🛈 Announcement
Greetings! The Division forums are now archived and accessible in read-only mode, please go to the new platform to discuss the game
  1. #1
    X_Trapnel's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    394

    Games as a live service

    Blahblahblah
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  2. #2
    Sharpandpointy's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    1,341
    Originally Posted by X_Trapnel Go to original post
    Unless there is a dramatic last-minute change, 1.8.1 will provide no balancing despite the fact that Massive repeatedly PROMISED to make the necessary buffs/nerfs once the final gear sets were in the game.
    But they did.

    Their claim is that the gearsets are fine as they are. So...they did what they felt was the balancing.

    ^_^
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  3. #3
    Cadillac-Jack's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Deepest darkest Chernarus
    Posts
    8,059
    It's funny I look at The Division and it's concept and I saw something new exciting and interesting, there is nothing like it on the market for the most part. What I find rather mind numbingly stupid is the lack of interest from the developers and Publishers to push the game forward with constant good updates, fixes, added new content and so on, I hear they took an initial 330 million from it's release etc etc etc and a few more in the following 2 years, but they could have made so much more if they had expanded on the game itself.

    Now fast forward to today and another game on the market is now 4 years old and has just made the news again and set another world record (this game has had constant updates/new content etc etc etc for 4 years and is still getting constant updates and new content) it caters to P v P/P v E/solo and grouped play,and has not such an insidious micro-transaction market as other games.

    That game is GTA V as of now it's just become the most profitable entertainment product and video game in history totalling 6 billion dollars also with 90 million copies sold head and shoulders above the nearest game to that is MW3 at 26.5 million copies sold nearest films for profit are Gone with the Wind and Star Wars at 3 billion dollars profit.


    Now with The Division they could have grabbed an untapped market and taken a lot more than what they got from this game if they had the foresight to add new updates/new content on a regular basis, keeping it interesting with a non repetitive grind, and catering to it's entire playerbase.

    Massive and Ubisoft please don't mess TD2 up and make it something worth playing for 4 years plus with updates/content etc etc etc.
    Share this post

  4. #4
    RushLoongHammer's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    The Outback, Aus
    Posts
    3,818
    Originally Posted by X_Trapnel Go to original post
    If Division 2 launches with bugs, will the team actually try to fix it or will they just develop Division 3 and string us along like idiots for two more years?
    I hope they don't start TD3 as soon as the TD2 is lunched, just like TD2 was begun when TD1 was launched.
    I hope a lot more devs work in the live team for TD2 so we can get better quality, more and faster content drops than in TD1.
    Share this post

  5. #5
    Originally Posted by X_Trapnel Go to original post
    Ubisoft/Massive keep patting themselves on the back for providing "games as a live service" to its players and yet The Division proves that they will completely drop support for a game once they see a more profitable alternative.
    That happens in every other line of business. Why would it be different when it goes to gaming?
    Share this post

  6. #6
    Sharpandpointy's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    1,341
    Originally Posted by X_Trapnel Go to original post
    No, they're just ignoring a problem
    Oh, I'm with you, man.

    I'm just saying that's likely their reasoning.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by X_Trapnel Go to original post
    If you read Ubisoft's various statements on "games as a live service", you will see that they are promising something else altogether.
    How is it different?
    Share this post

  8. #8
    Originally Posted by X_Trapnel Go to original post
    If you read Ubisoft's various statements on "games as a live service", you will see that they are promising something else altogether.

    I wouldn't have paused to question this fact before because, like you say, this is generally how it works in any line of business. But Ubisoft claims to be doing something else. Players are meant to take it on trust that everything will be different with Division 2. But why should we believe them?

    Anyone who has played the Division 1 over the last 18 months or so cannot possibly believe that this game has had the full backing and support of Ubisoft/Massive.
    I don't think anyone thought we had their full support. Most of us knew they only had a skeleton crew. They seemed to break something new every time they meddled. Almost as if they were trying half of the systems for the first time. Remember all the bugs they added with loadouts? They even reintroduced a load from previously fixed bugs.

    It explains why they kept saying "we're looking into it" and then not doing anything. They only had enough people to look at the problem and say "nah, I hope they've fixed it in TD2".

    They don't care about this game, they're only using it to build up hype for TD2. That's why they're doing this shield thing. They'll make us grind so much we'll gladly pay for a change of scenery
    Share this post

  9. #9
    Mad-Cap's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,737
    For The Division 'live game' became a pseudonym for ' we aren't finished yet, so we'll fix it after release' and then release a sequel.
    Live service games shouldn't have sequels. There is less pressure to put out a quality product if you get 'do overs'
    Share this post

  10. #10
    Trippul G's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,523
    Originally Posted by Mad-Cap Go to original post
    Live service games shouldn't have sequels. There is less pressure to put out a quality product if you get 'do overs'
    In theory, I agree with you. But knowing what we know now, it seems that it became apparent pretty early on in TD1's life cycle that they had a real mess on their hands, and the only way to properly sort out and fix things was, essentially, to take a mulligan and start over.

    They knew the foundation was broken. If you don't fix that, all the add-ons in the world aren't going to help.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post