no way you can say the game wasn't rushed when they had such a grand vision for the trilogy in the first 2 games
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hemi-Cuda For This Useful Post:
For the entire series, you made choices that impacted the story and carried between games, and the developers flat out said that those choices will affect how the story ends. Then at the end of ME3 the rug is ripped out and you're left with 3 canned endings that in no way relate to any choice you've made in the series. There's no way you can say the game wasn't rushed when they had such a grand vision for the trilogy in the first 2 games
Yeah, The hype train that the ME3 team produced about how the previous choices you made in the playthrough would determine how the game ended was a huge selling point for me. I think I replayed ME1+ME2 before 3 came out so I could get the perfect ending for my Shepard. Only to be let down by the canned endings.The misuse of characters from ME2 was a bummer.
Dont get me wrong I enjoyed the game. I relate it to a 24 season - the first half was action packed and the story line was great, but once they killed off the villian/first plot it went down hill in terms of direction and had to many lose ends to tie up neatly.
I think my comment is a bit unfair because you are right, the game play and what matters is well done and super polished. It was more some of the corners cut at the end, as I have absolutely zero doubt in my mind that that was not the original planned ending. When they managed to have the new ending DLC out within months of the complaint makes me think they had it half done and someone said "Nope, taking too long. Save some time somewhere."
Ah, I thought you might have been referring to the story. Yeah you could probably make a pretty good case for that being rushed and/or not being thought through.
Sooo it sounds like one of the anticipated games for E3, Battlefront 3 was pretty much a non factor. We have the rights to the game, we're working on it, here are some concept pictures, see you next year.
Every year I hate trailers more and more, they should just show gameplay. No talking, no exposition; they have 30 seconds to a few minutes to sell a game and they most often don't show any gameplay. Elder Scrolls Online is the best example where the game is absolutely nothing like the trailer, it's at the point where I just skip a cinematic trailer because I know it's not the actual game. Atleast hardline showed gameplay.
Let me put it this way: If the game is what you want, why would I shell out $300 when I can just get it for the system I own? Would Wii U have seen these huge sale numbers if Kario Mart 8 came out on the Wii? I doubt it. If it's not on the 360 then suddenly that $300 look appealing.
We've already seen this with EA's NHL series, and it's the same with Horizons 2. I know it's not 'first-party', but give me a minute.
Recall NHL 07 and NHL 08; NHL 07 was released for Xbox, Xbox 360, PS2, and PC. NHL 08 was released for Xbox 360, PS2, PS3, and PC.
Why would I buy a 360 or a PS3 for these games when they released versions for my PS2 or Xbox? Well the trick was that there were two separate teams and separate underlying engines. The next-gen X360 and PS3 variants used the new game engine and had far better graphics. The PS2, Xbox, and PC versions used the last-gen engine. If you wanted the experience everyone was ga-ga over, you needed the next-gen console.
It's effectively the same here. Different developers are tackling the X360 version over the X1 version, and different underlying game engines are being used, with the X1 version getting the vastly superior Forza 5 for its base. You could really say it's the same game in name only.
