232
233

Jimquisition shedding light on Square Enix meddling with Mankind Divided (with sourse from Eidos Montreal developer)

• Cheesio • youtube

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 206
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Thewolf365 92ポイント93ポイント  (27子コメント)

I don't know if its true, but with hitman being episodic, the Final Fantasy 7 remake being split up, and this game's lackluster ending (not to mention the micro-transactions), I don't have a hard time believing any of it.

[–]MechaChiroptera 20ポイント21ポイント  (16子コメント)

Not to mention the season pass.

[–]ThatOneChappy 11ポイント12ポイント  (15子コメント)

Nah that doesn't mean much. Witcher 3 had a season pass and sure as a hell was a complete, 100% pro consumer game.

[–]avikdas99 30ポイント31ポイント  (0子コメント)

i think he is talking about augment your preorder debacle which got cancelled but they did try.

[–]Trenchman 14ポイント15ポイント  (11子コメント)

If Desperate Measures was cut out of the game to be essentially re-sold, and if the game is this astonishingly short, and yet Montreal Team 2's project is separate, you can bet the story DLC in the Season Pass will be the rest of the game.

[–]Zehardtruth 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

I would love I'd we could get the "complete story" when we buy the dlc but I don't dare to hope. I think it'll be a spin off mission or a tease which ends with a big cliffhanger to hype up the next episode game. But you never know, releasing a proper ending I'm the dlc would make lots of us happy.

[–]Nasdaq401 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I really hope the dlc has another hub or adds a lot of story. Please let it not be one or two missions.

[–]Trenchman 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think it'll be more than that.

A complete story? Probably in the Director's Cut/GOTY Edition next year. :P

[–]Chazzer147 8ポイント9ポイント  (5子コメント)

I get your point about Desperate Measures and also admit the game has a cliffhanger ending. But I'm around 20/25 hours in and have around another 5 left, and there plenty of others who agree 25/30 is a completion it's run. So saying the game is 'astonishingly short' is not that true.

[–]Trenchman 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

It is entirely true. I refer mainly to the game's main story. This, I think, is actually Deus Ex: meaningful story beats, paced out progression, encountering new characters, making choices, uncovering conspiracies, exploring new locales.

In DX1 and HR, the main story is undeniably the meat of the game. Whereas in MD, the game ends at what is evidently the first third or perhaps halfway into what should be the actual main story. Evidence for this is abundant in the design of the final mission, I think. In MD the side-quests now represent the core of the experience, for some strange reason. Just check the quest log.

And yeah, my playthrough also lasted a solid 28 hours. But I'm unsure of counting time spent robbing people's houses, hoarding sellables, and doing side-missions as actual time spent experiencing Deus Ex.

[–]Chazzer147 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Oh for sure the main story is shorter, not 'astonishingly short' but definitely shorter than HR or DX1 so I agree with you there. Although, I feel that a large portion of the side missions and the whole game world itself is markedly more immersive and interesting than Human Revolution. So for me personally while the main quests ending isn't the conclusive all encompassing ending I wanted it to be, I would still rate this game as one of my top gaming experiences in the past 5 years, regardless of playtime.

[–]Trenchman 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I maintain the astonishing, because to me it does not make sense to end the game at a major turning point, when you are only just feeling the impact of the first choices in the game and in turn making a number of new choices. Or to end the game at the very first boss fight. It's like ending HR at the Barrett boss fight.

A worthwhile experiment would be to only play the main questline and see how much playtime one gets out of that. I can't imagine it'd be a very significant number of hours compared to the other games in the series.

Don't get me wrong, I love sidequests - but they should always be secondary to the main story in a Deus Ex game. Even Invisible War understood this (and I'd argue that even Invisible War gave you more choices and options to change or strengthen alliances with factions, than Mankind Divided).

So I loved the side-quests and felt that they offered some of the best writing and world-building in Mankind Divided. And that's precisely the issue. We should have gotten more of that in the main story. And we could have, had the game not been extensively cut.

I'm absolutely certain that the two DLC packs we get later this year and next year will contain the rest of the story, with save game integration. How much of them will have been built post-release will be an interesting question, however, but I'm sure that on paper, a big part of them was originally meant to be in MD.

[–]Chazzer147 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

[SPOILERS]

I personally don't think it's as astonishing as you do. The story from what I experienced has two major threats, one immediate and one long term. The end of the game clearly shows that the immediate threat has ended I.e. The terrorists and the Act. but the 'higher up' threat is still out there. I think people feel short changed because I'm HR you took out both the mercs and to some extent their overseers. However, I feel the character development of the overseers, in terms of who they are and their motivations are much more detailed in this game. I do understand people's frustration but it's so commonplace with the 2nd in a trilogy.

I reckon it's about 12 hours or so pure story.

As for the DLC packs, they're only doing two missions as part of the season pass, so I wouldn't expect much in terms of story. I think the DXNG2 team Jim talks about are going to make the next game (2/3 years out I imagine) which will tackle the remaining story threads, and that is where we will see the story advance.

[–]Trenchman -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

[SPOILERS]

The immediate threat has ended... well, yes, but not really. Chikane is an Illuminati plant who can be just as dangerous as Marchenko. And a number of astonishing loose ends remain. Who trained the gold masks, why, and what for? What is the purpose of the proto-nanoaugs inside Jensen and the gold masks? To what extent did Marchenko use ARC, and to what extent (how, and why, as well) did the Illuminati recruit, exploit and use him?

We don't know; we just fight him, and that's it. The choices we make with regards to Miller, the delegates, and the London apartments are completely inconsequential, because the game simply ends. There are no multiple endings.

The game doesn't just end at a cliff hanger - the ground crumbles right down from underneath it. There is no way the game was originally scripted to end this way.

Moreover, what was the purpose of the Dubai distraction? What is the Orchid and why is it being used now? These are issues that the game sets up, explains partially and then never resolves. Just like the train station bombing investigation, which is only explained in Desperate Measures. Get my point?

Pure story? I think it's far less than 12 hours. Video Game Length offers us a minimum length of 6 hours for Human Revolution: Director's Cut. For comparative reasons, its minimum lengths for Invisible War and DX1 are 9 hours and 15 hours, respectively.

The DLC packs are almost certainly parts of the main game. System Rift is about to be released in less than 2-3 weeks. They will most likely resolve more than a few of the story's loose ends and continue the player's status from the ending, I think.

DXNG2 will simply pick up from where the DLCs will leave us. The story has long been written in advance, as was the plan with Deus Ex Universe from the start.

[–]j_hawker27 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

the game is this astonishingly short

The Order: 1886 would like to have a word.

[–]Trenchman 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So would Dear Esther, Mirror's Edge and any Call of Duty released after 2009. It's a moot point; but when discussing Deus Ex, I'm afraid Mankind Divided is below standard in this regard.

[–]enyoron 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, but they waited till they had an actual expansion and release dates for further expansions.

[–]ExO_o 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

i don't think that you can compare the witcher 3 season pass to anything out there. blood & wine alone - only one of two parts of the season pass - has more content than this entire game

[–]calibrono 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

At least in case of Hitman it is a success. Maybe not a financial and a PR success, but the majority of people who bought it enjoy the episodic structure.

[–]blindbull 23ポイント24ポイント  (29子コメント)

FUCKING 3 MILLION UNITS TO BREAK EVEN! Damn, the suits need to be fired at Square Enix. That's some stupid shit.

[–]A_Good_Game 7ポイント8ポイント  (15子コメント)

Reminds me of the time when Alien Isolation released and was a wonderful horror game that could've been the start of a wonderful new ip... but apparently today's big budget world 2 million sales isnt nearly enough to make the money back

[–]Vicrooloo 3ポイント4ポイント  (14子コメント)

Bobby Kotick be damned but he warned of this year's ago. Games cost more to make now even with all the trimming you can do.

So either the price of games has to go up or they push DLC hard on people. Or they casualize the game so it's appealing to more people and get money back on more sales

Guess what are the top topics gamers will bitch about?

[–]Hellkite422 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

Honestly, if companies wanted to charge 70 or 80 bucks for a completed AAA game I would certainly not mind. However this would mean that we get a complete experience that is worth our money, without micro-transactions. Hell they could even produce additional DLC and as long as it was worth the cost I would still buy it.

I am saying this knowing I would not be able to afford every game I wanted and I know I am not alone in that.

[–]ThatOneChappy 2ポイント3ポイント  (8子コメント)

This is a really terrible idea by absolutely every metric.

[–]Hellkite422 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (7子コメント)

How exactly is it a terrible idea? The cost to develop games has increased every year and the price has pretty much stayed the same since I have been purchasing games. Keep in mind I am not making an excuse for shitty ideas and to spend a ton on marketing like they did with DeusEx TV.

[–]ThatOneChappy 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

Game development isn't expensive enough to justify a hike in price. The problems come from over estimates by dumb, out of touch publishers and awful marketing campaigns.

Games cost on average less than movies and sell for approx. 4x the price.

[–]InvaderDJ 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Is that true? It seems like we're talking tens of millions of dollars to develop and market a AAA game at bare minimum. Expansive titles like GTA can be up to $100 million.

And with movies you have the intial theater release which includes money from advertisers, later sales of the BluRay/direct download/DVDs, and merchandise like T-Shirts, toys, etc. Games don't have as much of that. They get your $60 and maybe a few people buy a T-Shirt, or a soundtrack. After that they're left with DLC and microtransactions.

Quick Googling tells me that the highest selling game that I would consider AAA, multiplatform, not a pack in, and not something like Tetris that probably can be played on a toaster is GTAV with 65 million sales. Which is impressive, but after that we get a pretty big drop to Diablo 3 with 30 million. These games struggling to reach 3 million, but with budgets in the tens of millions are probably hurting.

Big movies make hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. I don't know if individual games make that much money, even if the gaming industry overall makes more money.

I don't know what the solution is or if there is actually a problem. But if we take these statements at their word, and it takes three million sales to break even on development, and most games struggle to reach that, we have a problem.

[–]ThatOneChappy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That 60$ which is a lot more than a ticket [or DVD], then you've got DLC, and then GOTY editions. It all balances out, in the end. Yeah games cost tens of million to cost, just like movies but the cost difference more than makes up for it.

On average a big movie is 65~ million, according to quick Google. And like 35-45~ for marketing IIRC. And that was back in 2007, prices gone up not down since then.

Games on average don't cost as much unless they're really big. Last year, Witcher 3 and The Phantom Pain and Bloodborne, the three biggest games of last year, TW3 cost 80 million, like half of it going to marketing. Idk about Phantom Pain but an estimate by a Japanese analyst pegged it for the same. Bloodborne cost 20 million. A game like Mankind Divided is not a 50 mil game [I think that was the estimate?] probably more like 20 and then 30 went into bullshit like DXTV and whatever the hell someone wanted to come up with.

The problem here is Square Enix. Its corporate culture of misunderstanding your products, trying to appeal to the wrong people etc. When you get down to it games can cost less and still make a profit of corporate fuckery wasn't rampant. Something as criminally anti consumers as ''i'd pay 70$'' is just kinda dumb on every level.

[–]Hellkite422 -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yeah but movies make their money based off of cinema showings and then eventually physical sales. Most movies when they come out tend to be $19.99 so I am not exactly sure how that is going to be 4x the price.

Games today can cost several million dollars, hell Destiny is estimated to be around 140 Million over the next couple years. Call of Duty back in 2004 cost 8.5 million and Quora.com estimates the cost for AAA games to be between 20 to 60 million today. I don't get why we think spending an extra couple bucks is unreasonable assuming we would be paying for the development costs. I am not even attempting to excuse poor decisions on marketing and the amount of money publishers put into that.

We will probably just disagree but that is what it is. I would still happily spend 69.99 or so for a fully completed game that actually worked day one and guaranteed no microtransactions. Hell I basically spend that day one right now and it's a crap shoot if the game will function when I first start it.

[–]ThatOneChappy 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

20$? what kind of theater has been ripping you off?

The average movie ticket is around 8$. 12$ depending on the showing.

The average to market and produce a major movie is at around 100$ million USD. Of course this isn't set in stone, obviously costs can fluctuate and go down depending on brand and franchise and such, but on average a movie costs about as much or more than a video game.

And we pay much more video games than we do for movies.

Its unreasonable because you already are paying for development costs. Microtransactions aren't shoved into the games with the intent of making make the budget, they're made for extra profit end of, and no matter how much you pay they will always try and squeeze you for more.

Essentially you're paying to allow companies like Squeenix to dick around more.

[–]Hellkite422 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

No, you missed what I said about the cost of movies. The ticket prices do range probably from 8 to around 15 depending on a couple things (Showing, 3d, BS, etc). The physical cost to own a movie initially is typically around 19.99 or at least it is for me when it comes to Google Play and physical copies.

An extra 10 bucks in my world would be worth it to never have to deal with the bull shit that was this games launch and the hidden microtransactions. Also the fact that many people could not even play past a certain point because they launched a broken game. I don't view that as being dicked over, I view buying a game and being unable to play it just like people experience with MD as being dicked over.

[–]ThatOneChappy 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Games don't cost more, or rather they don't cost enough for 60$ to be too little. Idiots who handle marketing make them cost more.

60$ is a lot of money.

[–]Vicrooloo -2ポイント-1ポイント  (12子コメント)

Games cost more money to make now. How is this not surprising?

The first thing people complain about a game is it's graphics and now you want to be surprised at the budget?

[–]blindbull 3ポイント4ポイント  (11子コメント)

No, it's a sign of gross incompetence. You don't budget a project where you need to move 3 million units just to break even. That would be an ambitious figure for doubling your investment. Let alone fucking breaking even. Also, what did the money go towards? This game is almost a complete rehash of the last title.

[–]InvaderDJ 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Do we know if that figure is incorrect though? If it takes that amount of units to break even on a AAA title, are the development and marketing costs for AAA titles just too high?

Big games now a days seem to be expensive to make. They demand amazing graphics, spellbinding music, complex AI, an immersive story, and just a lot of work. We've come a long way from games like Mario or Tetris being the state of the art. Do we want a Deus Ex game that isn't huge in scale, with great graphics and lots of things to find and explore?

[–]blindbull 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Did we not watch the same video? Didn't you see the part where they funded a tv series nobody watched and added a feetoplay game nobody played. If that's the type of mismanagement that's happening at the macro level, imagine the amount of fuck ups they were having on the micro level. Just how grossly was this game's productions cost inflated by due to their sheer incompetence?

[–]Vicrooloo 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

Incompetence is saying things like "You don't budget a project where you need to move 3 million units just to break even."

Because neither you or I are industry experts.

[–]blindbull 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

You have no fucking idea who I am or what my credentials are. Granted, I don't know yours either, but if you seriously think moving that amount of units for a video game just to break even is acceptable, then I really hope you aren't responsible for any game company's budgeting.

[–]xccr 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

You have no fucking idea who I am or what my credentials are.

I'm sure they're staggering.

[–]blindbull -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, apparently common sense is "staggering" for the average fanboy. Must be like looking into the sun for you lot.

[–]GreyMASTA 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

3 millions units to break even is pretty average to low in AAA Industry standards. I assure you.

[–]blindbull 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, it really isn't. Most game companies are happy to even get 2 million sales. The titles that can expect more than that are massive juggernauts like Final Fantasy or Grand Theft Auto. Deus Ex isn't anywhere close to that.

[–]Vicrooloo -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

It is acceptable because this is not the first time someone in the industry has commented on how many sales are needed to break even.

And you know there are many good series that died due to lackluster sales. 3 million, 2 million, 5 million. It doesn't matter what the number is. It matters that there is a goal and its usually high because of bigger and bigger budgets. I'm not an expert but I think its a safe bet that game making is more expensive now than it was before.

[–]ThatOneChappy -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

No, the problem is marketing. Jim notes that the problem isn't how much Mankind Divided cost its how dumb Square is with spending their money surrounding their games.

[–][deleted] 19ポイント20ポイント  (0子コメント)

...Thinking they could blew those 50K on mo-caping mouth animations for characters because I've never heard about any DXTV :P till now !

[–]Cheesio[S] 51ポイント52ポイント  (4子コメント)

Why did I write 'sourse' in the title FFS.

[–]Nastrod 24ポイント25ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's okay, I'm not big into books.

[–]sony4life 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

well, at least it wasn't 'sauce'

[–]Chaoughkimyero 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I didn't even notice I read it with a c

[–]MrsVoltz 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

As much as I'm happy with the game I got my money's worth out of personally. It's sad to see the corporate lvl have the development teams on a leash keeping them from producing a game with full love and detection to all their aspirations. They will probably never get the full freedom that the development team had back in 2000.

[–]RiasDeLiash 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is what happens when you allow non developers control of a gaming company. Honestly the game development studios did it to themselves.

[–]ThatOneChappy 83ポイント84ポイント  (3子コメント)

Lol @ everyone who kept defending shitty practices

''it doesn't effect the game!1!!!!'' sure it doesn't affect your experience, we're lucky that MD is balanced perfectly without them but it affects development.

Pretty much confirms everything we thought and how I felt when I beat the game. Square Enix fucked with an otherwise amazing game and under their leadership god knows what else will happen to an amazing series. The sequel already being worked on along side the other source pretty much proves that yes, this is an incomplete game.

Ugghhh fuck. Makes me appreciate the devs a lot though.

[–]Extra_Dong 25ポイント26ポイント  (1子コメント)

Exactly, there's no way to know that they won't do the same thing for the next game. Turning it into the Hobbit of games.

[–]Falconrockateer 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

Which is infuriating because i'd gladly pay more money to have one giant Deus Ex game than one game forced into two or three parts. The hobbit suffered horribly for it, I can only hope that Deus Ex doesn't suffer the same fate... (I know I'm a sucker but if it doesn't, I'll gladly buy every sequel they throw at me, as long as its quality)

[–]Falconrockateer 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't like the microtransactions being in there at all, but in some places I may sound like I'm defending the microtransactions when I'm actually defending the core game. I hope the lower sales and poor user reviews sends a message to square enix, because if they just left the devs alone to do their thing we'd have a masterpiece on our hands. Even so, the only problem with the game itself is its sort of incompletness

[–]razzartvisual 26ポイント27ポイント  (10子コメント)

Deus Ex tracks your every move and sends it back to Square Enix for analysis. Every item you pick up, dialog choice, every jump.

Holy shit, I had to pause the video because the irony was too much for me to handle.

[–]crazyjackal 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not accurate anyway. I've apparently spent 83 hours cloaked even though I haven't had or used the cloaking aug since the tutorial.

[–]StillCantCode 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

Every game that has leaderboards does that though. Just Cause, Mirror's Edge, and every online FPS come to mind

[–]kingbondy 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Why wouldn't they track that?

Lots of games like to keep stats.

[–]RollingDownTheHills 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah I'm not seeing the problem here. They're looking at what you're doing in the game, not in your bedroom.

[–]_Elektrosmog_ 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes, holy shit indeed. I am not even certain, that this is legal in the EU, unless it is an opt-in system. Does the game ask something like "I allow square enix to collect data on me playing to provide me with a better experience"?

[–]EnthusiasticMuffin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wouldn't that like decrease performance or something? IIRC people suggested to disable internet access for JC3 using firewall(don't remember exact reason, maybe increase fps?).

[–]deniros 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ok i'm pretty sure square enix doesn't give a fuck how people, there is no secret plot here.

Stats are recorded mainly for use with the mobile companion app here.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.squareenix.DeusExCompanion&hl=en

Added Database & Stats sections, providing you with lore and stats that are directly linked to the progress you’ve made in Deus Ex: Mankind Divided.

[–]TheMatrix507 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What? So when I look under someone's skirt they track me? I don't want anyone see me do my weird shit.

[–]5il3nc3r 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's what metrics do and they've been in every game you play for the past 5+ years.

How this is big news, or something to get outraged about, baffles me.

[–]LePopeUrban 41ポイント42ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't have a hard time believing this at all.

Having played breach, it was obviously designed to milk wallets, but if you choose not to do microtransactions you actually find that, despite that, someone somewhere decided to actually try and do something meaningful with it.

It's pure greed, but there's a clever loophole designed in to it on purpose, and that loophole requires playing it in the way the average deus ex audience is least likely to persue: Competitive play.

See, lets say you're the target Deus Ex audience. You bought the game for single player. Thus, you fire up breach and go 'okay, cool, I'll go through this all single player like just for the story missions'

Pretty quick you figure out that the game gives you JUST enough to get you through JUST the existing story, once, but not enough to hit the ridiculous score or time challenges to 100% stuff.

Then, you realize that the part the target market is least likely to use, the challenge feature, actually pays out items and credits FAR better than buying microtransactions.

Indeed, if you choose to ignore the patently worthless leaderboards and just send/try challenges with friends, you'll immediately start having a really good time (assuming that doing speedrun style arcade deus ex is fun for you at all, e.g. that you like the mode if you can get enough boosters to sustain you) as your challenge award boosters equal or exceed the paid ones.

Then you realize that the only think keeping you from easily playing breach, progressing, and having fun with it is that there aren't a lot of people sending you challenges.

My Theory? Nobody wanted to develop breach in the first place. Squeenix said 'well fuck you, do it' And browbeat the live team to death. The live team said 'okay, how do we undermine this and try and get a good faiar game out of it' and deliberately placed the loophole in a place they could reasonably argue to squeenix, who given no fucks about fun and all the fucks about metrics, that metrics indicate that loophole wouldn't affect the metric based financial goals responsible for making them do it in the first place.

Which, given the subject matter of breach, is hilarious. The story missions are full of characters who literally refuse to let you progress unless you pay them money. The dialogue choices allow you to attempt to challenge or appeal to them, but go nowhere. Your main contact waxes poetic about how you should do it "because its right" only to later flat out tell you you're just a tool to her if you go against her false ethos, and she won't discard you because she needs you to remain engaged. Often the only way to get past the IN UNIVERSE paywalls is to specifically do things your contacts tell you not to.

The design of breach and its storylines are almost meta-narratives on having to do something for the money, and undermining your own chain of command to get what you want out of it. Given what Jim claims to have learned about its development, I can easily see these parts of the design and narrative as clever augmented middle fingers at people they know won't play the mode enough to notice or understand them.

[–]LePopeUrban 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

EDIT re: worthless leaderboards

I have been the only player on the leaderbards for several missions. yet, somehow, I am in position #300 or so. I have been #1 on one mission and was rewarded exactly nothing.

[–]cskee 20ポイント21ポイント  (21子コメント)

On one hand I'm glad that we'll be getting the next game shortly since it's already in development, on the other it's a shame that we're getting several lesser games instead of a single amazing one. Hopefully the next game will be as polished as MD - I really don't want Deus Ex to turn into another AAA annual release franchise where they just shit out mediocre game after mediocre game. I'm actually worried about getting any sequels at all since it seems to selling like shit on steam. Maybe low sales will cause SE to double down on the microtransactions in order to recoup costs? I can imagine them forcing the team to build the next game with microtransactions in mind from the ground up, instead of just telling them at the end.

[–]Alimantado 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

the issue is instead of making another game the size of Human revolution, they're selling us 2 full priced games, with season passes and microtransactions - i bet the next one will. This isn't like "Makind divided episode 1", which would make the ending logical. they sell this as a full story, which it is not.

[–]Ikitou_ 6ポイント7ポイント  (19子コメント)

Selling like shit on Steam? Steamspy estimates it at approaching 300,000 owners. Those are good numbers for any game in its first two weeks! It's 20% of what Human Revolution has after 5 years and god knows how many discounts.

I think Square Enix will be perfectly content with those figures. Well... OK, they might not be if their previous form is anything to go by, but any sensible person would be perfectly content with them.

[–]RobotWantsKitty 13ポイント14ポイント  (6子コメント)

It's 20% of what Human Revolution has after 5 years

It isn't. You are comparing to the Director's Cut, ignoring the number of sales of the original version (which you can't access on steamspy). The real numbers are considerably higher.

[–]Ikitou_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Ah, I did find the original on Steamspy via Google. I thought the two were integrated initially. It says HR has 2.1 million, which is about 700,000 more than I thought.

That's actually much better than I expected - I thought the 1.4m number was already good.

I maintain that Mankind is not selling badly though. I think it's more that Human Revolution sold exceptionally well.

[–]Zehardtruth 11ポイント12ポイント  (4子コメント)

A sequel always sells more then the first game unless somethings wrong, that's why IPs are valued so high (even Home front was worth more to a publisher then create a new IP). HR sold well because it was good, not flawless but very good! It received an old IP and blew many of us away! All MD had to do was do the same, polish some areas and they'd be golden.

Instead we get "augument your pre-order/Aug life's matter/micro transactions/games story ends halfway through". Lots of bad press, reviews that are well below HR. I fully blame Square and their greed messing with a good product, but I can see why many fans simply wait for the inevitable "Goty/complete edition" before playing this game. You have nothing to loose, and might even get the full story of you're lucky.

[–]evengraves 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

What is aug lives matter and why is it as important as the other huge problems with the game?

[–]stijn_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It was just an insensitive bit of marketing. SE handles the marketing, so you could argue it's another instance of them messing up.

[–]ToastyMozart 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It was some dumb marketing Square Enix pushed and it (predictably) blew up in their face.

[–]Ikitou_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

A sequel does not always sell more than the first game. In fact drop off as you go through the franchise is fairly common (not universal, but common). The reason publishers like to make sequels despite that is they are still fairly safe bets.

So (hypothetical numbers) if Tomb Raider does 4 million sales, you could expect Rise of the Tomb Raider will do 3 million. A 25% drop off may look bad on the face of it, but it's still a very safe 3 million sales - certainly far less risky than a new IP.

[–]cskee 11ポイント12ポイント  (11子コメント)

Those are good numbers for any game in its first two weeks!

With a $50 million budget and 3 million units needed to break even? I guess it all depends on the console sales

[–]ThatOneChappy -2ポイント-1ポイント  (10子コメント)

Which don't look so hot. Game sold significantly less than its predecessor in the UK.

[–]Ikitou_ 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

Firstly, 2016 is far more reliant on digital than 2011 was, even on consoles. That'll skew the numbers to some extent.

Secondly, going off the (albeit very rough) numbers available from VGChartz and Steamspy, Human Revolution sold over 4.5 million units. If the break even point is 3 million, then Mankind Divided has a nice buffer to sell fewer units and still be profitable. Additionally, assuming the next one doesn't take another 5 years to come out, that won't have to hit such a high target to be a success as the budget will inevitably be smaller.

[–]ThatOneChappy 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

We'll probably see the sequel regardless unless the game does absolutely abysmal, but even with the buffer in mind that's a ''we avoided catastrophe'' kind of success not a ''this is a promising franchise'' kind.

Don't get me wrong I don't think the game will bomb, despite all the issues it deserves success but just Squeenix are absolutely asinine. They have no idea what they're doing, and we really can't tell what a failure would do to the franchise.

[–]Ikitou_ 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah I don't disagree with the suggestion that 'Square Enix are idiots'. I am all aboard that particular train :)

[–]Zehardtruth 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Digital sales are very, very small on consoles souls compared to PC. Last numbers reported by both EA and Unison spoke of less then 10% digital sales on consoles, probably due to no Grey keys, steam sales, trade-in. Digital on console is (Sadly) still a very small market.

[–]alexmillen3 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

going off my knowledge as a console gamer for all my life and my knowledge of other console gamers and the uk , a) a lot of people use amazon as it often works out cheaper and easier to order b) the number of physical ''game'' stores is miniscule these days compared to when it HR came out

the sales numbers from game being lower don't surprise me in the slightest as a result since no one I know who plays on console has been to a game store other than amazon in the last 3 years.

[–]Ikitou_ 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Interesting, do the retail numbers not count amazon orders? I assumed it was only digital that didn't get included.

[–]alexmillen3 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

afaik only game has given statements regarding sales. I wouldn't be surprised if amazon counted as digital though

[–]Zehardtruth 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

First of all Amazon counts as physical, not digital (wtf), same for all stores. Physical sales are tracked from all major retailers.

Secondly and feel free to prove me wrong file you have any source, digital sales on consoles are extremely small. I've read reports by EA and Ubisoft stating around 7-10% of their total sales on consoles as digital, that includes sales and promotions. Leaving a staggering 90%+ for physical sales. Digital on consoles just ain't there yet for many reasons (bad sales, no 3rd party keys, no trade-in, high prices)

[–]alexmillen3 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

My main point wasn't that digital sales are strong , it was that the GM company game is no longer the gaming behemoth it once was which would explain games low sale number report

[–]alexmillen3 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

seriously downvotes ? why ? if you have a problem with what I said then comment , my comment adds to discussion, a downvote does not.

¯_(ツ)_/¯

[–]ChoujinDensetsu 27ポイント28ポイント  (1子コメント)

Anyone remember that bullshit preorder system they rolled out last year which blew up in their faces?

[–]ChoujinDensetsu 26ポイント27ポイント  (3子コメント)

This is more indication the FFVII remake is going to be horrible.

I would love an insider to explain how CEO's of gaming companies can look at CDPR and Naughty Dog and think, "Naaaah, we are going to follow EA's business model."

[–]ThatOneChappy 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because they don't understand the industry, for the most part. The companies that have higher ups who do tend to be the successful ones.

[–]hydrosphere13 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

The FFVII remake is already off to a bad start cause instead of being released in one go it's going episodic. Jim touched on this in another video that was aimed at square.

[–]Zaphid 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because what CDPR does is still insanely risky, business-wise. They also have the advantage of selling in the west, while paying polish wages, which adds up over the years. Still, if W3 were a failure, it would easily sink the company. EA is horrible, but the few times they went with new and unproven titles like Mirror's edge, the shareholders collectivelly freaked out due to the profit dip.

[–]avikdas99 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

you know what square enix and konami makes illuminati look a bit better in comparison .illuminati are at least not idiotic and suicidal and fuck over their own people who maintain their organization.

[–]RandomGunner 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Speaking of blowing the budget, did you know there is a wax Adam Jensen in Montreal's Grevin Museum, complete with an "augment your experience" interactive thingy ?

Granted, it's been here since HR, but still.

[–]mangedrabbit 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Jesus fucking christ, Squenix. Don't make me blacklist your bullshit too.

[–]AdamJensen94 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

I don't know who the fuck this guy is but it's cringy as fuck

EDIT: Holy crap that was a good video. This guy went from zero to hero, now subbing him.

[–]Hakairoku 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

This guy went from zero to hero, now subbing him.

His persona is designed to frustrate people.

[–]paulpmcg 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

He's Jim 'fucking' Sterling son. Haha but seriously his Jimquisitions are some of the best videos online imo. One of my favourites is one he did awhile back about No Man's Sky's price when it was revealed.

[–]Ikitou_ 15ポイント16ポイント  (11子コメント)

On the plus side... Mankind Divided sequel confirmed? xD

[–]JudasPiss 19ポイント20ポイント  (10子コメント)

That's hardly a plus if it's being handled by the people behind Thi4f.

[–]alexmillen3 3ポイント4ポイント  (8子コメント)

how do we know that the team is the one behind thi4f ? don't remember anyone mentioning that

[–]RobotWantsKitty 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

The second team at Eidos Montreal. IIRC they have only two.

[–]wumao4life 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm speculating here but since Eidos is split into two teams. MD team has been busy working on the game since 2011. The thief team finished their game in 2014 and didn't do anything significant since then so they must be the team working on MD sequel.

[–]alexmillen3 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Possible they may be on the dlc team or they hopefully learnt from mistakes

[–]mizuwolf 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

There are people wearing Thi4f jackets in the credits to MD (jackets that, I'm assuming, were only for devs of the game, but this may be incorrect), so I'm inclined to believe that they moved people to the next game as soon as they finished their part in the current game. No reason to let people twiddle their thumbs after finishing MD when they can be working on the sequel.

[–]xccr 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yeah, nu-Thief actually sold really well, so I suspect that those people are working on the next one.

[–]Edgyhandle 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

What? AIRC it sold less than 200k units. It sold like crap.

[–]xccr 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

You recall incorrectly. Sold very well on the PS4 in particular. It had more than 200k just in preorders.

[–]Edgyhandle 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Checking VGChartz plus steam spy proves you right, although it didn't sell amazingly. But it did break the 2 million mark on consoles with 1.3m on PC. Although Deus Ex does have the benefit of higher critical scores and a being apart of a bigger franchise so it could brake those numbers.

[–]ThatOneChappy -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thi4f had fantastic mechanics and world though, even interesting lore. Just shitty everything else.

[–]Alimantado 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's why there's only 1 main hub this time instead of 2 like human revolution, and very few different settings. it was supposed to have 2 but the spliced the game to sell it twice.

[–]deniros 5ポイント6ポイント  (9子コメント)

Publishers meddling with the games from the studios they own? Game developers unhappy with the meddling? So far everything here sounds pretty normal in today's gaming industry.

Unless a studio can develop, publish and distribute a game on their own, on their own agenda, then its not uncommon for a conflict of interests to occur.

Square Enix is 100% out to make money, its all about making a profit, its just business. If they fund the development of a game, its not because they love gaming and have a passion for it, or any of that. No it is just to make money. And getting multiple studios to work on the same games is also pretty standard, if they didn't do this then nothing would ever be ready in reasonable time.

The only shitty move square enix did was to get the developers to try and bolt on some micro-transactions, when the game was already finished and in the fine tuning stage. Which was so stupid, it was never gonna work. The decision to include micro-transactions and paid dlcs should have been made way earlier, like at the pre development stage, so it can be properly. Why it took them so long to make the call i don't know, especially as its been in so many games now over the last couple years, and it seems to be making so much extra money, people love these little things.

However trying to bolt something on in the last minute clearly didn't work out here, and we're left with what could possible be the most pointless, useless, crap I've ever seen trying to pass off as dlc. No one wants this crap, and it definitely isn't going to be the cash cow square enix were hoping for.

Ah well, no harm done, no one likes it, no one buys it. Only harm done was wasting the developers time to put it in in the first place. Hopefully for the next game they get some better ideas for these little paid dlcs, something that people would actually want to buy would be nice.

[–]baustimona -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

The really unfortunate thing is that a lot of the information Jim got is blatantly wrong. This tip about microtransactions being tacked on late in development is 100%, completely false. Whoever gave these tips was either out of the loop or is out to blame every poorly received decision on Square Enix, which is really disappointing.

[–]RiasDeLiash -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

That is the problem though. The game developers did it to themselves. Game studios used to be owned an operated by the people who made the games. Publishers were separate companies that were paid by the developer to publish the games with promise of a cut of the profits. When the game developers took the bait of more funds from publishing companies in exchange for publishing companies having more control this was the obvious end result. They 100% did it to themselves.

[–]MartianBuddy3 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

Eidos Montreal didn't take bait for more funds from Square. The situation is different from Bioware who separated from Microsoft and took EAs money. Eidos was created by Eidos interactive and was an owned asset of that publisher. Do to financial troubles, Eidos was bought by SCi entertainment with most of Eidos's management let go. Then SCi entertainment had their own troubles and had to sell their assets to either WB or Squeenix.

[–]RiasDeLiash -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

Uh.... you misunderstood everything I said. As I said before publishers and game developers were originally entirely separate companies. There was no game developers being a subsidiary of a larger publishing company. It wasn't until game developers started accepting the money of the publishers offered them for more control allowing them to buy the development companies themselves instead of just contracting with them that this type thing started happening.

Game developers originally had full control of their medium and because of this it was harder to get publishing contracts sure but at least they had control. Some developers even started their own publishing companies so they would still have control and from that you have companies from that like Valve and Blizzard. It's odd how the game developers that did NOT sell off their control to outside publishers still pretty much control the entire industry.

[–]MartianBuddy3 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

You responded to a post specifically mentioning Square Enix and Eidos where your response is unclear if you are speaking of Eidos Montreal along with other developers as a whole or just developers in general. Eidos is in a situation where they never were independent of a publisher and had little control to begin with. Yes, devs in the past who did take publisher money created this whole issue and it's their fault they lost control and so many devs these days suffer as a result but I wouldnt say that it applies to all dev's that its 100% their fault especially those who dont have a choice to begin with.

[–]RiasDeLiash -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

And in this you would be wrong sir. Eidos is an example of a game developer that sold out to a publisher Sales Curve Interactive (SCi) and the publisher changed it's name to Eidos three years later. So in effect yes Eidos is a perfect example of what I said. You just need to actually do a bit of research before responding. Eidos is actually worse in the fact SCi was actually originally a developer that turned into the very type of publisher that causes these kinds of messes. SCi also let Time Warner gain a 10% stake in the company which further push this kind of problem on them.

[–]MartianBuddy3 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Eidos Montreal, Crystal Dynamics, and IO interactive are not the same as Eidos interactive, they are subsidiaries of Eidos. Im specifically speaking of Eidos Montreal, not Eidos Interactive themselves as a publisher. Stephane D'Astous the founder of Eidos Montreal detested Square Enix and disagreed with their business practices, these developers did not have a say in who they were sold to. If you have citations of Eidos Montreal themselves agreeing to be sold to SCi then you would have a point. Eidos Montreal and Eidos Interactive are not one and the same.

[–]RiasDeLiash 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

You are the only one talking about Crystal Dynamics and IO Interactive. I was talking about a studio that started out as an Eidos studio and no you are wrong about Eidos Montreal not being Eidos Interactive. Your logic is vastly flawed in that you seem to think Eidos Interactive is only the publisher and it is not. Eidos Montreal was opened when the main office in London was closed down. Eidos literally moved from the UK to Canada. Eidos Montreal was the head studio until Square Enix took over.

[–]MartianBuddy3 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Im more confused on where your information is coming from, Eidos Interactive was bought by SCi Entertainment in 2005, Eidos Interactive was still a separate entity from SCI all the way till 2007. There were 2 London offices, Eidos Interactive was in Wimbledon and SCi was in Battlesea Wandsworth. Shortly after Eidos created Eidos Montreal, SCi closed Eidos Interactive but SCi took over as publisher and distributor and moved their headquarters from Wandsworth to Wimbleton. You can check, even when Square Enix took over, the Wimbleton office was still active until they eventualy did move it in 2014. Eidos Montreal was not in control, they did receive some of the management from when SCi closed Eidos Interactive but Eidos Montreal was never the head of the whole studio. SCi does make this more confusing because they eventually renamed themselves back to Eidos but even then they were still in London. Ill make it easy for you, go to the Deus Ex wiki, look up Eidos Interactive and SCi Entertainment, then go to the Square Enix Europe Wikipedia page. Its all consistent.

[–]Quietly-Confident 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

How spoilery is this? Safe to just listen to if I haven't finished the game yet?

On topic - not surprised based on what people have said nor how it compares to HR.

[–]rakuzo 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Listening is fine, he does use some gameplay footage from MD.

[–]otakuman 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

om;dw? (On mobile, didn't watch)

[–]Bansai7 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

If the game needs 3 millions sales to break even then... I guess I better say goodbye to one of the best series of all time. It's a shame people don't want to support it because of some 2 one time use praxis kits... ehh

[–]xccr 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, it fucking sucks, and I blame Square 100%. Eidos made a great game -- best game of the year so far, easily. It will be a tragedy if this is the end of the series due to their ineptitude.

On the positive side, Arkane is making two games right now, and so is OtherSide (including a Warren Spector-headed System Shock 3) so we will still get games in this mold for a while.

[–]DeusBex 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

In the UK it reached the top of the charts but performed worse than Human Revolution. The series is in other words dead.

[–]CarolusRex13x 3ポイント4ポイント  (19子コメント)

TL;DW Upside: Sequel within next two years probably, with choices in game "maybe" mattering Downside: Game cut up to make sequels instead of releasing it all in one then go from there

[–]ThatOneChappy 14ポイント15ポイント  (18子コメント)

How are sequels and upside if it detracted from the game you got.

[–]CarolusRex13x 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

Only an upside because i'm assuming there wont be a five year wait for said sequel. not defending it, just saying

[–]Itkovyan -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah. As depressing as this video is (assuming Jim's source is to be believed), the silver lining is that the sequel is already green-lit and in production. :)

[–]Itkovyan 3ポイント4ポイント  (15子コメント)

I don't see any evidence that working on the 2nd game midway through the first game's development could detract from DXMD. Given the actual length of DXMD (which is comparable to DXHR for me), odds are they simply switched teams over to the sequel right away.

I mean, it's quite common for studio teams to switch games when their part is over (pre-production teams, especially)... and now that production is done on DXMD, no doubt its main production team moved on to the sequel, which probably has completed its pre-production.

In short, this isn't indicative of a game being split in half, which clearly seems to not be the case given DXMD's quality and depth. Sure, it ends on a cliffhanger, but how is that different from Mass Effect 2, for example?

[–]ThatOneChappy 9ポイント10ポイント  (12子コメント)

The game wasn't even ready for its projected release date and they were working on a sequel. Just a bit of basic deduction here. The shape the story is in + what we know from multiple sources about the way Square Enix handled the franchise + stuff like major twists that aren't in any way or form shown in the game being revealed outright in art books etc, there was obviously more meant to this game. That and two teams were set to work in mid 2015, FAR off the finishing line, over a year infact.

I mean, I don't know how you played HR and MD but not by any metric is MD comparable in length to HR. MD takes an average of 25-ish hours with side content. HR's story alone was 20 hours. Objectively MD has a good amount of content and is good value, but its not big enough story wise for the story they want to tell.

The difference? pretty simple one. Mass Effect 2 tells a complete story that stands on its own two legs and ends in a cliff hanger. MD concludes basically nothing and ends on a massive sequel bait.

[–]Itkovyan 0ポイント1ポイント  (11子コメント)

A year from release in a game which took 5 years to complete would seem to indicate what mostly started was pre-production. Different people work at different stages of a game's development, and if 2 games are planned its quite normal that those who are done with their part in the first game then move on to the next.

Starting work on the next game a year in advance is hardly anything new.... all it means is that the sequel was greenlit before DXMD was released. Game studios are under no obligation to work on games sequentially, with substantial parts of their teams twiddling their thumbs while they wait for their current game to be released. Indeed, that never happens: those devs are either laid off when their part is done, or they're moved to their next project... it just so happens that the next project is the sequel.

As for content, clearly YMMV, as plenty of people have posted here that the game took them far longer, or that the ending did conclude its main story arc (while leaving a cliffhanger, of course). Right now I'm at 50 hours, not counting breach playtime.... that's at least comparable to my first DXHR playtime.

Of course this is DX, so believing in a conspiracy where the devs were forced to hack their game in half in order to make twice as much money is at least staying true to genre. :)

[–]ThatOneChappy -1ポイント0ポイント  (10子コメント)

A year can be crucial. Keep in mind that Eidos had to make a new engine before they started development, so it snot 5 years of pure dev time and no matter how long you've been making your game for 12 months can change everything.

They're under no obligation sure the same way they're under no obligation to make a good game but we hold them to that all the same, but MD's dev cycle wasn't easy, the game was pushed back 7 months which means work still needed to be done, big time, and people were already working on a new game??

The other team already had a basis to start off on. The missing half of Mankind Divided.

Ehh..well, not really YMMV. Obviously how long the game takes you in hours will vary from person to person, but do you think its fair for me to call a 4 hour CoD campaign a 30 hour one just because I went through the whole thing prone and made sure to examine every wall and texture in the game?

Same thing here. You might be taking your time and getting a lot out of the game, but the actual content that's there is less. As for the story itself, it concluded its first act, I guess. The rest is missing.

As Jim noted it is actually really funny how much corporate meddling and tracking there is on this game. Irony and all ;P

[–]Itkovyan 3ポイント4ポイント  (9子コメント)

And yet, I did the same in DXHR and still have a comparable playtime... so yeah, YMMV. You see less content, I see just as much.

The narrative flow is quite different from DXHR, yes, what with having most of the game taking place in a single hub. as opposed to a handful of side quests in DXHR and most of the story being on missions. I'm not sure if I don't prefer the wilder globe trotting of DXHR, but at the same time I can't deny that Prague is far deeper and more detailed than both DXHR hubs combined, and the side missions far more intricate (and more significant to the story than the DXHR ones).

When you made your thread about the game being cut in half and only taking 20 hours I was genuinely concerned that there wouldn't be much to DXMD... and I am quite relieved that this proved not to be the case.

As for working on the sequel already, again we're probably talking about different parts of the dev team. Some people who worked on DXMD from day 1, the pre-production team, would logically have little to do in the final year of the project. That's when these people get assigned to different projects... in this case the sequel.

Seriously, you can try and see a malicious conspiracy at work here, but the fact is that this is nothing unusual. Game studios can work on multiple projects at the same time, and the larger ones always do, shifting resources from project to project as they go through the various stages of development. The alternative is laying them off once their parts are done, after all.

And even if, IF, both games were in full production at the same time, all that entails is that money was invested to begin making the sequel before DXMD's release and more resources hired accordingly. This would no doubt be in anticipation of faster revenue by releasing the sequel a year earlier than it normally would have been. Again, this provides zero evidence for any kind of foul play wherein DXMD was somehow split in half, or that DXMD was somehow diminished in the process. At most it indicates a desire to speed up the release cadence of the series.

But of course this is even IF both games were at full production concurrently... more likely the sequel is simply the next greenlit project for Eidos Montreal, which is where resources from DXMD would naturally move on to as their role in DXMD came to an end.

[–]ThatOneChappy 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

Again, do you consider calling a CoD campaign 20 hours valid even if a person actually took 20 hours to beat it? or calling MGS V: Ground Zeroes a 10 hour experience even though you can technically spend that long playing?

Its just not a very effective way of measuring how long a game actually is. Just take a look at the number of bosses. The number of story missions. According to the wiki Human Revolution is packing 26 main missions while Mankind Divided has some 17~ if I remember correctly, 15 if you want to be technical. I'm happy that you got so much out of one playthrough on the game but you can't really say one is as long as the other.

I'm fine with one fully developed hub over two, although Golem City already had the ground works laid down so there was no reason for that not to be a hub or atleast a place we revisit again. Visting it after Rucker's death would have been amazing.

Its not narrative structure that's the problem here so much as it is just the amount of narrative content. The side quests are expertly well made and help flesh things out a bit but even they can end on an inconclusive note, such as the Sarif side quest. By the end of the game you feel like you finished the prologue to something greater not that you've just finished the whole experience. Dozens of plot threads are left hanging no matter how much exploration and side content you do.

Eidos does have 2 teams, iirc. The guys behind Thief 4 [i'm one of the fringe fucks who kind of liked that game] and people who made HR, who worked on MD. But we don't know if those guys are on this game or eve working on a new Thief because they discussed the possibility of a sequel for that, so the new team started working on the game in mid 2015, and that's around the same time its been reported that SE started slicing and dicing their games.

That and its not just pre-production people. Its noted by Jim that people from DXNG2 team were pulled and put on DXNG1 team to help get it ready by February, which means you had people actively involved in the development process working on that and not just conceptual people etc.

People are seeing a malicious conspiracy because of what we heard long before the game came out. People are thinking malicious conspiracy because of the track record Squeenix has. People are thinking malicious conspiracy because of the way the game turned out, in some respects because its still a great game.

So you have two teams, one working on the soon to be released game and the other working on the new game a year before DXNG1 is released, reports stating Square Enix are cutting up their game and love it or hate it a story that concludes almost none of the hanging thread it starts.

DXNG2 have the other half of MD to work with for convenience and to quicken up the design process while MD is finished. This way Square gets their trilogy and we're kinda fucked over.

On its own? yes you're right, there is seemingly nothing too malicious about this. But when you take everything into account, including the context of the earlier leak of info and the way the game turned out? it all slots together perfectly.

[–]Itkovyan 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

Concerning duration, as I have stated: I'm getting playtime in DXMD comparable to DXHR, both of whom I play identically. Evidently this means that the amount of content is comparable. I imagine your DXHR playthrough was much shorter than mine, but my point is that DXMD is not a shorter game than DXHR, at least when I apply my playstyle to both.

As for the number of main missions, this is easily offset by the massively deeper and more numerous side mission content, as well as the exploratory content of the level design. Sure, we only got a single hub, but that hub has more depth and is far more immersive than both DXHR hubs combined... and the reason for that is because they could focus on just that one hub (and its 3 various instances).

As for Golem City, it was already a very dense and complex level with a lot of content within it. Revisiting it would have been fun, I admit, but that's basically saying "more content would have been better", which can be said of pretty much any game :).

So yes, having more hubs would have been great, but in that case we'd probably have had something more like DXHR, with shallower hubs. All that depth didn't come for free, and it's unrealistic to expect that kind of level of detail from multiple hubs in a single game. Having 2 shallower hubs might have been better, to be honest, but that still wouldn't have translated to more content.

As for the ending, leaving threads unresolved is a perfectly valid narrative approach, if you were already planning a sequel (especially if the sequel is already green-lit). You might not like it, and might disagree with the narrative approach used, which is perfectly fine, but somehow inferring that the game was released in an incomplete state is baseless.

It IS complete, and many of us found as much content in DXMD as in DXHR. It just doesn't resolve its overarching conspiracy threads, though it does resolve its main thread (the terrorist plot). Given that this is a game about global conspiracies, it doesn't surprise me that the conspiracies are left to be resolved in the sequel. You're free to not like it, of course, but don't confuse a narrative technique you dislike as evidence of a conspiracy to sell us a half-finished game.

And I already addressed the possibility that production might go on at the same time. If both games are green-lit, and Eidos has the budget to work on both games (though clearly the work on the sequel only began when they were quite late in DXMD's production), there's nothing unusual in a studio working on multiple projects at once.

Now, I agree Squeenix practices are very alarming, particularly how it appears they shoehorned the store in at the last minute (fortunately the game itself appears unaffected)... but I see no evidence that they actually cut up DXMD, because what we have here is a full game with as much content as DXHR. Its narrative structure is different, certainly, and clearly in a way that displeases you or somehow makes the game appear to have less content to you, but for many of us this isn't the case (and as explained above, this has nothing to do with me taking my time, as I took my time with DXHR too).

Now, what COULD have happened is that Eidos Montreal were told to make a duology instead of a single game, and so they split their narrative into two parts. But at the same time they clearly then went and added a lot more depth to each part (well, the first part at least, but I imagine we'll get a similar depth in the sequel), so that each part is a full game in its own rights.

The downside of that, of course, is that instead of getting the typical globe-spanning storyline in a single game, we will get it in two parts... but each part is imbued with much greater depth and detail.

I'm on the fence as to whether to not this is better, to be honest... but either way, to then infer that if Squeenix had never asked for a duology (or trilogy if you count DXHR, I guess) we would have gotten a game twice as long as DXMD with the same amount of depth and details for the same price is rather far-fetched.

Heck, I think the very narrative of DXMD disproves the "game was split in half" conspiracy theory, because it very clearly has a complete and fully fleshed out 3-act structure, with a lot of effort put in making all three acts distinct and meaningful. With a structure like that, DXMD clearly was meant to be self-contained as a game, regardless of which plot threads are left unresolved (which is not abnormal, when the game itself can be viewed as the second part of a "Jensen trilogy").

[–]ThatOneChappy 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

You don't get me. I'm not calling Mankind Divided short in the ''fucking hell, I got ripped off!'' kind of way. Pragmatically speaking you're getting a lot of content. 20-30 hours average is par on the course for a game like this. The problem is the length isn't big enough for the story they want to tell, and compared to its predecessor its somewhat disappointing.

I don't know how much I clocked in on HR, exactly, I don't remember the game having any timers and I haven't checked my saves in ages but I kinda rushed through HR my first time around and that felt like it took longer than the time I spent on Mankind Divided exploring and doing all the side content [couldn't do harvester pt2 my first time around due to a glitch, tho].

So yes, the side content is deeper [13 side missions, which is quite a bit, not sure if less than HR]. Prague is a better hub than Detroit [I do miss the homely feel that place had, though. You feel like a stranger in a strange land in Prague and that may have been the point] and Hengsha, but ultimately the problem is the story content.

The side content helps flesh out the world but if you do the side content the problems with the main story aren't alleviated. Problems that are [mostly] not with the writing, but everything's lack of conclusion. As for Golem City, it doesn't have to be as deep as Prague. What's there is solid, throw in a few extra side missions when you visit it again and you have a hub. More importantly, I feel its necessary to grasp the weight of the Human Restoration act which we don't really feel in the game.

Here is the thing right: the terrorist plot is not the main threat. The game makes sure to remind you of this over and over, which is why its so fucking weird. It always undermines those terrorist attacks as a symptom of a larger problem, it constantly reminds you that you should be after the real bad guys which strips the supposed main plot of any weight. By the end you feel like you finished one act of 3.

Lets take Marchenko, for instance. He's the corner stone of the terrorist plot, right? What's this guy's story? exact motivations? what compels a pro-aug extremist to try and pass anti-aug legislation? what's his ''point'' that he hammers on about? you can try and infer but you'll end up with inconclusive answers like most things in the game. He's basically Barrett from HR, if made into a main villain. So your terrorist plot isn't developed and made as a set up for something greater. That something greater never happens, have fun with a cliffhanger.

And this is the case with the rest of the game. I agree to an extent, leaving some things hanging for the sequel is one of the oldest tricks in the book but stories don't leave literally everything without answer. Its easier to count the things that get resolved than the things that don't. I think there are honestly about 4 plot lines in this game that get a proper conclusion, 1 of them doesn't make sense, 1 of them unsatisfying and 2 of them okay.

https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=25434 https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=2489

I honestly don't know how you got 50-60 hours out of it but i'm not calling you a liar because we all play those games differently, but the time you spend exploring or doing whatever doesn't translate into story content which is the problem here. Good bang for your buck in there but not enough for the story it wants to tell.

They weren't late in development. As Jim noted this stuff started in 2015 and they weren't even close to hitting the projected release date of February 2016. They had to pull people from DXNG2 to work on DXNG1 in an attempt to get it ready by then, which tells you a lot of work still needed to be done.

That also tells us that those guys are not just the executive Eidos team working on concepts and ideas for the second game. Don't you find that kind of odd? Mankind Divided being over a year away from release yet they have a full team up and running already working on a sequel? having the ground works of what was meant to be the rest of MD would sure quicken the process.

You objectively have less story content and side missions won't alleviate this since they tend to tell their own stand alone stories that enhance the world and in some cases intersect with the main plot [namely Sarif's plot, which surprise surprise ends on an inconclusive note]. Again i'm happy [if not bewildered] that someone can spend 60 hours on a single playthrough of this game, more power to you mang but you guys are outliers not the rule, here. I mean all of the people who found the story length troublesome alongside all the reviews can't all be doing it wrong, can we? the time you spent exploring and immersing yourself doesn't translate to story content.

Mankind Divided has a lot of depth with its gameplay, its level design, its hub but depth is stripped away from the story.

The best analogy i'v seen used for MD is that its your smart stoner friend who you could talk to about everything and anything, provided you can tolerate the occasional mention of chem trails. That's what MD is. Its a smart, deep game in terms of its gameplay and design but it fails at narrative design and its issues aren't even necessarily writing [although that has a few problems...aug racists!!!] but just how little there is.

Its not that far fetched in a world where games like The Witcher 3 exist. But that aside, what I think happened is the game had at least another act in store, we'd get to explore and run around Prague one more time, maybe visit another smaller area like Golem with side quests and it'd tie up loose ends, which there are dozens. Another thing that makes me believe this is Chikane, of all people.

There are a lot of hints surrounding his true allegiance but they never go anywhere. Unless you have the art book.

They outright say ''Chikane's a spy'' in that. Now here is the thing, if this part of his story was meant to be kept for a sequel and nothing was in any way cut, why do they just spill it out in the art book? was there a mission in the game surrounding that that got cut with the rest of MD? the TF29 spy plot is still up in the air once you realize Miller is innocent.

You and I have very different standards for complete and meaningful. When all you end up with is basically one insignificant plot line resolved, that's not complete. That's not meaningful. Its one act molded into a full game. It ends on an act intermission but instead of continuing from there it rolls the credits.

[–]RandomGunner 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

True, the game is the same length as HR, but it's only because of the many quality side quests added to it.

The main plot is shorter, with less locales. However, I do dig the fab job Eidos did with Prague, and how well that hub is used and entricated with the main plot.

[–]Itkovyan 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agreed. At the same time, the side quests inform the game's storyline to a far greater extent than the DXHR ones do, so to me it evens out.

And yeah, I think I would have preferred had DXMD taken us to another hub... but at the same time I cannot deny that just doing Prague has allowed them to make it a much deeper and more intricate hub, turning the immersion up to 11, which I absolutely love.

It would be nice to have more hubs, and have each of them be as detailed as Prague, but that's a case of having your cake and eating it too, I guess. :)

[–]Storm-Sage 2ポイント3ポイント  (8子コメント)

If this is true (which it seems like it does) im done with square enix, it was one of the few companies i thought actually cared

[–]RiasDeLiash 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

While SE does have a thing for micro transactions it is a result of the Japanese market more than the Western market. They love that kind of thing there. The thing is SE has always taken a position against the pay to win aspect of micro transactions in their Japanese market where they are the actual developer and publisher. The only games that this has happened to has been games from Western developers. This makes me more inclined to believe that SE is less responsible for the type of microtransactions we see here and more the development studio themselves. Not that the developers wants the microtransactions but more than SE probably said "we want to do this so you figure it out for your game" and the developers chose this route to do it because it was easier than the work it would take to do what SE does with their Japanese market games which is almost purely cosmetics.

[–]ToastyMozart 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

it is a result of the Japanese market more than the Western market. They love that kind of thing there.

Same with locking down everything they can about the game. "Mod support? .ini edits? Can't have that."

[–]RiasDeLiash 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

You don't know much about the Deus Ex history if you think those were SE's choices. The only Deus Ex game you could do anything like that was the original and that was only because it was built on the Unreal engine and people figured out enough of the games scripting to actually do some changes and then later Ion Storm released the SDK. Then again that was the last Deus Ex game made by the original developer Ion Storm before Eidos shut them down. Eidos made the sequel Invisible War on the Unreal 2 engine which actually allowed them to lock the game's scripting even more and modding died with only a few mods ever developed for it and no SDK released since Ion Storm was no longer calling the shots. This was Eidos fault at this point as SE still hadn't entered the picture. It is plain from this history that the developers from Eidos didn't want modding.

[–]ToastyMozart 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Still doesn't explain locking down the config files though.

[–]RiasDeLiash 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

If Valve had locked the config files and keybinding system in Half-Life then you would have never seen the bunny hopping situation happen. There were also a LOT of config cheats for Unreal Tournament back in the day. Locking down .ini's is actually a result of this and a lot of companies do it now to stop cheating in their games.

[–]ToastyMozart 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Control bindings and in-game values, maybe, but not visual/graphical options like resolution and FOV.

Also god forbid someone cheats in a singleplayer game :P

[–]RiasDeLiash 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The ini used for the single player game is the same one used for Breach which while not being multiplayer in the same way a game like CoD is it is still a multiplayer game where you are competing with others for time and scores. In that respect they are just treating it like many other developers do and locking it down.

[–]ToastyMozart 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

They should have split it COD-style then; different settings for the online and offline modes.

It's not like they even check it for modification: that hex edit to give you a wider FOV works just fine with Breach.

[–]DudeousDude 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

If the rushed polishing because of the last minute micro-transactions is true I'm really infuriated since I still can't finish the game as many others. For me it's the infamous crashing loading screen in the metro, even after the patch, but there are some other game breaking crashes as well. Thankfully it seems devs are still active to fix these crashes, but publisher letting this happen to the game is just sad. Really sad.

[–]RiasDeLiash -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

The thing is SE is now and probably always will be a proponent of microtransactions. Eidos HAD to know this going into this project. This is definitely not the first time SE has requested adding microtransactions to a game they published and Eidos is the first developer to fubar the game itself and supposedly have someone on the inside blame the microtransactions for it. Thing is they blame this microtransaction thing for the problems when it's obvious they KNEW the microtransaction thing was going to be in the game since they pretty obviously designed Breach to almost require you to pay money to progress near the end. This isn't something they could change that drastically in a few weeks. I place blame on both companies. SE for microtransactions in the first place even though they only push for cosmetics MTs and Eidos for the decision to make the MTs pay to win and to design an aspect of the game to almost require them. Eidos isn't going to get out of the responsibility with me. They did this themselves.

[–]Lilze82 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

If this all is true how can we support the developers to continue the Deus ex franchise but slap the wrists of of squeenix so they stop acting like a bunch of bell-ends?

[–]piercehead 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

As with all these things, vote with your wallet. Buy the game but don't pay for the micro-transactions or the season passes. If the numbers ever show it's not worth it they'll stop doing it. If.

[–]DeusBex 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

And then a sequel won't happen...

[–]Pedophilecabinet 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

So? This isn't Ambrosia Neuropozyn a life saving drug. If you reward their shitty practices then more shitty practices will happen. Do you want a half baked zombie shell of a game or a good game?

Also, a sequel is happening regardless of people buying micro transactions, and it was and is already being developed. HR sold incredibly well and this will more so.

[–]Jobr321 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fuck Square Enix, that is all

[–]jac52 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

A statistic that makes me happy: Breach trophy for clearing level 1 server (whatever that is) has been obtained by 0.1% of players.

[–]Left4DayZ1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't have any trouble believing this.

You don't end up with a game as well made and intricately detailed as DXMD if the developers are complicit with trying to leech money from gamers - you end up with Call of Duty 20xx.

It's quite clear that love was poured into this game, and that any of the controversial business decisions came from a different entity - specifically, a corporate one.

Anyone who believes that the DX team "asked for this" is only fooling themselves. They CLEARLY made this game out of love and care... It was Squenix that tried to turn it into a $3 hooker.

[–]Funnyguy17 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Eidos Montreal had two teams working on Deus Ex, DXNG and DXNG2...Standing for Deus Ex Next Gen, DXNG2 which has been a project since at least mid 2015 is working on the sequel to Mankind Divided" Hmm

[–]JudasPiss 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

Wait, did I understand that right? MD's sequel is in the hands of the "2nd" team? Man I'm not too hopeful then... Future's looking grim.

That's actually really sad. And horrifying.

[–]Ikitou_ 18ポイント19ポイント  (3子コメント)

In most studios it's not simply a case of a A team and a B team. Chances are the '2nd team' is headed up by the same people who did MD, and more and more people from the '1st team' will be moving over now that the the MD project is winding down.

By the time it comes out the new game will probably have been made by largely the same group of people.

[–]Itkovyan 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Agreed. In fact we know it is the same "executive" team working on the entire franchise, such as Jonathan Jacques-Belletete in charge of the art.

Besides this, what largely happened is probably the pre-production devs immediately moved on to the NG2 team when they were done with NG, and now that DXMD is done the vast majority of the NG team is likely switched over to NG2, aside from those working on finishing the DLC.

[–]vaulthead 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Sorry for being dense but what is NG?

[–]JudasPiss 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

According to the video codenames for Mankind Divided and its sequel were "DXNG" and "DXNG2", respectively. NG stands for "Next-Gen".

[–]cskee 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

I guess that their A team will be working on the DX5 now, so it might not be that bad. Unless they gave that team DLC to work on

[–]Itkovyan 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think A and B team is the right way to think of it. No doubt the people involved in DXMD's pre-production (art design, prototyping, whatever) were moved to the sequel first, and more of DXMD's team would no doubt transit to the sequel as they completed their parts. By now, I imagine the majority of the DXMD team is on the sequel, aside from those finishing the DLC. That type of concurrent development is hardly new.

Beyond that, we need to keep in mind that some of the talent responsible for DXHR was moved in positions to oversee the DX projects in general. For example, JJB was Art Director for DXHR, and now he's Executive Art Director (or some such) for all DX projects at Eidos Montreal. So I still expect to see cool triangles everywhere. :)

[–]RiasDeLiash 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You don't understand how game development works. Every game goes through four main phases. Concept > Pre-production > Production > Post-production.

The two main phases are pre-procuction and production. This is almost always different teams. This means when they say that the sequel is in the hands of a different team than what is currently working on MD it means the pre-production team is in control. the Production team is still working on a few things while the post-production team is getting ramped up. Once the post-production team is in control of things the only main members of the production team that will still be dealing with it are the department heads. Pre-production teams almost always stay pre-production and production/post-production teams almost always stay production/post-production.

[–]mortalsaw -3ポイント-2ポイント  (4子コメント)

ah fuck , second team ? thats where the horrible Thief game came out
with that unfinished ending i knew it was Square enix shitty decision to do this and most of the development team must watch their passion and hard work undermined by greedy Publisher .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFZktZNySg

[–]RiasDeLiash 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

You sir do not understand how game development works. EVERY game is worked on by more than one team. The people involved with pre-production assets such as engine design, prototyping, tool design, base art design, level prototyping, etc are usually finished with the majority of their work a year or more before the game is finished. They move on to other projects only working on the original game when something needs changing in their field or the like. The production team that works on fleshing out the game's assets work on things like level design, modelling and animation, scripting, voice acting, UI design, etc joins the work toward the end of the pre-production teams efforts and as the pre-production team ends it's work they hand the reigns to the production team in full and move on to other projects. This is why NG2 is in the hands of another team than what is working on MD right now.

The fact Jim doesn't understand this fact himself just makes me not what to listen to much of what he says about the subject.

[–]ThatOneChappy 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Lol Jim said nothing about all of this. But your point is somewhat rendered moot by the fact that DXNG2 had people shifted back to DXNG1 about a year before release to try and meet February 2016, meaning it wasn't just the pre-production team on the job.

[–]RiasDeLiash 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

My point stated "They (pre-production) move on to other projects only working on the original game when something needs changing in their field or the like." so no my point is not moot. You just didn't read everything in my comment. Also it was not the entire pre-production team moved back only a small part of it was.

[–]ThatOneChappy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

But the DXNG2 team was funneled into DXNG1 when the game was only 1 year after release. What role could the pre-production guys play there? they were trying to make the feb 2016 date so really the problem had nothing to do with PP

[–]smartbrowsering -3ポイント-2ポイント  (3子コメント)

I think they really needed to choose a different protagonist than Adam. Drop the paid DLC's garbage and released modding support. Any decent publisher would've done that without a second thought unless its Ubisoft\EA....

[–]hydrosphere13 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Square Enix is the publisher for Deus Ex so not sure why you're hating on EA/Ubisoft lol.

[–]Rascal2pt0 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Probably because Ubisoft is about 100x worse with this.

[–]smartbrowsering 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because they like bending over customers and getting them to pay for pointless shit rather than sell them a full fuking game.