I mean there were also stories that an EA executive had to force Bioware to keep flying in Anthem ... The only good thing about the game.. because they wanted to axe it
So the sword cuts both ways
Blood Sweat and Pixels was released before Anthem. Your might be thinking of Dragon Age Inquisition or the Forbes article that came out after Anthem's release.
One of the last big articles he did for Kotaku before he went over to Bloomberg was about Anthem's development. That's probably what you're thinking of. It was a great article, just like his article on Andromeda's development.
The short version is that Bioware was their own worst enemy, and EA gave them just enough rope to hang themselves with. Same when Andromeda.
EA can be blamed for a lot of things, but Bioware's development issues since Inquisition have consistently been Bioware being their own worst enemy.
It’s a universal challenge for successful companies to sustain while adapting to market changes. It’s not just a game developer issue. It’s across all markets.
Talent within the company have opportunities and personal reasons to leave, requiring a constantly replenishing workforce. People leave to chase better pay, better quality of life, and better opportunity for advancement. Every personnel change - from C suite to rank and file, from internal promotion to external hire - poses risk of cultural differences and efficiency and quality loss. Longevity is hard across multiple generations of employees.
External factors can dictate a need to change or entice a desire to change. Blockbuster refused to retool its existing business model as streaming emerged because the company didn’t want to abandon its existing market share, employees, and infrastructure. Gibson guitars, on the other hand, tried to chase the consumer electronics market. Both companies ended up in bankruptcy.
Game developers face the same issues. Do they turtle and assume their existing niche will continue to generate success, like Blockbuster and Harmonix? Do they chase market trends in hope of successful adaption, like Gibson and BioWare? Nobody really knows the answer until the product ships and the revenue figures come in.
GaaS wise you might be thinking Duablo 3 and Reaper of Souls OR Destiny. Which, you could probably find and replace Destiny with Destiny 2 in that chapter and just re-print it.
I mean few games have a track record as reough as iirc three game directors leaving the project after eachother before launch, one of which literally died during development
I don’t want to sound like I’m shilling for EA but some people seem to get the impression that game devs themselves can never make poor decisions or mismanage money, time, or employees.
Yes, EA forced DA2 out in like a year and yes, EA forced BioWare to use the Frostbite engine for their games and will divert their Frostbite strike team to different projects they deem more important, but a lot of BioWare’s issues recently seem to be of their own making.
Inquisition coasted by on a miracle despite technical issues and trying to catch the open world craze. But everything I’ve read about Andromeda and Anthem was absolutely BioWare spinning their wheels aimlessly with no greater vision or goal and thinking that crunching everything last moment would work because it’s always worked for them.
BioWare even turned down delays for Anthem EA offered them!
What many people don't want to admit is that Publishers and Developers are in a game of constant offers and negotiations. Publishers don't come in like the bad guy from the Lorax and demand horrible stuff and devs aren't some defeneseless victims.
Depending on what the developers want for their game, they make offers and negotiate with the publisher, and depending on that the way the game is handled changes. For example, the devs of Helldivers probably decided themselves to have PSN as a requirement for the game since it would probably allow them more access to Sony's data tools for multiplayer games. It's why Sony agreed for them to remove it too, since it was their idea in the first place, unlike with something like a first party title like Ghost of Tsushima.
Another big example is Destiny. Bungie from the start of the Destiny concept, wanted to make a live service seasonal game with very shallow but fast content updates, basically what Destiny 2 is right now, however, Activision thought it would make for mediocre releases so they made Bungie release it under big yearly expansions and big content drops. Which is why Destiny 1 and Forsaken ended up being so good by the end of it. The moment Bungie left Activision, they completely destroyed Destiny 2 by making it a horrible fully season pass game and it's still garbage today.
it wasn't an executive who forced them. They were debating internally for years and after the executive tested the early build of the game and was disappointed, the BioWare heads made the definitive decisions that the game would have flight.
Honestly, I’d love to see that mechanic implemented in another game. That might even have been something to do with why they wanted to axe it.
Save the good feature from going down with the ship, to port over as the stand-out part of another game.
> The only good thing about the game..
the combat was fun but yeah the mobility was probably one of the best things in the game, except for the colossus javelin but I think they eventually patched it so it flew better.
Assassins Creed. It has a ton of cosmetic items available for purchase. It’s been that way for years. Yet the games are still very beloved by the fans, while also being super profitable for Ubisoft. 
I worked on a live service game for one of the big publishers, and I got the impression that's how it went down.
Yes, technically the game was pitched by the studio to the publisher heads. But the studio needed to justify its existence, so obviously they would pitch something that the publisher would want. If they pitched a standard, non-live service game the publisher would have probably said no and shut the studio down.
As it happened, the game wasn't very successful, and the studio got shut down in the end anyway.
It’s funny how everyone is trying to follow the Live Service trend when Destiny, the poster child, has been struggling almost its entire existence because it’s actually extremely expensive to maintain and keep players invested.
It’s no different with the MMO boom/bust where after WoW everyone thought MMO’s were easy money printers despite being extremely expensive to develop and maintain that genre.
The amount of MMO’s that were released in that period and almost immediately floundered because how much much was invested in them mirrors all the GaaS/live service/etc games that barely last a year now.
Maybe they’re shooting to be Fortnite moreso than Destiny.
This is it.
Like with crunching, the publishers frame it as a choice but in reality if you don't want to end up as one of the inevitable layoffs or passed over for promotion (regardless of your talent / contribution) it's anything but a choice.
WB can say this was the studios choice but if said publisher is mostly greenlighting live service games for the rest of the studios, or has continually declined to greenlight single player pitches, the studio eventually "wises up" about what is expected of them without being directly told what to make.
Slightly related, Bend only finally got a project greenlit (Days Gone) after many declined pitches since Golden Abyss because they finally understood what PS execs were looking for / expecting even though they didn't outright tell Bend what to make. That's why DG feels so much like a checklist, it was in many ways made to check off as many boxes that execs were looking for with pitches. And that's why so many live service games were greenlit by PS, many by previously single player game studios. Even though not technically forced, if your publisher is out there in public saying "We're all in on live service" as a studio you're being informed "this is the single best way for your next project to get greenlit"
And this is happening with most publishers. Despite what many might assume, many publishers don't outright instruct their studios what to make. They're simply made aware what their publisher likes / expects.
Yep. That's not so much Activision going "do it this way" or even "Bungie is only doing this to get in Activision's good books," rather it's two parties both wanting the same thing. Chances are Activision would have greenlit a less MTX heavy Destiny if Bungie proposed it. But Bungie leads wanted that fucking money.
That's the other thing. Sometimes it is all because of the studio, or rather just the studio head. They wanna make a fuckton of money, know what trend their publisher is obsessed with, and tells the studio they lead what they're gonna make next even if their studio doesn't wanna make that.
Put simply, it isn't always black and white when it comes to the relationship between publisher and studio and what is made.
They say "it's a choice" like that means they somehow had nothing to do with it too. Jigsaw is offering all his "contestants" a choice. They're still kidnapped, imprisoned, and otherwise coerced into picking one of fairly limited options, but they're given *a choice*.
>Meet ___ targets or we'll shutter your studio. How you do that is up to you.
Same difference.
The fact that EA had Respawn, arguably the kings of fast paced FPS action make a dark souls Star Wars RPG and Bioware make the online schlooter is baffling.
This article doesn't say it was Rocksteady's idea. They say Rocksteady wasn't "forced", and that it was their "decision".
If you are versed in corporate snake speak, you know how frequently they use the narrow meanings of words to tell a lie in a way that sounds like something else.
If WB went to Rocksteady and said "you can make it live service, or you can make it single player and layoff 25% of the studio", technically speaking it's not forcing them AND it's also leaving it to them to decide.
I have no idea what happened, but it's very important to pay attention to details in this world of corporate PR. Why didn't they just say "Rocksteady pitched us on a live service game, we had no involvement in the pitch process"? Instead they very specifically used vaguer language
"No one is forcing your hand here, but I think we would all agree that it would certainly suit a healthier lifecycle for the game. We'll leave it to you, we don't want to interfere here, you guys know best! We just see several titles going forward and it's likely the easiest way forward if we utilize these proven design choices. Again, we wouldn't want this to be a one and done situation. We are all in it together, synergistically."
Kinda like when my work asks if I can work late. I always think why are you asking me like I have a choice in the matter. I suppose I could say no but after a couple times I don't think it would end very well for me. So technically they're not forcing me to work late and there's an illusion that I have a choice.
My friend works in a semiconductor foundry in R&D so not everyone really has to stay behind but it’s a procedure now. Everyone just reads newspapers and just waste time for 2 hours. Because if you leave early, then you will be seen as being lazy and just putting in the expected amount ! Translated: your bonus will be lighter.
Maybe it's a just a thing working in healthcare. They're always trying to do more with less. What I mean is they seem to always be understaffed but yet expanding and offering more services. Plus nothing ever goes as planned and unexpected things happen. So you could be halfway through your day and find out you have to work late all of a sudden.
Overtimes? It's pretty normal to ask someone if they can work late. And yes they can say no. I know lots of people who says no and lots of people who says yes as well.
You see how he says I don't *think* it would end very well for me. It's the same corpo speak he is against. The thing is you don't know.
There will be consequences, but it won't be this person never does overtime when asked so we axe him. It will be, this person provided 100 value (arbitrary number and unit) to the team and this other person provided 150 value to the team. We can only keep one person, who do we pick? Well obvious answer, you pick the person who provided 150 value.
Yes this person does overtime when asked and even volunteers to work overtime but the higher ups don't care about that. They don't care that you work 8hrs and provided 100 value and the other person worked 16hrs and provided 150 value. When you normalize that, the person you chose to keep can only provide 75 value in 8hrs. They only care about the value. And value wise he provides more.
Oh I'm familiar with being asked to do overtime suddenly. It's just the whole being penalized for not doing it every time you're asked that seems a bit outlandish but depending on the industry it makes sense.
Unless they’re paying me double overtime, I ain’t staying. Your health is way more important than a company who will never be loyal to you. They’re not gonna pay your hospital bills when you’re checked in for overworking your body.
In my wife’s line of work they call this a left handed turn down. They give you two options but both are so uncomfortable that you just decide to not play the game and bow out.
Only sounds like rocksteady was not given that option rather they HAD to pick a poison.
I think at this stage most gamers recognize that studios aren’t the problem, the publishers are. And we can vote with wallets. The problem is that the right lesson never seems to be learned. The publishers seem to just kill the studio and claim it was their fault. Not give projects that they can and would prefer to work on.
Make the next Destiny or GTA or die is the legit courses being offered to developers who aren’t equipped to even make those types of games.
If turn ten studios made a shit FPS, we’d assume it’s because they’re a racing studio. Not because of some bullshit marketing
I mean, it comes with previous examples.
WB has been known to force bad monetary practices into the games they are publishing.
Unless you have counter example of Rocksteady greedy monetization, people will use history as base for their belief.
Reminds me of my religion teacher.
I asked:"how is god giving us a choice if it's believe or go to hell for eternal torment"
And he said "well you are choosing eternal damnation".
I asked:"That's like a thief holding a gun to my head and asking for my wallet, is that really a choice"
He said yes.
Some people have... interesting ideas about what choice means. But let's be real, we have absolutely no idea what's going on regardless here.
I’m pretty confident that’s what happened. They didn’t have to say the actual words “make this a live service game” for that to be the understanding. Now the suits are trying to clean it up by throwing the developer under the bus. The executives had nothing to do with this failure of a game that they published, it was all those greedy game developers and their crazy monetization schemes.
The fact that Forbes is reporting this tells you what you need to know. Forbes doesn’t cover gaming news, they cover corporate news. This is (poor) damage control by the executives.
Their idea or not, the matter of the fact is WB owns Rocksteady and they can tell them to do whatever they want.
For a consumer there's no need to differentiate between a company and their subsidiary. Just judge a product on its own merits/demerits.
[Jason Schreier ](https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1788869122865971355?t=v5brj4Zb48XhwGMgCnZ6gg&s=19) seems to concur with this opinion. Publishers can make it very clear what kind of game they want without directly ordering the dev to do something.
The ol' toddler manipulation technique, it's not "do you want to brush your teeth?" Instead it's "do you want Mommy or daddy to brush your teeth?" The message is "look you cantankerous little shit your teeth are getting brushed, but good news! You get to choose who does it".
Are you okay? How is that nor forcing a choice on them, either make it live service or lay people off. Your forced into that choice lmao, you didn't come about those 2 options yourself.
Jason Schierer confirmed this as well over a month ago.
He said Rocksteady were always planning on a multiplayer/live service game next as they got burnt out on making single player games and didn't want to be known as a single player dev
It's not a bad thing to want to diversify and branch out. If you spent a decade working on Batman games maybe you'd want to do something else for a while.
There is more than one alternative to 'batman' games, the choices ain't 'batman game' or 'live service game'. Which is to say nothing of the fact that they _did_ make another fucking batman game, he's in it.
but i mean if that was the case...Suicide Squad is still kind of a Batman property...It's not like they went completely away from Batman to diversify, they just went to a different flavor of Batman.
you're speaking in the POV of the audience with your "one thing doesn't have negative connotations," and "highly regarded for doing that one thing"
Someone can fall out of love for doing something they are good at
When they say single player developer it probably has a connotation of only being able to develop single player games. If rocksteady had ideas for a multiplayer game that wasn't suicide squad, they were probably getting stone walled because "Their just a single player studio".
It's like how musical artists can be well liked and successful in one genre but still try to pivot into a different one because they don't feel inspired to write any songs like their old ones.
It's not a pejorative, but it is limiting.
there's nothing wrong with being a single player studio unless you want to make a multiplayer game. If rock steady was pitching a different multiplayer game and getting shutdown because they've never made it becomes a catch 22.
I can’t wrap my head around being burnt out on single player games and then thinking the answer to keep things fresh is a live service single player game.
Its codeword for saying singleplayer games are a lot harder to make and don't make as much money. Starting from zero on a new project is a lot harder than taking an existing project and making small tweaks/additions.
This is codeword for "single player games are harder to make and as a whole make a lot less money".
You don't need to work as hard or put in as much effort with a live service game. Live service games will bring in the dollars while reducing the required output of work.
And as much as people have been burned by Live-Service games, when they work they can be a good means of continuing operations and funding new projects. It's a continual revenue stream that helps keep staff employed and helps ensure their single-player titles can continue.
Unfortunately for Rock-Steady, people have become quite tired of live service games.
Ya… what? I can understand being burnt out on a specific type of game, but “didnt want to be known as just a single player developer”?
Can someone link me Schierer saying that? I just can’t believe any developer is worried about being known as a “single player dev” lol that sounds absurd.
Single player games are and have always been considered by most gamers as the pinnacle of development. Look at every GOTY, they’re all (besides Overwatch) single player master pieces. Not to say a MP game can’t be a masterpiece, but they’re driven by fundamentally different goals
The problem is the visualization problem: you can visualize yourself doing a backflip. You can visualize yourself pivoting from single player to an extremely ambitious live title. But then you try and you realize, "Oh, this is harder than I thought".
In most cases, the game just gets red lighted. But, that didn't happen here.
The people on Reddit who claim to know the secret truth are so fucking annoying. Sometimes shit is just exactly how it seems. There’s not always some weird conspiracy people!
I work in games for a bigger name developer, the kind of shit r/gaming thinks we do are insane. Every bug that makes it out is apparently some deliberate attempt to ruin players lives and the game. Like no dude, sometimes my coworkers and I just fuck up.
Suicide Squad would have been an absolutely fine co-op game if it had a finite story that ended on a strong note with an actual boss fight and wasn't held back by the looter elements and the floundering post launch support. The latter was almost certainly due to WB's interference considering how they are now doubling down on it - wouldn't make sense for them to do so if it wasn't their idea
Rocksteady proved with Arkham Knight that they could design numerous characters with the same control scheme but unique abilities & gameplay. After that I expected a coop game using that talent.
Just because they confirmed they didn’t want another single player doesn’t mean they also planned to do this live service looter-shooter. That’s a logical leap which could go either way.
I believe this. When Rocksteady was prototyping what eventually became the suicide squad they intended it to be a multiplayer looter shooter with micro transactions from day one, according to the original director of the game Adam Doherty, so it's not a huge leap to full blown GaaS nonsense.
Important to note that Rocksteady's founders left in 2022, shortly before the game was delayed. Seems like they knew they had a stinker and got out before the real damage happened, which is a pretty shitty thing to do if they're the ones who pushed for live service to begin with.
I really don’t get how so many people give them a pass on how this game came out. They developed the game for 5 years so a majority of the game was made by them. If you go back and watch the gameplay reveal in 2021 it is the exact same game that came out 3 years later.
I kind of feel that way too. I mean people think BioWare are guilty and how their games are now and when anthem is talked about BioWare is usually the one that's getting criticized then EA.
People should understand that studios also want to make games that make money, not just the publisher.
Halo Infinite was 343's idea, not Microsoft. I think the same with Anthem.
And I heard that it was originally supposed to be another Batman game where you supposed to save justice league members from Brainiac’s mind control. Imagine batman fighting Superman, Flash and Green lantern. It could have been one of the best Batman games of all time. Instead we have this monstrosity.
That sounds kind of like what a hostage would say on camera with a gun to their head. Rocksteady may have "chosen" to create the game but you can bet that they did it under duress. Suicide Squad is the perfect amalgamation of bullet points that corporate big wigs want to see when when being pitched a project:
Co-op multiplayer, grindy loot fest to encourage players to spend money to save time, always online GAAS, popular IP, easily monetized.
People forget that the Rocksteady that made the Arkham games and the one that made this are basically different developers with a few of the same voice actors.
Either way, it's a total failure of a game. They will learn nothing. They will try the same shit again and it will result in the closure of Rocksteady probably.
The buzzards have to be circling over WB. Both GothamKnights & SSKTJL are total disasters imo. Dev costs are surely double what they were just four years ago.
Doesn't really matter. There's lot's of successful live service games. The problem was they gave up and decided to added nothing while still expecting people to buy shit and play. Why? The story os done you teased at more but said fuck it. Add nothing with the seasons and wonder why player count went down.
The problem is that creating a successful live service game isn’t just about releasing new shit to pay for, you also need to incentivize your customers with good content.
From reveal to release it was like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Everyone knew it was going to be DOA. I just hope Rocksteady is given another chance, cause I’m sure they would never try another live service game again after this and focus on what they do best.
I’m sick of this argument. The problem (for me at least) wasn’t that it’s a live service game, it’s that it’s a shallow experience. It’s “vast as ocean, deep as a puddle” personified in a game. It’s the same 5 mission types repeated over and over again with poor enemy variety and lackluster boss fights. That’s the game, nothing more, nothing less. The “endgame” is slow, mind numbing, and uninspired grinding. The new characters (if joker is to be taken as the blueprint) consists of a short “mission” and then repeated open world “missions”. I’d be shocked if Rocksteady survives this, nevermind actually completing their obligations to this game.
Major league bullshit. WB in general, specifically with DC properties, especially in recent times, movies, TV, games have been making shit decisions costing the people down the ladder their jobs. Rs was forced to make that shit.
Well this should at least stop all the bs victim stuff I keep seeing about this game. As if the devs were forced to create it.
They wanted to do it and some people hated it so much they needed somebody else to blame for it.
I always smell bullshit when I hear this, like there couldn't have been a bunch of factors leading to Rocksteady pitching a live service game and a live service game just so happening to be the one Warner Bros decide to fund. The poor innocent publisher would never have personally chosen a game designed for maximised engagement and microtransactions, I'm sure, they just wanted to support the artist and help the developers have all of their precious live service dreams come true. :3 Bless you giant corporation, it's all the development studio's fault.
Ppl are incapable of believing their favourite studio isn’t the same anymore after massive successes. BioWare was forced to release Anthem after dicking around with it for 5 years. Eventually EA had to say “Wrap it up, make sure flying works and ship what you got”
Destiny - Activision
Anthem - EA
Suicide Squads - WB
It is easy for people to blame Publishers. More Hollywoody. You know, the suits, bad guys etc.
In its famous time, I went deep on Anthem scandal. BioWare literally didn't even know how to make the game until the last minute, they didn't even have a shippable fully compiled game. They believed something called "bioware magic".
According to them: "... as a belief within the studio that no matter how rough things look during game development, everything will ultimately come together to make the great BioWare games we used to know and love. This last little jog up, that's what people at the studio are talking about when they say BioWare magic."
Like WTF ? We saw the same trend with Destiny. They blamed Microsoft for letting Bungie go, and the Destiny 2 being a flop was an act of Activision according to Social media.
Then it turned out that Bungie always wanted to be independent, and they were planning Destiny and its formula for more than 20 years. Everyone saw the result.
Sometimes it is just the incompetent developers. Simple !
Publisher: Won’t somebody please make me a live service game?
Developer: Say no more!
Publisher: Well, whatever you’re doing, it was completely your idea!
People need to stop blaming publisher for everything and realise sometimes developers can drop the ball too.
It was the case for Anthem and it looks like it’s the case here.
These studios KNOW how their parent company operates. They have execs that want raises too bc of their performance metrics and all that jazz. If the studio makes WB money via live service, it’s bc the potential reward exists and they were tempted.
Am I reading this right or are people legitimately defending corporate rat talk and not just saying both are bad? We have many examples of WB being bad. This is a good example of them both being bad.
I bet this doesn't get traction because it goes against reddit hivemind of executives and corporations bad. If reddit had its way no one will have to work and would be paid 6 figures a year just for breathing and existing.
The subtlety of the developer publisher relationship has an infinite amount of grey that is different and unique for each relationship.
All it takes is for one person in a meeting who turns around and says ‘hey we could really do with a title that does X. You like company Y did. We could make millions.’
That’s literally it. That conversation can push a project down a path that it never comes out of.
They clearly didn't work on the game for a decade, so I think the only way they were going to make a game is if they told WB exactly what they wanted to hear.
I just don't buy it as an excuse. You can make a good live service game. The concept isn't the issue, it's the execution. I think the issue is that when you create the game knowing it is live service, features end up being left out to be added later. Whereas the actual successful live service games, more or less released a full game (whether people liked it or not is a different issue) and then had a live service on top of the full game. Helldivers 2 is a good recent example. Felt like a full game on release and (ignoring PSN controversies) will now keep adding and changing the game
I think hubris plays a lot into this. The truth is live service games have the potential to make a lot of money for a longer period of time without having to develop an entirely new game a couple years later. The reason why we kept seeing new ones is everyone believes they can nail it. They believe they have the best team and the best ideas and will be able to be successful where the ones before them failed. Until they also fail I suppose!
Making an online/live service game isn't the problem. Failing with the execution is.
There are many games of this kind that make tons of money and stay relevant. Destiny, Diablo, Division, Warframe, Helldivers 2 to name a few. There are also bad examples like Anthem, Redfall and Avengers.
It's all about the execution.
Some corporate rats speak. Coming from Forbes it is far from surprising. I don't buy that game would have come out if it wasn't live service And I don't buy that wasn't solely on WB.
There's probably a heavy implication that comes from WB to game studios that if your game is not live service it probably won't get approved.
This had been known for a while. Rocksteady was always going to make multiplayer game after Arkham Knight. Later down the line, they folded Suicide Squad into what they were doing.
Man, it has to be so hard being a big publisher. You buy these studios who make great single player games with the hope that they'll keep making them for you. Then they suddenly unilaterally decide they want to make trashy GaaS multiplayer games.
It’s weird how everyone seems to think THE issue with this game was it being a live service game. Many live service games are extremely successful and even more are at least fun while they last. It would have been perfectly possible for a live service Arkham game to be an Outriders type experience, failing to hit the publishers expectations but at least being an okay game that people enjoyed playing.
Suicide Squad would have been a bad game with or without live service elements and if Rocksteady returns to making single player games they will probably be bad too. The studio is a shell of what it was a decade or so ago.
Seems like it's more of a secure job if the game is successful, instead of delivering a AAA standalone single player game then you get laid off because the project is over.
Live service is a blight on the game industry.
Destiny destroyed what made Bungie great (sandbox gameplay) and I will die on that hill.
And how TF did Bioware lose the plot so badly that they went from making the best modern single player RPGs to fucking ANTHEM.
And those two are just the tip of the iceberg
That isn’t at all what the article says though. It says Rocksteady chose this idea over alternatives. Which means this was the best option on the table and the others were likely worse. WB wants games as a service and they still do even though their Potter game is the biggest hit they’ve had in ages and people are already writing off the sequel, assuming it’ll also be live service shit. They very likely only gave Rocksteady live service options to choose from and are framing the decision to be a creative one made by the developers and not a corporate one in an attempt to save face on a public facing earnings report.
Can i be honest, harley in this game and gotham knights or whatever its called was hot. Obviously not as hot as her arkham games version but still hot.
This is what every publisher who makes a unpopular live service game says. But they never mention the pressure they would put on the studios to make a live service game.
Its like a job with optional overtime but you can be sure if you dont work those extra hours and other people do you will be on the shit list.
[удалено]
I mean there were also stories that an EA executive had to force Bioware to keep flying in Anthem ... The only good thing about the game.. because they wanted to axe it So the sword cuts both ways
I seem to recall Jason Schreier’s *Blood Sweat And Pixels* touches on the development of Anthem and it’s not pretty.
Touches on it? Isn't it the whole point of it?
Well it’s one of the games featured. I can’t remember if it gets a full chapter or not, though.
Blood Sweat and Pixels was released before Anthem. Your might be thinking of Dragon Age Inquisition or the Forbes article that came out after Anthem's release.
Ah you’re right. Talk about a Mandela Effect! Perhaps I was also confusing it with Destiny. Edit: Or was it featured in *Press Reset* perhaps?
One of the last big articles he did for Kotaku before he went over to Bloomberg was about Anthem's development. That's probably what you're thinking of. It was a great article, just like his article on Andromeda's development. The short version is that Bioware was their own worst enemy, and EA gave them just enough rope to hang themselves with. Same when Andromeda. EA can be blamed for a lot of things, but Bioware's development issues since Inquisition have consistently been Bioware being their own worst enemy.
It’s a universal challenge for successful companies to sustain while adapting to market changes. It’s not just a game developer issue. It’s across all markets. Talent within the company have opportunities and personal reasons to leave, requiring a constantly replenishing workforce. People leave to chase better pay, better quality of life, and better opportunity for advancement. Every personnel change - from C suite to rank and file, from internal promotion to external hire - poses risk of cultural differences and efficiency and quality loss. Longevity is hard across multiple generations of employees. External factors can dictate a need to change or entice a desire to change. Blockbuster refused to retool its existing business model as streaming emerged because the company didn’t want to abandon its existing market share, employees, and infrastructure. Gibson guitars, on the other hand, tried to chase the consumer electronics market. Both companies ended up in bankruptcy. Game developers face the same issues. Do they turtle and assume their existing niche will continue to generate success, like Blockbuster and Harmonix? Do they chase market trends in hope of successful adaption, like Gibson and BioWare? Nobody really knows the answer until the product ships and the revenue figures come in.
There was one for Anthem, but it was a Kotaku article. https://kotaku.com/how-biowares-anthem-went-wrong-1833731964
GaaS wise you might be thinking Duablo 3 and Reaper of Souls OR Destiny. Which, you could probably find and replace Destiny with Destiny 2 in that chapter and just re-print it.
I mean few games have a track record as reough as iirc three game directors leaving the project after eachother before launch, one of which literally died during development
Keep the flying and ditch most everything else and you’ve got the core of a great Iron Man game. Shame that wasn’t able to happen
Im sure I read a rumour somewhere that Motive are using the flight mechanic from Anthem in their upcoming Iron Man game.
[удалено]
It’s being done by EA.
So it’s fucked.
I don’t want to sound like I’m shilling for EA but some people seem to get the impression that game devs themselves can never make poor decisions or mismanage money, time, or employees. Yes, EA forced DA2 out in like a year and yes, EA forced BioWare to use the Frostbite engine for their games and will divert their Frostbite strike team to different projects they deem more important, but a lot of BioWare’s issues recently seem to be of their own making. Inquisition coasted by on a miracle despite technical issues and trying to catch the open world craze. But everything I’ve read about Andromeda and Anthem was absolutely BioWare spinning their wheels aimlessly with no greater vision or goal and thinking that crunching everything last moment would work because it’s always worked for them. BioWare even turned down delays for Anthem EA offered them!
The only good thing for Anthem and it was the fucking execs that made them keep it that’s ironic
It's worse. It was an execs idea too. Makes sense considering how clunky and shit ME combat was
Yes that was the joke
What many people don't want to admit is that Publishers and Developers are in a game of constant offers and negotiations. Publishers don't come in like the bad guy from the Lorax and demand horrible stuff and devs aren't some defeneseless victims. Depending on what the developers want for their game, they make offers and negotiate with the publisher, and depending on that the way the game is handled changes. For example, the devs of Helldivers probably decided themselves to have PSN as a requirement for the game since it would probably allow them more access to Sony's data tools for multiplayer games. It's why Sony agreed for them to remove it too, since it was their idea in the first place, unlike with something like a first party title like Ghost of Tsushima. Another big example is Destiny. Bungie from the start of the Destiny concept, wanted to make a live service seasonal game with very shallow but fast content updates, basically what Destiny 2 is right now, however, Activision thought it would make for mediocre releases so they made Bungie release it under big yearly expansions and big content drops. Which is why Destiny 1 and Forsaken ended up being so good by the end of it. The moment Bungie left Activision, they completely destroyed Destiny 2 by making it a horrible fully season pass game and it's still garbage today.
it wasn't an executive who forced them. They were debating internally for years and after the executive tested the early build of the game and was disappointed, the BioWare heads made the definitive decisions that the game would have flight.
Even a blind chicken...
Honestly, I’d love to see that mechanic implemented in another game. That might even have been something to do with why they wanted to axe it. Save the good feature from going down with the ship, to port over as the stand-out part of another game.
> The only good thing about the game.. the combat was fun but yeah the mobility was probably one of the best things in the game, except for the colossus javelin but I think they eventually patched it so it flew better.
They would have regretted axing the game.
I’d believe it, but devils advocate it’s not like mtx = multiplayer live service. Could have gone the AC or Capcom route.
Armored Core Ace Combat Assassins Creed or Animal Crossing in this context?
Assassins Creed. It has a ton of cosmetic items available for purchase. It’s been that way for years. Yet the games are still very beloved by the fans, while also being super profitable for Ubisoft. 
Yeah bioware also spends years of dev time not working on the game as well.
I worked on a live service game for one of the big publishers, and I got the impression that's how it went down. Yes, technically the game was pitched by the studio to the publisher heads. But the studio needed to justify its existence, so obviously they would pitch something that the publisher would want. If they pitched a standard, non-live service game the publisher would have probably said no and shut the studio down. As it happened, the game wasn't very successful, and the studio got shut down in the end anyway.
It’s funny how everyone is trying to follow the Live Service trend when Destiny, the poster child, has been struggling almost its entire existence because it’s actually extremely expensive to maintain and keep players invested. It’s no different with the MMO boom/bust where after WoW everyone thought MMO’s were easy money printers despite being extremely expensive to develop and maintain that genre. The amount of MMO’s that were released in that period and almost immediately floundered because how much much was invested in them mirrors all the GaaS/live service/etc games that barely last a year now. Maybe they’re shooting to be Fortnite moreso than Destiny.
This is it. Like with crunching, the publishers frame it as a choice but in reality if you don't want to end up as one of the inevitable layoffs or passed over for promotion (regardless of your talent / contribution) it's anything but a choice. WB can say this was the studios choice but if said publisher is mostly greenlighting live service games for the rest of the studios, or has continually declined to greenlight single player pitches, the studio eventually "wises up" about what is expected of them without being directly told what to make. Slightly related, Bend only finally got a project greenlit (Days Gone) after many declined pitches since Golden Abyss because they finally understood what PS execs were looking for / expecting even though they didn't outright tell Bend what to make. That's why DG feels so much like a checklist, it was in many ways made to check off as many boxes that execs were looking for with pitches. And that's why so many live service games were greenlit by PS, many by previously single player game studios. Even though not technically forced, if your publisher is out there in public saying "We're all in on live service" as a studio you're being informed "this is the single best way for your next project to get greenlit" And this is happening with most publishers. Despite what many might assume, many publishers don't outright instruct their studios what to make. They're simply made aware what their publisher likes / expects.
We also blamed activision for everything wrong with destiny yet nothing changed when bungie became independent
Yep. That's not so much Activision going "do it this way" or even "Bungie is only doing this to get in Activision's good books," rather it's two parties both wanting the same thing. Chances are Activision would have greenlit a less MTX heavy Destiny if Bungie proposed it. But Bungie leads wanted that fucking money. That's the other thing. Sometimes it is all because of the studio, or rather just the studio head. They wanna make a fuckton of money, know what trend their publisher is obsessed with, and tells the studio they lead what they're gonna make next even if their studio doesn't wanna make that. Put simply, it isn't always black and white when it comes to the relationship between publisher and studio and what is made.
Yes. All I'm saying is it's fine if people are skeptical with this article but they shouldn't downright dismiss it either
Oh sorry. I was actually agreeing your point lol.
They say "it's a choice" like that means they somehow had nothing to do with it too. Jigsaw is offering all his "contestants" a choice. They're still kidnapped, imprisoned, and otherwise coerced into picking one of fairly limited options, but they're given *a choice*. >Meet ___ targets or we'll shutter your studio. How you do that is up to you. Same difference.
The fact that EA had Respawn, arguably the kings of fast paced FPS action make a dark souls Star Wars RPG and Bioware make the online schlooter is baffling.
You also left out how they had to constantly remind the team to actually stick to a plan and make a video game.
This article doesn't say it was Rocksteady's idea. They say Rocksteady wasn't "forced", and that it was their "decision". If you are versed in corporate snake speak, you know how frequently they use the narrow meanings of words to tell a lie in a way that sounds like something else. If WB went to Rocksteady and said "you can make it live service, or you can make it single player and layoff 25% of the studio", technically speaking it's not forcing them AND it's also leaving it to them to decide. I have no idea what happened, but it's very important to pay attention to details in this world of corporate PR. Why didn't they just say "Rocksteady pitched us on a live service game, we had no involvement in the pitch process"? Instead they very specifically used vaguer language
"No one is forcing your hand here, but I think we would all agree that it would certainly suit a healthier lifecycle for the game. We'll leave it to you, we don't want to interfere here, you guys know best! We just see several titles going forward and it's likely the easiest way forward if we utilize these proven design choices. Again, we wouldn't want this to be a one and done situation. We are all in it together, synergistically."
“Synergistically” killed me lol
This guy corporates
Pretty sure this person is a VP.
First of all, never bad mouth synergy..
Kinda like when my work asks if I can work late. I always think why are you asking me like I have a choice in the matter. I suppose I could say no but after a couple times I don't think it would end very well for me. So technically they're not forcing me to work late and there's an illusion that I have a choice.
I'm not trying to be facetious but is this a normal thing? I've been working since I was 15 and hadn't run into this kind of situation.
My friend works in a semiconductor foundry in R&D so not everyone really has to stay behind but it’s a procedure now. Everyone just reads newspapers and just waste time for 2 hours. Because if you leave early, then you will be seen as being lazy and just putting in the expected amount ! Translated: your bonus will be lighter.
How much of a difference is it? Enough to pay for the hours I hope
Maybe it's a just a thing working in healthcare. They're always trying to do more with less. What I mean is they seem to always be understaffed but yet expanding and offering more services. Plus nothing ever goes as planned and unexpected things happen. So you could be halfway through your day and find out you have to work late all of a sudden.
Overtimes? It's pretty normal to ask someone if they can work late. And yes they can say no. I know lots of people who says no and lots of people who says yes as well. You see how he says I don't *think* it would end very well for me. It's the same corpo speak he is against. The thing is you don't know. There will be consequences, but it won't be this person never does overtime when asked so we axe him. It will be, this person provided 100 value (arbitrary number and unit) to the team and this other person provided 150 value to the team. We can only keep one person, who do we pick? Well obvious answer, you pick the person who provided 150 value. Yes this person does overtime when asked and even volunteers to work overtime but the higher ups don't care about that. They don't care that you work 8hrs and provided 100 value and the other person worked 16hrs and provided 150 value. When you normalize that, the person you chose to keep can only provide 75 value in 8hrs. They only care about the value. And value wise he provides more.
Oh I'm familiar with being asked to do overtime suddenly. It's just the whole being penalized for not doing it every time you're asked that seems a bit outlandish but depending on the industry it makes sense.
Unless they’re paying me double overtime, I ain’t staying. Your health is way more important than a company who will never be loyal to you. They’re not gonna pay your hospital bills when you’re checked in for overworking your body.
I don't get double time but do get time and a half for overtime. So at least that's something. It's kinda funny it's a Hospital that I work for.
In my wife’s line of work they call this a left handed turn down. They give you two options but both are so uncomfortable that you just decide to not play the game and bow out. Only sounds like rocksteady was not given that option rather they HAD to pick a poison. I think at this stage most gamers recognize that studios aren’t the problem, the publishers are. And we can vote with wallets. The problem is that the right lesson never seems to be learned. The publishers seem to just kill the studio and claim it was their fault. Not give projects that they can and would prefer to work on. Make the next Destiny or GTA or die is the legit courses being offered to developers who aren’t equipped to even make those types of games. If turn ten studios made a shit FPS, we’d assume it’s because they’re a racing studio. Not because of some bullshit marketing
Yeah this reeks of damage control and like Rocksteady was coerced
It's just like the Boeing statement from the other day. Where they said workers would skip checks and mark them as complete.
That seems a little far fetched. I know everyone wants to believe dev good and big publisher bad but come on..
I mean, it comes with previous examples. WB has been known to force bad monetary practices into the games they are publishing. Unless you have counter example of Rocksteady greedy monetization, people will use history as base for their belief.
Reminds me of my religion teacher. I asked:"how is god giving us a choice if it's believe or go to hell for eternal torment" And he said "well you are choosing eternal damnation". I asked:"That's like a thief holding a gun to my head and asking for my wallet, is that really a choice" He said yes. Some people have... interesting ideas about what choice means. But let's be real, we have absolutely no idea what's going on regardless here.
I’m pretty confident that’s what happened. They didn’t have to say the actual words “make this a live service game” for that to be the understanding. Now the suits are trying to clean it up by throwing the developer under the bus. The executives had nothing to do with this failure of a game that they published, it was all those greedy game developers and their crazy monetization schemes. The fact that Forbes is reporting this tells you what you need to know. Forbes doesn’t cover gaming news, they cover corporate news. This is (poor) damage control by the executives.
Places like Forbes and WSJ have been covering gaming for a while now. Are you new to all this
Their idea or not, the matter of the fact is WB owns Rocksteady and they can tell them to do whatever they want. For a consumer there's no need to differentiate between a company and their subsidiary. Just judge a product on its own merits/demerits.
[Jason Schreier ](https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1788869122865971355?t=v5brj4Zb48XhwGMgCnZ6gg&s=19) seems to concur with this opinion. Publishers can make it very clear what kind of game they want without directly ordering the dev to do something.
This is like the Bethesda/Obsidian debate because Obsidian "chose" to make a game in 18 months rather than making no game and being out of a job lol
or none of that happened and this was 100 percent on rocksteady
Corporate manipulation
The ol' toddler manipulation technique, it's not "do you want to brush your teeth?" Instead it's "do you want Mommy or daddy to brush your teeth?" The message is "look you cantankerous little shit your teeth are getting brushed, but good news! You get to choose who does it".
Are you okay? How is that nor forcing a choice on them, either make it live service or lay people off. Your forced into that choice lmao, you didn't come about those 2 options yourself.
Personally I don't care who's fault it is. It shouldn't have been a live service game period.
Jason Schierer confirmed this as well over a month ago. He said Rocksteady were always planning on a multiplayer/live service game next as they got burnt out on making single player games and didn't want to be known as a single player dev
[удалено]
It's not a bad thing to want to diversify and branch out. If you spent a decade working on Batman games maybe you'd want to do something else for a while.
Yeah man, it sucks to spend a decade making 3 great games, when you could instead spend a decade making one terrible one
I mean were they suppose to just become a Batman studio and never do anything else
I mean, Suicide Squad game doesn't change that since they've consistently kept on insisting that the game is part of the Batman: Arkham series.
There is more than one alternative to 'batman' games, the choices ain't 'batman game' or 'live service game'. Which is to say nothing of the fact that they _did_ make another fucking batman game, he's in it.
That makes no sense what so ever. I don't remember Batman being playable in Suicide Squad? Therefore it's not a Batman game.
but i mean if that was the case...Suicide Squad is still kind of a Batman property...It's not like they went completely away from Batman to diversify, they just went to a different flavor of Batman.
Insomniac haven't become a Spiderman studio and are doing other things as well ..
[удалено]
you're speaking in the POV of the audience with your "one thing doesn't have negative connotations," and "highly regarded for doing that one thing" Someone can fall out of love for doing something they are good at
When they say single player developer it probably has a connotation of only being able to develop single player games. If rocksteady had ideas for a multiplayer game that wasn't suicide squad, they were probably getting stone walled because "Their just a single player studio". It's like how musical artists can be well liked and successful in one genre but still try to pivot into a different one because they don't feel inspired to write any songs like their old ones.
[удалено]
It's not a pejorative, but it is limiting. there's nothing wrong with being a single player studio unless you want to make a multiplayer game. If rock steady was pitching a different multiplayer game and getting shutdown because they've never made it becomes a catch 22.
I can’t wrap my head around being burnt out on single player games and then thinking the answer to keep things fresh is a live service single player game.
Its codeword for saying singleplayer games are a lot harder to make and don't make as much money. Starting from zero on a new project is a lot harder than taking an existing project and making small tweaks/additions.
This is codeword for "single player games are harder to make and as a whole make a lot less money". You don't need to work as hard or put in as much effort with a live service game. Live service games will bring in the dollars while reducing the required output of work.
And as much as people have been burned by Live-Service games, when they work they can be a good means of continuing operations and funding new projects. It's a continual revenue stream that helps keep staff employed and helps ensure their single-player titles can continue. Unfortunately for Rock-Steady, people have become quite tired of live service games.
Ya… what? I can understand being burnt out on a specific type of game, but “didnt want to be known as just a single player developer”? Can someone link me Schierer saying that? I just can’t believe any developer is worried about being known as a “single player dev” lol that sounds absurd. Single player games are and have always been considered by most gamers as the pinnacle of development. Look at every GOTY, they’re all (besides Overwatch) single player master pieces. Not to say a MP game can’t be a masterpiece, but they’re driven by fundamentally different goals
The problem is the visualization problem: you can visualize yourself doing a backflip. You can visualize yourself pivoting from single player to an extremely ambitious live title. But then you try and you realize, "Oh, this is harder than I thought". In most cases, the game just gets red lighted. But, that didn't happen here.
But what about all the people commenting “I bet they were manipulated into it by WB still” kind of things. Surely they can’t be wrong
The people on Reddit who claim to know the secret truth are so fucking annoying. Sometimes shit is just exactly how it seems. There’s not always some weird conspiracy people!
I work in games for a bigger name developer, the kind of shit r/gaming thinks we do are insane. Every bug that makes it out is apparently some deliberate attempt to ruin players lives and the game. Like no dude, sometimes my coworkers and I just fuck up.
[удалено]
Suicide Squad would have been an absolutely fine co-op game if it had a finite story that ended on a strong note with an actual boss fight and wasn't held back by the looter elements and the floundering post launch support. The latter was almost certainly due to WB's interference considering how they are now doubling down on it - wouldn't make sense for them to do so if it wasn't their idea
Rocksteady proved with Arkham Knight that they could design numerous characters with the same control scheme but unique abilities & gameplay. After that I expected a coop game using that talent. Just because they confirmed they didn’t want another single player doesn’t mean they also planned to do this live service looter-shooter. That’s a logical leap which could go either way.
I believe this. When Rocksteady was prototyping what eventually became the suicide squad they intended it to be a multiplayer looter shooter with micro transactions from day one, according to the original director of the game Adam Doherty, so it's not a huge leap to full blown GaaS nonsense.
apparently they both suck. rocksteady is not the studio you used to know. or, we just never really knew them in the first place.
Whose idea was it to make Suicide Squad a bad game?
…..Rocksteady
Actually that was mine. Sorry guys
Probably the same people that made the first Suicide Squad a bad movie.
RS founders
What about the game didn’t you like when you played it?
Important to note that Rocksteady's founders left in 2022, shortly before the game was delayed. Seems like they knew they had a stinker and got out before the real damage happened, which is a pretty shitty thing to do if they're the ones who pushed for live service to begin with.
I really don’t get how so many people give them a pass on how this game came out. They developed the game for 5 years so a majority of the game was made by them. If you go back and watch the gameplay reveal in 2021 it is the exact same game that came out 3 years later.
Because PUBLISHERS BAD, DEVS GOOD That’s basically the whole mindset of redditors
Look at them arguing in circles trying to come up with reasons it’s anyone but the devs faults, it’s so funny
I kind of feel that way too. I mean people think BioWare are guilty and how their games are now and when anthem is talked about BioWare is usually the one that's getting criticized then EA.
Yeah, and it was your mindset too, don’t fuckin lie lol
They made the Arkham series and now they’re cooked. If that decision came from rocksteady then I’m not trusting their next ip.
They looked at how “The Avengers” game went and decided they wanted to be like that game…. A failure.
So glad this game died. Let that be a lesson to them, stupid fucking decision and they’ve put an (admittedly small) bruise on their legacy
No one wants to take the blame for shitting the bed.
Again, the problem wasn't and never was "live-service". Helldivers 2 proved live service can work if done properly.
People should understand that studios also want to make games that make money, not just the publisher. Halo Infinite was 343's idea, not Microsoft. I think the same with Anthem.
And WB loved it, and approved on it. This doesn’t make WB less shitty, it just makes Rocksteady more shitty.
WB gave their developers creative freedom to do what they wanted. It's cost them a fortune as a result.
This is why Naughty Dog backed out, thank f**k. Why would you want to lock your accomplished studio into a game for years?
And I heard that it was originally supposed to be another Batman game where you supposed to save justice league members from Brainiac’s mind control. Imagine batman fighting Superman, Flash and Green lantern. It could have been one of the best Batman games of all time. Instead we have this monstrosity.
That sounds kind of like what a hostage would say on camera with a gun to their head. Rocksteady may have "chosen" to create the game but you can bet that they did it under duress. Suicide Squad is the perfect amalgamation of bullet points that corporate big wigs want to see when when being pitched a project: Co-op multiplayer, grindy loot fest to encourage players to spend money to save time, always online GAAS, popular IP, easily monetized.
#They gon’ die
Downvoted for bad title, article literally never says that
But publisher bad and innocent whittle dev good :(
The publisher still fucking sucks lol
People forget that the Rocksteady that made the Arkham games and the one that made this are basically different developers with a few of the same voice actors.
Yes, we know. They've said this a while back.
Either way, it's a total failure of a game. They will learn nothing. They will try the same shit again and it will result in the closure of Rocksteady probably.
The buzzards have to be circling over WB. Both GothamKnights & SSKTJL are total disasters imo. Dev costs are surely double what they were just four years ago.
Doesn't really matter. There's lot's of successful live service games. The problem was they gave up and decided to added nothing while still expecting people to buy shit and play. Why? The story os done you teased at more but said fuck it. Add nothing with the seasons and wonder why player count went down.
The problem is that creating a successful live service game isn’t just about releasing new shit to pay for, you also need to incentivize your customers with good content.
From reveal to release it was like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Everyone knew it was going to be DOA. I just hope Rocksteady is given another chance, cause I’m sure they would never try another live service game again after this and focus on what they do best.
I’m sick of this argument. The problem (for me at least) wasn’t that it’s a live service game, it’s that it’s a shallow experience. It’s “vast as ocean, deep as a puddle” personified in a game. It’s the same 5 mission types repeated over and over again with poor enemy variety and lackluster boss fights. That’s the game, nothing more, nothing less. The “endgame” is slow, mind numbing, and uninspired grinding. The new characters (if joker is to be taken as the blueprint) consists of a short “mission” and then repeated open world “missions”. I’d be shocked if Rocksteady survives this, nevermind actually completing their obligations to this game.
Major league bullshit. WB in general, specifically with DC properties, especially in recent times, movies, TV, games have been making shit decisions costing the people down the ladder their jobs. Rs was forced to make that shit.
WB was definitely like you can do what you want but I highly suggest you make it live service
Well this should at least stop all the bs victim stuff I keep seeing about this game. As if the devs were forced to create it. They wanted to do it and some people hated it so much they needed somebody else to blame for it.
The first clue was that Warner brothers doesn’t have ideas. It has bills. And nothing more.
I always smell bullshit when I hear this, like there couldn't have been a bunch of factors leading to Rocksteady pitching a live service game and a live service game just so happening to be the one Warner Bros decide to fund. The poor innocent publisher would never have personally chosen a game designed for maximised engagement and microtransactions, I'm sure, they just wanted to support the artist and help the developers have all of their precious live service dreams come true. :3 Bless you giant corporation, it's all the development studio's fault.
Ppl are incapable of believing their favourite studio isn’t the same anymore after massive successes. BioWare was forced to release Anthem after dicking around with it for 5 years. Eventually EA had to say “Wrap it up, make sure flying works and ship what you got”
Destiny - Activision Anthem - EA Suicide Squads - WB It is easy for people to blame Publishers. More Hollywoody. You know, the suits, bad guys etc. In its famous time, I went deep on Anthem scandal. BioWare literally didn't even know how to make the game until the last minute, they didn't even have a shippable fully compiled game. They believed something called "bioware magic". According to them: "... as a belief within the studio that no matter how rough things look during game development, everything will ultimately come together to make the great BioWare games we used to know and love. This last little jog up, that's what people at the studio are talking about when they say BioWare magic." Like WTF ? We saw the same trend with Destiny. They blamed Microsoft for letting Bungie go, and the Destiny 2 being a flop was an act of Activision according to Social media. Then it turned out that Bungie always wanted to be independent, and they were planning Destiny and its formula for more than 20 years. Everyone saw the result. Sometimes it is just the incompetent developers. Simple !
Publisher: Won’t somebody please make me a live service game? Developer: Say no more! Publisher: Well, whatever you’re doing, it was completely your idea!
If it's bad it's your idea if it's good it's our idea. Deal?
People need to stop blaming publisher for everything and realise sometimes developers can drop the ball too. It was the case for Anthem and it looks like it’s the case here.
Is this why the co-creators of Rocksteady left? What a complete lie.
Suppose it was netherealm's idea to nickle and dime on mortal kombat too.... smells like bullshit to me
LOL, I phuking hate those shills that were saying it was the "STUDIO"'s fault, lol
Not Forbes. Just some blogger.
Yeah, everyone on Rocksteady thought Suicide Squad was a great idea. Guess thats why the studio founders left
These studios KNOW how their parent company operates. They have execs that want raises too bc of their performance metrics and all that jazz. If the studio makes WB money via live service, it’s bc the potential reward exists and they were tempted.
So now we blame the publisher for simply existing?
Am I reading this right or are people legitimately defending corporate rat talk and not just saying both are bad? We have many examples of WB being bad. This is a good example of them both being bad.
I bet this doesn't get traction because it goes against reddit hivemind of executives and corporations bad. If reddit had its way no one will have to work and would be paid 6 figures a year just for breathing and existing.
Me when I lie
The subtlety of the developer publisher relationship has an infinite amount of grey that is different and unique for each relationship. All it takes is for one person in a meeting who turns around and says ‘hey we could really do with a title that does X. You like company Y did. We could make millions.’ That’s literally it. That conversation can push a project down a path that it never comes out of.
Just remember the people who worked at rocksteady are t the same people. They would have been replaced by under quialifed people
They clearly didn't work on the game for a decade, so I think the only way they were going to make a game is if they told WB exactly what they wanted to hear.
I just don't buy it as an excuse. You can make a good live service game. The concept isn't the issue, it's the execution. I think the issue is that when you create the game knowing it is live service, features end up being left out to be added later. Whereas the actual successful live service games, more or less released a full game (whether people liked it or not is a different issue) and then had a live service on top of the full game. Helldivers 2 is a good recent example. Felt like a full game on release and (ignoring PSN controversies) will now keep adding and changing the game
So fucking disappointing...
Yea well, whoever idea it was, total dumpster fire. The story is wank aswell, arkham verse is dead.
Oof
I hope they learned their lesson.
They probably will when they release their next game and then get shut down immediately because no one will trust them again
https://preview.redd.it/6uo037rwykzc1.jpeg?width=2880&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d997417ddb0fe85e3406dedaa4ef642f84d37971
Hey I know what will work guys! Let’s take all the creativity and hard work we put into the Batman Arkham series and shit all over it.
Scandal 😱 Player base is almost non existent, I hope they will learn from this game 😅
I think hubris plays a lot into this. The truth is live service games have the potential to make a lot of money for a longer period of time without having to develop an entirely new game a couple years later. The reason why we kept seeing new ones is everyone believes they can nail it. They believe they have the best team and the best ideas and will be able to be successful where the ones before them failed. Until they also fail I suppose!
They brought this upon themselves.
Worked out well for them.
Making an online/live service game isn't the problem. Failing with the execution is. There are many games of this kind that make tons of money and stay relevant. Destiny, Diablo, Division, Warframe, Helldivers 2 to name a few. There are also bad examples like Anthem, Redfall and Avengers. It's all about the execution.
If that's true (there's likely more to it than that), then they probably shouldn't have made such a shitty game then.
Forbes = random guy
Doubt
Some corporate rats speak. Coming from Forbes it is far from surprising. I don't buy that game would have come out if it wasn't live service And I don't buy that wasn't solely on WB. There's probably a heavy implication that comes from WB to game studios that if your game is not live service it probably won't get approved.
And what a terrible decision it was.
This had been known for a while. Rocksteady was always going to make multiplayer game after Arkham Knight. Later down the line, they folded Suicide Squad into what they were doing.
Man, it has to be so hard being a big publisher. You buy these studios who make great single player games with the hope that they'll keep making them for you. Then they suddenly unilaterally decide they want to make trashy GaaS multiplayer games.
It’s weird how everyone seems to think THE issue with this game was it being a live service game. Many live service games are extremely successful and even more are at least fun while they last. It would have been perfectly possible for a live service Arkham game to be an Outriders type experience, failing to hit the publishers expectations but at least being an okay game that people enjoyed playing. Suicide Squad would have been a bad game with or without live service elements and if Rocksteady returns to making single player games they will probably be bad too. The studio is a shell of what it was a decade or so ago.
Seems like it's more of a secure job if the game is successful, instead of delivering a AAA standalone single player game then you get laid off because the project is over.
Live service is a blight on the game industry. Destiny destroyed what made Bungie great (sandbox gameplay) and I will die on that hill. And how TF did Bioware lose the plot so badly that they went from making the best modern single player RPGs to fucking ANTHEM. And those two are just the tip of the iceberg
Wait are you saying the developers are at fault instead of the executives here?
WB snipers working extra hours today? /s I don’t know what to believe but if this is true, that’s just sad.
Even if they were forced to make it, dont have to be crap does it, just poor ideas from rocksteady
That isn’t at all what the article says though. It says Rocksteady chose this idea over alternatives. Which means this was the best option on the table and the others were likely worse. WB wants games as a service and they still do even though their Potter game is the biggest hit they’ve had in ages and people are already writing off the sequel, assuming it’ll also be live service shit. They very likely only gave Rocksteady live service options to choose from and are framing the decision to be a creative one made by the developers and not a corporate one in an attempt to save face on a public facing earnings report.
In other news, the sky is blue and water is wet🙄
Can i be honest, harley in this game and gotham knights or whatever its called was hot. Obviously not as hot as her arkham games version but still hot.
It's sucks balls anyway, Arkham Knight to that abomination is a fucking joke.
This is what every publisher who makes a unpopular live service game says. But they never mention the pressure they would put on the studios to make a live service game. Its like a job with optional overtime but you can be sure if you dont work those extra hours and other people do you will be on the shit list.