I’m pretty mixed on this. I want to support niche games like this being made. I don’t want to support using Denuvo (even if it’ll be removed eventually) or bad MTX. Also, you’ll miss the online components on a cracked version, which is really cool in DS1 at least and I think even better in 2 from what I’ve heard.
The thing to me is, I don’t want the online experiences in most of my single player games. I turned off invasions and messages in DS. I could care less about someone else’s experience bleeding into mine, most invasions were annoying and messages were memes. For DD, let me build my pawn, pick from some randomly generated ones and that’s it, don’t punish me for wanting to single-play my single-player game. I don’t mind DLC that is purely a time saver, some people want to pay to win, in a single player game that’s fine, as long as it’s not replacing some stupidly long grind. But at the end of the day, there are far too many “single player” games that are “connect to our server to use the thing you just bought.”
You can play this offline I’m 99% sure. Sure, it’s best enjoyed online (the online experience is seemless and you don’t actually interact with other players, just the pawns they created), but it’s purely optional.
This game is getting so much hate for made up reasons and it’s really frustrating. I would love for the actual reasons to be addressed, but if they see that 99% of it isn’t stuff that’s there anyway, why would they bother fixing the 1% when it’ll just get lied about no matter what?
You can, after you get through a bit of a process of making your pawn and uploading it. I agree it’s being reviewbombed, my response was to yours about claiming that “you’re missing out if you don’t play online.” But also, you’re talking about a company that pulls hundreds of millions of dollars a year, not an indie developer. If the game sells well, the reviews don’t mean anything, it’s successful. If it doesn’t, it’s their job to focus on what consumers didn’t like and change it.
If the game sells well, the reviews don’t mean anything, it’s successful. If it doesn’t, it’s their job to focus on what consumers didn’t like and change it.
Ideally, yes. However, it’s taken 12 years for a second entry of this franchise. If it doesn’t do well (which I think we’re well past it not doing well, because it’s selling great), most likely they’d just never make a game like it again. The first game is a cult classic. It released about a year after Dark Souls 1 and scratch the same itch before anyone else was making Souls-likes. It didn’t do huge numbers though despite being received fairly well. The fact they made a second is unexpected, and we’d certainly not get a third if it only did as well as the first. They wouldn’t learn a lesson except not to touch this. The same MTX methods are in RE and no one comained, so they aren’t going to learn the lesson we want for just this one game.
It’s going to make them boatloads of money, the review bombs won’t matter. They’ve broken 200k concurrent players on steam, it’s a financial success. Of course they won’t make another like it again, neither will almost any AAA developer. The market is gearing towards games as a service, forced online/multiplayer and some such, except for the few household names continuing to support single player titles. This was a planned business decision to cash in on a franchise that was calculated as a perfect time to release a sequel, and put in the work to capture the longtime fans, and it’s making money. I’m happy for it, but Capcom is a corporation, they ran financial models and test groups to see if the game would sell well, it has, and so it’s successful.
Or wait like a month for someone to crack it and torrent it.
Could be much longer with Empress gone. But we can have hope.
I would certainly enjoy a talented, but more level-headed person entering the scene
Couldn’t agree more.
I’m pretty mixed on this. I want to support niche games like this being made. I don’t want to support using Denuvo (even if it’ll be removed eventually) or bad MTX. Also, you’ll miss the online components on a cracked version, which is really cool in DS1 at least and I think even better in 2 from what I’ve heard.
The thing to me is, I don’t want the online experiences in most of my single player games. I turned off invasions and messages in DS. I could care less about someone else’s experience bleeding into mine, most invasions were annoying and messages were memes. For DD, let me build my pawn, pick from some randomly generated ones and that’s it, don’t punish me for wanting to single-play my single-player game. I don’t mind DLC that is purely a time saver, some people want to pay to win, in a single player game that’s fine, as long as it’s not replacing some stupidly long grind. But at the end of the day, there are far too many “single player” games that are “connect to our server to use the thing you just bought.”
You can play this offline I’m 99% sure. Sure, it’s best enjoyed online (the online experience is seemless and you don’t actually interact with other players, just the pawns they created), but it’s purely optional.
This game is getting so much hate for made up reasons and it’s really frustrating. I would love for the actual reasons to be addressed, but if they see that 99% of it isn’t stuff that’s there anyway, why would they bother fixing the 1% when it’ll just get lied about no matter what?
You can, after you get through a bit of a process of making your pawn and uploading it. I agree it’s being reviewbombed, my response was to yours about claiming that “you’re missing out if you don’t play online.” But also, you’re talking about a company that pulls hundreds of millions of dollars a year, not an indie developer. If the game sells well, the reviews don’t mean anything, it’s successful. If it doesn’t, it’s their job to focus on what consumers didn’t like and change it.
Ideally, yes. However, it’s taken 12 years for a second entry of this franchise. If it doesn’t do well (which I think we’re well past it not doing well, because it’s selling great), most likely they’d just never make a game like it again. The first game is a cult classic. It released about a year after Dark Souls 1 and scratch the same itch before anyone else was making Souls-likes. It didn’t do huge numbers though despite being received fairly well. The fact they made a second is unexpected, and we’d certainly not get a third if it only did as well as the first. They wouldn’t learn a lesson except not to touch this. The same MTX methods are in RE and no one comained, so they aren’t going to learn the lesson we want for just this one game.
It’s going to make them boatloads of money, the review bombs won’t matter. They’ve broken 200k concurrent players on steam, it’s a financial success. Of course they won’t make another like it again, neither will almost any AAA developer. The market is gearing towards games as a service, forced online/multiplayer and some such, except for the few household names continuing to support single player titles. This was a planned business decision to cash in on a franchise that was calculated as a perfect time to release a sequel, and put in the work to capture the longtime fans, and it’s making money. I’m happy for it, but Capcom is a corporation, they ran financial models and test groups to see if the game would sell well, it has, and so it’s successful.