Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Submissions have to be related to games
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No excessive self-promotion
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
Not at that price point, of course. Ultrakill has a sub 2 million USD budget, its one of the most critically praised games on Steam, and its not even finished yet. I can't look up Steamcharts at work but I have good reason to believe its more than made back its production budget.
Live service games are starting to turn into a very expensive scam and if you can't make a good single player game, you need to cut costs somewhere. AAA production budgets are just too huge and the product isn't good.
Also EA has to understand more and more people have experienced their garbage launches and will skip their gold plated launch prices because of the risk you end up buying a lemon that is subsequently abandoned.
Making sure the gameplay loop is interesting and the game performs properly is important. Focussing on all the latest engine features that requires people to have top tier hardware is only good for marketing. Marketing then eats up a tremendous amount of budget without adding anything to the offer they make.
Most notable thing about this game was it was one of the first to launch with FSR3 frame generation. Other than that I think Iβd have completely forgotten about it.
Maybe if you market it at all so that I've actually fucking heard of it that'll help?
Or maybe EA is just a garbage corporation that aren't actually good at making video games?
Unlike many people in this thread, I actually have heard of the game. The makers of a podcast I follow loved it, and had the head of the studio on their show for a pretty frank interview, too. When I learned that there was a free demo, I decided I would give the game a try some time.
And in light of the overwhelming negativity in this thread, I did so last night. And what can I say? I spent an hour and change going through the prologue, the training and the first battle sequence, and I really enjoyed it. Movement and ~~shooting~~ slinging magic are great fun, with a diversity of spells available pretty much from the get-go. Just shoot, or throw a massive armor-breaking spell at a wave of enemies, or use a lash to pull a remote enemy close and whack them. I wouldn't have know what to expect from the 'CoD with magic' premise but it's really enjoyable so far.
The voice acting is very good, and while the facial animations are a bit uncanny valley, I am enjoying the snarky dialogues and matching facial expressions. Gina Torres has presence, and the rest of the cast so far blends in fine.
I will definitely spend some more time with the demo, and if it doesn't annoy me too much, I might just buy this. And that seems to be the feedback the devs got from many people - once players actually get their hands on it, they actually enjoy it. According ton the studio head, sales have picked up towards Christmas, and they've been getting a lot of conversions from the free demo.
I think the problem is just that, the game is... okay, not bad or good, just okay, unremarkable and forgettable.
If you want good sales you need to do something innovative and interesting, or something clichΓ© but really well done.
Taking a look at Doom 2016 (also a single player shooter) we can see the core gameplay: Shoot demons, Pick up ammo, Shoot more demons. But it's crafted so masterfully that you spend dozens or hundreds of hours doing just that.
Now with this game that I actually forgot the name mid comment, It's... well you get the ideia.
It was flawed from the start, clearly people that love COD and magic aren't that big of an intersection, also like people said already the magic acted more like guns and they had a pretty dumb system of calling it by their colors.
Still looked fun though, but I would never pay the asking price for it.
Why does a game cost that much to make? I'm not saying every game should be an indie, but given what indies can accomplish it's a little ridiculous to spend $125 million.
Well you see managers need to be paid more than everyone else and theirs lots of managers. Plus headcount is in the hundreds to pump out all the features and art assets within a few years
If I had to guess, texture quality and graphical fidelity is really high, plus this was one of the first games to run in UE5. A mix of extreme amounts of manhours invested into graphics coupled with slow progress due to having to get used to everything.
And rampant corruption at EA, I bet. 40 million marketing my ass, the game barely had any marketing!
A GENERIC AAA (visual only) single player shooter was a bad idea.
Aveum was literally mid. It just looked good since it was the first game to use UE5.
I had to look up a video to realise this wasn't the "I guess that's something I do now" game.
Looks like a confusing mess of a game tbh. When a game's failure is blamed on it being released close to fucking Starfield, you know it never had much going for it.
This guy's a tool, Atomic Heart was fantastic and I'd love getting more games of that calibur every year
EA is a truly awful idea. I'm curious if their sports games are the only thing keeping them in business.
"(...) AAA (...) was a truly awful idea"
ftfy dev
"potential customer hears about product for the first time after it's announced a flop"
I mean, a single player FPS... Oh it's an EA game we are talking about! NEVERMIND.
Whenever I saw that game it looked like a generic, soulless, made-by-committee shooterβ¦ All footage had strong tech demo vibes. The only thing I can remember about it is βthe guns looked kinda weird.β
