310°

Did We All Forget How Bungie/Activision Treated The Community With The First Game?

With all the Destiny 2 hype people seem to be forgetting how bad the first game release was and how Bungie and Activision treated their community.

Read Full Story >>
beyond-gaming.net
thekhurg2444d ago

Bungie treated us with love and respect.

Yukes2444d ago

I'm not sure if it was the leftover Chinese I had for breakfast, but I feel a little queasy...

nX2443d ago

Some people must be stupid forgetting Destiny 1 like that. Sure you can like the concept, but you can't pretend it was well done by Bungie. I still hate parts of this game despite stopping playing years ago.

Sam Fisher2443d ago

Lmfao 😂😂

I don't believe it was the food

Thunder_G0d_Bane2444d ago (Edited 2444d ago )

Well Destiny 2 is now on PC and it’s the definitive version of the game so I’m happy to wait.

Bungie has done right by me by putting it on battlenet so it’s right there next to my WoW, Overwatch an hearthstone apps.

r3f1cul2444d ago

didnt forget ... didnt buy ... will not buy ... bungie will never get another cent from me as a gamer ... entire first games season pass was a joke, nothing of worth was added until they wanted to nickel and dime me for more money... game had no story that was actually in game or actually worth looking into... the single most definition of SSDD in a game ive ever played in my life ...

zerocarnage2443d ago

All true and the fact the development of the game showed a lack of experience, they said they wanted to get gamers gaming together yet simple features like auto matchmakj g on raids were left out. In fact the devs got Destiny so wrong they forgot some of the simest features and content that make up the base of an mmorpg.

To me Destiny was the worst con and lie of the gaming industry.

FITgamer2443d ago

TBF fair all this DLC BS is likely the work of Activision, not Bungie.

maybelovehate2443d ago

Vault of Glass is still the best thing Bungie ever made in their entire existence and it was part of the original game.

jmc88882443d ago (Edited 2443d ago )

Which I never got to play because there was no matchmaking, and the only 'friends' I met on the game were behind me, so I quit for a time as I had nothing to do, and when I went back, they were all past it and me.

No one wanted to play it again, at least when I was on, and most people had moved on to DLC, thus making it even harder for people to do it.

Thus I had no one to play with. Going around messenging people didn't work. So on and so forth. I even went to a 3rd party website and never got an invite.

So whatever Vault of Glass was, however great it was, a willing player never got to participate in it, and it was Bungie's fault.

That was the main problem with Destiny outside of content issues, and it simply was one of the most idiotic game design decisions I've ever heard of. Matchmaking AND fireteams, not just fireteams or you're screwed.

maybelovehate2443d ago

@jmc8888: I never had any issues finding fireteams. Have over 300 Raid runs lol. Most were with clans but also many with LFG. It was such a popular game it was never hard to find a group.

eddvdm2443d ago

If that wasn't enough they're bundled with ACTIVISION, which in the past was one of the best companies in the game industry, and now serves as the perfect example to prove that Satanic forces do exist and take over the best things amongst us D:

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2443d ago
MrBeatdown2444d ago

I remember buying a game and playing it and having fun. Then I bought the collection and had fun.

Call me crazy, but I'm not the type to buy expansion after expansion after expansion, then decide I'm a victim.

Jeff2572444d ago

Same here. I did get a little burnt out on Destiny shortly after Rise Of Iron came out and didn't do the whole Age Of Triumphs thing but I still enjoyed my time with the first game and I don't feel bad at all about buying into it. My family also played it some and between the amount of time I spent on Destiny 1 along with my family we more than got our money's worth. Granted we only had one copy of Destiny 1 so we had to share but for Destiny 2 we bought two copies so I can play along with them. Still money well spent.

A good way to look at it is compare it to the price of a movie ticket and how much entertainment time you get for the money spent. For one taking a family like mine even to matinee shows can cost almost as much as a game. Add in popcorn, drinks, and snacks and we go over a game. Most movies run 90 minutes to 2 hours with a few pushing 3 hours. Of course you can get it cheaper if you just wait for the Blu Ray but some movies are better seen in a Theater.

Now look at games like Destiny. I spent over 641 hours playing it and some of my fellow clan mates played it far more. All told I did spend over $140 but looking at the hours spent and the fact because I had it on day one I was able to experience it right alongside my friends. Sure I could have gotten it cheaper later but part of the price for me was playing it with them.

In any case if people hate the game or the sequel that is fine. It's never going to be a game for everyone. But some people truly did get good value out of it and will most likely get the same kind of enjoyment from Destiny 2.

EmperorDalek2443d ago

"people seem to be forgetting how bad the first game release was"

Yes. It was so bad that it only had the highest retained player base this gen... Come on. It only got two small expansions in its first year, so the original launch couldn't have been that bad, as tons of people continued to play it.

A bad launch is something like Evolve, where even if they somehow made free updates to make it the best game ever, no one would still be playing it to care.

FunAndGun2443d ago

Tons of people like fidget spinners.

EmperorDalek2443d ago

Completely unrelated. Apart from the fact that fidget spinners look like the Destiny logo

Show all comments (47)
130°

Square Enix Is Going Multiplatform; The Layoffs & Its Past Don't Inspire Confidence

After its latest games didn't meet sales targets, Square Enix is going multiplatform but the company's track record isn't convincing.

Scissorman9h ago

Square Enix been multiplatform for decades, a few exclusively-deals doesn't make them any less multiplatform.

fr0sty9h ago

Nor is selling their games on a console with only 25 million install base going to bring their sales to where they hope they will be... Unless they somehow manage to dumb down FF7 trilogy to work on switch, they aren't going to have much luck. They already released it on PC, after all.

SegaSaturn6699h ago

It kind of does, giving preference to a certain platform by timed exclusivity. Console ports generally feel superior. Legend of mana PC port extremely broken

neutralgamer19928h ago

Sega

It doesn’t when square themselves didn’t want to fund the development of remake. It’s only after the success of the 1st they realized their mistake but now contract is signed. If it wasn’t for Sony there would be no FF7 remakes. Same goes for silent hill 2 with Konami. They don’t want to fund AAA budget. Companies like PlayStation and Nintendo get blamed when in reality they are saving some of these franchises

Remember sega didn’t want to fund bayonetta and epic games didn’t want to fund another gears of war. It’s easy to blame console makers but they are the ones taking the risk and paying huge upfront costs without seeing the final product. FF7 remake trilogy won’t be coming to Xbox now or in the future. PlayStation and PC is what square signed up for. Sony paid them more than they would make from Xbox sales.

ravens528h ago

I just wonder when everyone is going to demand that the Square Enix exclusives with Nintendo come to PS and Xbox. Or it's just the PS exclusives that matter lol

phoenixwing8h ago(Edited 8h ago)

I'd love for the nintendo exclusives to come to pc or ps5. They'd actually be playable then.

neutralgamer19928h ago

Raven

Exactly and that’s where square enix does more exclusive than any other platform. Gaming is square has always been very unrealistic with their sales expectations. Remember when tomb raider reboot sold 7.5 million and square said it wasn’t enough. They need to spend less on development and have more realistic expectations from sales.

And those thinking games being not on Xbox makes a difference don’t understand we have a decade plus of data showing square enix games having less than 20% of their multiplatform sales on Xbox (final fantasy series) and Nintendo consoles aren’t strong enough to run any current games. Nintendo switch should be as strong as Xbox one x atleast but we all know that’s most likely won’t happen

RoadRacer7h ago

@raven

thing is, as neutral said in their comm, the switch isn't strong enough to run flagship SE games
i think what SE does is, it makes unique games for switch only so that it has something for that console too. Thats where all the "underlined sans" rpgs go to mostly

maybe things will change when Swtich 2 drops cuz that's gonna be as strong as ps4 afaik from the rumors flying around

TheGamingHounds8h ago

@Scissorman

Your point is valid enough but when the icon of this company is limited to one console in timed-exclusivity, it means the company has crossed the line. By some degree at least

All things aside, Square itself stated "aggressive multiplatform strategies" so we all know what it's talking about

Scissorman5h ago(Edited 5h ago)

Then the headline should read "Square To Drop Exclusively Deals in Pursuit of A Sweeping Multiplatform Strategy". I don't recall this argument when Square Enix released Bravely Default, Octopath Traveler, and Triangle Strategy on one platform. And even if FF is the icon, not all of its titles have gone to one platform. We're talking about three games, one of which is already on PC. Did Square suddenly go 'multiplatform' after it released subsequent Tomb Raider sequels on more than just the Xbox? It's just a silly way of putting it.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 5h ago
TheGamingHounds8h ago(Edited 8h ago)

SE needs to go all in optimization. Broken PC ports won't help its case, especially with big releases like mainline Final Fantasy

Asterphoenix8h ago

It's actually simple. What doesn't inspire confidence is Square allocating their budgets on the wrong projects such as Forspoken, Avengers, Babylons Fall and Foamstars.

Square has always been multiplatform since PS3/360 days which 80 % of their games are. People kick up a fuss over PS exclusivity but not Nintendo which has more exclusive projects console exclusive from Square.

FF16 has done ok but not enough to fix the blunders that the past mistakes Square has made with some of their projects. FF7 Rebirth is unclear we'll see a PC release for sure so it's hard to say so far not as good as they would of liked.

Then again unrealistic expectations. If it weren't for Sony these games would at least had another 2 years development time. So some people need to be realistic in that regard.

Scissorman5h ago(Edited 5h ago)

It's the blunders that set those expectations so high. If you remove those from the equation, I bet the sales numbers would be more than stellar. Square believes it's okay to release a pile of risky, middling, garbage because the big boys will ultimately subsidize the cost. Don't worry if Forspoken sells poorly, FF16 will surely sell 10 million copies to balance that right out. Oh wait, it only sold like 4 million. Well that's a disaster. Meanwhile games that sell 2 million units with comparable budgets are deemed successful.

thorstein12m ago

I would also add that FFXVI, which I loved has a hint to one of their biggest problems: the number 16.

It's a great franchise, but that's all they've become known for. Dragon Quest is my favorite all time series but it's like they don't know what to do outside of those two IPs.

Valve never makes trilogies. The idea is that they don't want to become stagnant. Gabe Newell hates the number 3.

I can't imagine their talent wouldn't want to try a new RPG.

RoadRacer7h ago

Square Enix just really need to revise its expectations. Maybe consider a change in strategy on dev end as well. Multiplat will help for sure but only good games that are marketed well will sell

70°

How the names Arrowhead Game Studios and Helldivers 2 came to be

Arrowhead Game Studios CEO Johan Pilestedt explains how the studio name comes from a name translation, plus the background on the game title “Helldivers.”

Read Full Story >>
blog.playstation.com
100°

Rockstar Games Founder's New Studio Is Working On AAA Open World Action Adventure Game

Rockstar Games founder Dan Houser's new studio, Absurd Ventures, is currently working on a AAA open world action adventure game.

Read Full Story >>
twistedvoxel.com
porkChop1d 12h ago

I'm really curious to see what he's going to do. It seems like a GTA-style game, but I wonder how it'll differentiate itself.

Goodguy011d ago (Edited 1d ago )

A new studio making a AAA game. Yea, that'll go well. I still think new studios should only make small games for a few years to build up teamwork and trust within.

shinoff218323h ago

That's a good point but if they have the talent it may not be needed

Mr_cheese22h ago

And the industry experience like this guy clearly does

anast21h ago

If it weren't one of the founder's of one of the most prolific open-world game studios, I would agree.

EazyC19h ago

That is an interesting point. They should gun for something akin to a great PS3 game imo. The resource cost of say RDR 2 would only EVER be possible by a monolithic titan of an organisation. It would be crazy to even try and compete straight away.