No DLC for Andromeda?
Just read this on Kotaku
http://kotaku.com/sources-bioware-montreal-downsized-mass-effect-put-on-1795100285?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Facebook&utm_source=Kotaku_Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow...
Forum Discussion
I don't understand all the hate towards MEA. Sure it's not as great as the original trilogy, but it is an amazing game. It deserves much better than what it is receiving from every side (developers, community, EA...).
Maybe the expectations were so high it was impossible to achieve a success.
It would be really dissapointing if there is no more content developed for a game with this potential.
@Daryon wrote:
I don't understand all the hate towards MEA. Sure it's not as great as the original trilogy, but it is an amazing game. It deserves much better than what it is receiving from every side (developers, community, EA...).
Maybe the expectations were so high it was impossible to achieve a success.
It would be really dissapointing if there is no more content developed for a game with this potential.
Agreed.
A lot of the hate is the fault of short sided review sites that played no more then the 10 hour trial and then ripped the game based on that alone. Most of the critics banded together to do a total hatchet job on ME:A and in the end, they got their wish.. they killed the franchise. It really sucks to think that EA is just going to cave so easily and move on, the Mass Effect Franchise deserves better then this.
@DarthLlama For the record, if I remember correctly, the review sites were not messing with the 10 hour EA Access trials. They got a full version "press release" of the game.
Whether the reviewers took the time --- or if the medium in question gave them enough time --- to delve into the game enough, is another question.
@V4rdyn wrote:
@DarthLlama For the record, the review sites were not messing with the 10 hour EA Access trials. They got a full version "press release" of the game.
Whether the reviewers took the time --- or if the medium in question gave them enough time --- to delve into the game enough, is another question.
I don't deny that they received the full version of the game, I just don't believe they took very much time to play it.
The truth is that part of this is still on Bioware, the first few hours of the game really aren't exactly stellar. For me, the game didn't really start until I got the Tempest and that is a flaw that was rightfully pointed out. It seemed awfully convenient though that the good parts of the game, the parts that occur after the first couple hours were not covered much if at all in most reviews that I read.
Don't get me wrong, I put the blame squarely on Bioware, firstly for the games slow start and most importantly for giving up on the game without a fight.
It is great to see how EA/BioWare is ignoring all of this instead of giving out a statement
Well, a commitment to DLCs and a schedule would be more than just a nice to have.
It is essential, EA!
I mean EA was criticized for their DLCs strategy: mostly good quality but rather short and expensive (in relation to the actual playing time).
Anyway DLCs are the cash cow, NOT the main games (always in perspective of production costs).
And not even the story DLCs (Citadel DLC, LotSB, etc) but the cosmetic and weapon DLCs. And if even those aren't announced yet ... if the cash cows are forfeited ...
If EA really avoids announcing the first DLC soon than ME:A is considered a failure by EA aka dead.
I paid much more for all the DLCs of the ME: trilogy than for the main games (and I bought ME:3 at about release) ... and I never regretted it.
@Phoenixflieger wrote:Well, a commitment to DLCs and a schedule would be more than just a nice to have.
It is essential, EA!
I mean EA was criticized for their DLCs strategy: mostly good quality but rather short and expensive (in relation to the actual playing time).
Anyway DLCs are the cash cow, NOT the main games (always in perspective of production costs).
And not even the story DLCs (Citadel DLC, LotSB, etc) but the cosmetic and weapon DLCs. And if even those aren't announced yet ... if the cash cows are forfeited ...
If EA really avoids announcing the first DLC soon than ME:A is considered a failure by EA aka dead.
I paid much more for all the DLCs of the ME: trilogy than for the main games (and I bought ME:3 at about release) ... and I never regretted it.
Now that
patch 1.07, I mean: 'hotfix which changes the game version number to 1.07' is released, I still miss any commitment to a DLC. Now that the HUD is fixed, performance increased, why waiting?I guess there will be another full patch, which maybe / maybe not is also referred to as 1.07 (or not), else the rephrasing from patch to hotfix would hardly make sense.
Wouldn't it be time to at least create a buzz in the community with well-placed rumors?
And am I the only person who expected ME:A to be the first of another ME trilogy?!
@askavian wrote:It is great to see how EA/BioWare is ignoring all of this instead of giving out a statement
Not giving out a statement and ignoring one gaming sites article is not the same thing. There is only one source for accurate information about ME:A's future and it's not Kotaku's speculation.
EA/BioWare initially committed to updates and patches to the game for two months April (1.05) and May (1.06). We know that there is at least one additional update in the works. It makes total sense to me that the game is given time to stabilize (after a very rough launch) before more information about future content is announced.
E3 is only 4 weeks away and that's when we'll hear about Me:A's future over the next 12 months.
All you 'chicken littles' should just go buy umbrellas....
IIRC, EA won't be at E3. They'll hold their own separate conferece, EA Play, instead (June 10).
