@MoreThot: Oh don't forget about all the microtransactions they've crammed into the old MP version to boot. That should bring the value up....right? :-)
@Slammer612: And again, I'm not saying I AM the norm. But neither you, nor Atlus, has any proof that the majority of people who watch streams, DON'T buy the games. Story-heavy games like Resident Evil 7, The Witcher 3, Mass Effect Adromeda and Horizon Zero Dawn, sell as well as multiplayer focused titles such as Battlefield 1 and Overwatch, and in some cases better. It's the industry ITSELF that is crying disappointment in sales, not gamers. If you ask the AAA industry, EVERY big budget game should sell 5-8 million copies; that's what they're targeting. Every big game should dominate the web and Youtube for weeks with guides and trick videos and Let's Plays. And that is one of the many reasons AAA is spending itself into oblivion.
Atlus had ONE chance to sell their game; one chance to get that first impression right. They could have trusted their fans to do what fans do best; spread the word and get more people to buy the game. Instead, Atlus cashed in that chance to make clear to people who gave their hard earned money for what is supposed to be THEIR property, how to act online. And now, much like Peter Molyneux after the damage has been done, they came back with a weak "We sure learned a lesson from this move" statement. A statement which rings false not just because the spoilers could be read online instead of WATCHED online. It rings false, because Atlus was willing to use a weak, abused system of information blockage, to stomp on the very people who liked the game enough to showcase it.
And the real kicker sir? You claim I'm not the norm, which is true. But Atlus set policy and made clear warnings(since I suspect there's a "This wasn't a threat" argument, I'll bypass it with what was written in the statement) to EVERYONE, for the personal choice of a few people. People who don't want to pay for a game, aren't gonna be bullied into it. Instead, as always, the gaming industry passed it's problems, onto the people who pay their bills....
@Slammer612: Except Atlus lost my business, trying to convince the OTHER people who stream games without buying them, to buy them. As I said, I DO buy games I can watch all the way through, with the exception of horror. I did it with Turmoil, Flame Over, Horizon Zero Dawn, Blood Bowl, even Mass Effect Andromeda. Once I saw that the game did interest me, despite what people said about them, I went and put money down ON them. Had any of those game publishers told streamers "Sorry, but we can't allow you to stream this part because of spoilers" I would have walked away on the spot.
When a publisher tries to protect the content of a game, and uses false or misleading means to do so, it basically tells me they aren't concerned WITH the game; they just want the money. And as soon as that sentiment is known publicly, I want nothing to do with them.
@inebriantia: Sorry, but I disagree. I don't just watch game streams for story info. When I watched Jacksepticeye play a full game of Turmoil, it spurred me to buy the game. Even knowing how things turn out, I play games for the game part, not the story. When I watched TB and his friends play Blood Bowl or Darkest Dungeon, it didn't matter to me what the story was; I liked the mechanics, so I bought the games.
The second I hear about a game not being allowed to be streamed, or it being restricted to certain parts or parties, I suspect something is going on. What am I not being allowed to see? What are they not being allowed to say? And instantly, I lose any desire for the game. It's why I have no real desire to play most Nintendo titles. Nintendo pays people to stream their content. So there's instant bias in anyone who does. Even if it's unintended, it's something I won't invest a penny in financially.
I watch video game streams to either inform on my purchases, or in the case of horror games like Outlast and Five Nights at Freddy's, to laugh and joke about games I just cannot play. As a genre I love horror, but I just cannot be behind the controls of those games.
@inebriantia: I think some context is needed here Inebriantia. Yeah, in the big-budget world of AAA, $40 million is a lightweight budget. But consider what those games have to MAKE to be successful. You can't just make back the 40 million. To see a profit that most investors would respect, you need to double the money, double their investment into the game. No one wants to give over a dollar now, for a dollar and a quarter back five years later. So that 40 millions just turned into an $80 million requirement. For that, at the current $60 price before anything else gets involved, a game needs a bare minimum of 1.4 million copies sold. And that's the LOW end of the ballpark here.
Now take something like GTA's $265 million budget. At $530 million required to meet investor expectations; the game needed to sell just shy of NINE MILLION copies to be profitable. Of course, it did, and went on to sell even MORE. But who would you ask that would believe that would happen, and be willing to put on ON it happening? Rockstar and Take Two spent so much on the game not because they were sure they were going to hit $800 million in sales, but to ensure they DID hit $530 million. GTA is a franchise that is allowed to fail...in development. NO ONE at either Rockstar or Take Two, will let that franchise out to sale, with "Oh we'll just patch it later and fix it."
@Ultimate_Noob: The problem is that it really doesn't create good gameplay. I'm not saying that the solution was better, but he was at least trying to find a real solution to a real problem in X-COM.
@heqteur: I think the problem with schedules, is the "Why?" Why have a schedule and force developers to stick to it? Now, if the reason is to control the budget, keep the team focused and clear about their time-management, that's a good thing. There's tons of creative mediums where talented people get lazy about a piece of work when there's no deadline. Since they can indulge in ALL their whims on an idea without fear of a time limit, they just spin further off point or into a black hole of minutiae. A good deadline that can give people a goal to hit, can motivate them to curate their own ideas well and present the BEST ones, not just ALL of them, good or bad.
But it turns rotten as hell, when it's about marketing or hitting this date to beat a competitor or nail that Christmas window. Because that's when the deadline becomes a deadLOCK. Those same talented artists who are working on a project know if they're going to HONESTLY come up short on time. Not listening to them and saying "We'll patch it later" is precisely what turns a good game into a dud on arrival. Game after game has been released over the past four years, that desperately needed a pushback for more polish, more tweaking and more just plain WORK. But the higher end of the command structure always think to their own safety first. If they are the ones who are gonna get chewed out by investors over a pushback or a delay, it's almost a guarantee they'll take cutting the game off at the knees and shove it out the door. Any problems after that, can be blamed on the artists and coders, who didn't manage their time better.
@darthrevenx: :-) Imagine how those of us who purchased the game feel. :-) I was supposed to have "founder status" after buying the game shortly after it came out. All my stuff was supposed to be kept open....right up till EA said "Okay, no one's looking, and he's canceled his subscription. Take all his characters and lock them down save one. Make him buy the game all over again!!!!"
Khasym's comments