• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Calvinien

Banned
Jul 13, 2019
2,970
So improving the on boarding of people new to the genre? Something that's super important for a multiplayer game?

I fail to see this as a bad thing.

Well they work for microsoft...so by definition anything they do is a bad thing. Especially if it looks like a good thing. That's just camouflage for later bad things, the details of which I am unable or unwilling to provide.

Gamepass, ease of use enhancements, letting handicapped people play. It's all a vast conspiracy by microsoft to let more people play games, which I, as a #1337haxorgamersupreme refuse to abide by!
 

cyrribrae

Chicken Chaser
Member
Jan 21, 2019
12,723
Just make optional accessibility and easy difficulty options.

....it's not that hard.
The whole point of the negative responses is that it should have always been accessible to new players even if game pass wasn't a thing. A tutorial should have nothing to do with game pass whatsoever.

It feels like they're trying to dig deep to find something more positive to say about game pass that hasn't already been said. Known as marketing.
I'd say these responses actually miss the point. If your new player has to KNOW that they don't understand your game so that they can fix what they need to fix to then understand your game, you've already lost them. This is like the opposite of PUBG - where they assumed every person who touched the game would be of a certain type of gamer, familiar with the specific expectations of the genre, and down to muddle through those vagaries on their own. People were for a bit, but as the game/genre exploded - it opened the door for more accessible and player-friendly games to usurp that crown (obviously more complicated than just this). Similarly, look to MS's new Flight Simulator. It's easy to assume that every person who spends full price to buy a flight sim game is probably super into it and ready to deal with all the CRAP and CONFUSION that comes with hardcore sims.

That's no longer true - Flight Sim might actually get a lot of new players who don't even know that Y is inverted in flight. The tutorial must be FUNDAMENTALLY different than in the past - and it may even cause some longtime players to scoff at it (as Gears 5' semi-forced tutorial did). But regardless, it's absolutely critical. This is a good thing - where we think about our industry and genres and games expanding to people we never thought to include before.
 
Apr 21, 2018
6,969
I'd say these responses actually miss the point. If your new player has to KNOW that they don't understand your game so that they can fix what they need to fix to then understand your game, you've already lost them. This is like the opposite of PUBG - where they assumed every person who touched the game would be of a certain type of gamer, familiar with the specific expectations of the genre, and down to muddle through those vagaries on their own. People were for a bit, but as the game/genre exploded - it opened the door for more accessible and player-friendly games to usurp that crown (obviously more complicated than just this). Similarly, look to MS's new Flight Simulator. It's easy to assume that every person who spends full price to buy a flight sim game is probably super into it and ready to deal with all the CRAP and CONFUSION that comes with hardcore sims.

That's no longer true - Flight Sim might actually get a lot of new players who don't even know that Y is inverted in flight. The tutorial must be FUNDAMENTALLY different than in the past - and it may even cause some longtime players to scoff at it (as Gears 5' semi-forced tutorial did). But regardless, it's absolutely critical. This is a good thing - where we think about our industry and genres and games expanding to people we never thought to include before.


I don't think it's that hard for an option to pop-up before the game starts asking the player what their experience level is, or something akin to that. Or calling it 'newcomer', 'regular' and 'advanced' modes or something.

You're right, I don't think the gamers need to go to hidden sub menu's to find the 'easy' mode. It's like how in Mario Kart 8, when you start off, the auto-steering and auto-driving is turned on. It makes perfect sense because someone who needs those modes probably wouldn't know how to turn them on in a sub-menu. But luckily it's optional and anyone who is used to playing games can very quickly turn it off (and it remembers the setting).

All I'm saying is, options are always better. Even if the option is right at the forefront. Catering to the lowest common denominator is the wrong approach....although I do feel like these dev's are doing it right, and this is all being taken out of context by everyone (including me, who only while writing this post has rationalized it)
 

christocolus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
14,932
You could maybe not have a misleading title and include the part of the paragraph that actually matters?

"They can practice safely in the tutorial and in the Dojo against AI, warm up to the game and start to understand why the team is important and what you can do as an individual. Hopefully they can go into that first game a little bit more prepared."
Lol. Clickbait headlines drive views. Good for NT. The inclusion of the Dojo is a great addition.
 

DoradoWinston

Member
Apr 9, 2019
6,106
I told you M$ would force the new devs to do stuff!!

s/



imagine having better tutorials even remotely being turned into a bad thing lmao
 

DrDeckard

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,109
UK
What a headline to go with compared to the body of writing. Strange headline, clickbait world we live in.
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
Of course the rise of subscription services will what games are made and how they are designed. Just like the rise of steaming services has for tv and film.

It's not inherently a bad thing.
 

Deleted member 2254

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
21,467
This makes sense. Someone who buys a game like this is probably somewhat familiar with the genre, or has watched videos about how it all plays. On the other hand, people on Game Pass will download the weirdest things they normally would never waste money on, hoping to find some unexpected gem. What data we have is that players try a lot of games from genres they don't normally spend money on in the service. Now, if you don't play a lot of class-based multiplayer shooters, Bleeding Edge can and will be overwhelming. And a lot of Game Pass users who are not into this sort of thing will find trouble, so good on the devs on making tutorials that are more clear, objectives that are more understandable even to non-veterans of multiplayer and so on. Allow people to have fun from the start, see what to do as opposed to turning off the game because it feels too much, too soon.
 

TechnicPuppet

Member
Oct 28, 2017
10,808
The whole point of the negative responses is that it should have always been accessible to new players even if game pass wasn't a thing. A tutorial should have nothing to do with game pass whatsoever.

It feels like they're trying to dig deep to find something more positive to say about game pass that hasn't already been said. Known as marketing.

I feel like you haven't actually read the negative responses. That is not at all what they are saying.
 

EatChildren

Wonder from Down Under
Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,029
The knee jerk reactionary posts are laughably embarrassing. Until some of you make an effort and actually read the articles and sources being provided, and use just a shred of reading comprehension to understand what is being stated, you will never, ever improve online discussion here or elsewhere. You make your own bed of shit. Do better.
 

Crayon

Member
Oct 26, 2017
15,580
Yeah subs will affect design but the example here is a good change. There will be good and bad changes. Dont worry about it.
 

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,322
Wasn't it the same with Gears 5? They added in Jack as a playable character for accessibility reasons because they knew a bunch of newbies were going to be playing thru GP. Either way, eww. Service business models dictating game design is just horrible.

Wait what?

Getting additional resources to enhance the experience for beginner players is awesome.

Jack was a highlight of Gears 5
 

Ahti

Unshakable Resolve
Member
Nov 6, 2017
9,170
I guess the development of Mortal Kombat 11, with its great tutorial, was changed by game pass, too.
Oh, wait.
 
Last edited:

Asbsand

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
9,901
Denmark
I don't agree with their philosophy on a pick-up-and-play versus dedicated purchase and how that should apparently influence the game's presentation, just in general, but I understand why they're doing it anyway.

DLC also changed how games were developed, especially how we treat single player campaign endings and we never really discuss that.
 

Gundam

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,801
This seems like a good thing, though I'm skeptical either way if this game can sustain a player base for very long. Wish NT all the luck.
 

tulpa

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
3,878
this thread is a prime example of people who have never been involved with the process of making a game lecturing developers on how awful they are based on a few quotes snipped out of context
 

Kida

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,899
More embarrassing anti-Gamepass/MS posts in an Era thread... I guess the clickbait works.
 

elenarie

Game Developer
Verified
Jun 10, 2018
9,794
Yea no shit Sherlock that you need a good onboarding experience if you want to get new players in.
 

Deleted member 17184

User-requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,240
Wasn't it the same with Gears 5? They added in Jack as a playable character for accessibility reasons because they knew a bunch of newbies were going to be playing thru GP. Either way, eww. Service business models dictating game design is just horrible.
Why horrible? If we get more games we usually wouldn't because Game Pass gives them a chance to be successful, why is that a bad thing?
 

DavidDesu

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
5,718
Glasgow, Scotland
What's wrong with that??? If it works it means more people likely to be interested in buying and playing your next game. Makes sense.

Plus conversely, the last thing you want on a Netflix of gaming style service is to give a bad first impression and feel impenetrable. People will simply move on to the next game and forget about you very quickly.
 

Stop It

Bad Cat
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,349
This. Onboarding is important in general when you're trying to build a community, but it's even more so when you have an audience whose potential investment is low/nothing because they have no incentive to stay if they get frustrated trying to learn how things work.

How is this bad?
It isn't.

Well, to anyone normal it isn't.

But we've already had the "Game Pass is ruining games" hot takes.

Games should have good onboarding to begin with anyway, frankly.
 

Deleted member 37739

User requested account closure
Banned
Jan 8, 2018
908
I mean, there's very little in the article from which to actually draw conclusions, but it's safe to say that most games of any sizeable budget these days are subject to this kind of feedback loop.
 

danmaku

Member
Nov 5, 2017
3,232
Wasn't it the same with Gears 5? They added in Jack as a playable character for accessibility reasons because they knew a bunch of newbies were going to be playing thru GP. Either way, eww. Service business models dictating game design is just horrible.

Monetization always influenced game design. Arcade games had adaptive difficulty to make games shorter even for expert players, American NES games were harder because of rentals. In the case of Gears 5 the effect doesn't look too bad, they made it more accessible in a smart way.
 

Rodelero

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,508
I guess I agree with the headline though not in the way the article suggests.

I don't think Microsoft would have pushed forward with this product if they weren't trying to quickly increase their first party portfolio and I don't think Bleeding Edge would have any chance of surviving if it wasn't for Game Pass. It's the kind of game where you'd be struggling to matchmake after a few weeks if it wasn't available free.
 

Voodoopeople

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,847
The more devs that do this, the better.

All they have done here is they've effectively had to apply themselves better to accommodate new players.

If a service model actually forces a dev to improve a game, as in this case, great.

I have no time for game design that drops you in and forces you to sink or swim.
 

Edge

A King's Landing
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
21,012
Celle, Germany
Will still be dead after a week. Sorry.
Nothing against the quality, but the Battleborn/Lawbreakers feeling is all over this.
 

Deleted member 7051

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,254
People were quick to fall in love with how cheap GP is but if you didn't think it was going to change how games were made thats on you.

Its easier to handwave bad games and $60 games with a F2P MTX models.

Gears5 is a prime example

That is an inevitable concern, I guess. The developers that end up on Game Pass will add new systems to monetise their games since, presumably, they won't get anywhere near as much money as they would if people bought the game instead.

The problem is developers are already doing that anyway, so does Game Pass affect the adoption of such systems at all or does it accelerate them?
 

RedSparrows

Prophet of Regret
Member
Feb 22, 2019
6,473
Yet again some people seem thoroughly invested in the idea of the fact of change in itself as being somehow dangerous, rather than what change and why.

Of course Gamepass affects how games are designed. So too does the £60 model. This is reality. The specific facts here, on this case, i.e. the type of change, are only bad if you are really hung up on petty shit.

Also, the idea that subscriptions mean 'bad' content is easier to accept is absurd on multiple levels. One, the sub needs quality to attract customers. How else does it prosper?! Two, I'm not taking too many cues on what's good and bad from this forum, tyvm, with its absurd hyperbole and reductive chatter: subs are good at helping one to avoid this bullshit, actually, because the barrier to entry is so low.
 

Voodoopeople

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,847
Will still be dead after a week. Sorry.
Nothing against the quality, but the Battleborn/Lawbreakers feeling is all over this.

I'm not so sure. I think it'll do well. Mainly because:
  1. It's not a shooter. There's little direct competition for this game at all in the genre. The nearest is For Honor.
  2. With a brawler, it's much less likely that you'll get that awful "How the hell did I just die?" thing, that I hate so much in modern shooters. This is usually caused by far better players just being able to pop you when you haven;' even spotted them yet. A brawler gives you a chance to run away.
  3. The onboarding/accessibility news recently will actually make it more likely that people try it out and get to grips with it.
  4. The fact it's on Gamepass massively opens up the player pool. There's no $40/60 barrier here.
  5. Ninja Theory make incredibly polished games. It already looks great and it's actively improving with player feedback.
 

Zedark

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,719
The Netherlands
Uh, so tutorials are better? That sounds pretty good. I don't see anything that says they dumbed stuff down to accommodate inexperienced players in this.
 

Voodoopeople

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,847
Of course Gamepass affects how games are designed. So too does the £60 model. This is reality. The specific facts here, on this case, i.e. the type of change, are only bad if you are really hung up on petty shit.

True. The $60 barrier is just as much a reason for open world collectathons and bloat as anything else. That ridiculous "Value for Money" proposition based on time spent on a game.
 

Rodelero

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,508
I'm not so sure. I think it'll do well. Mainly because:

It's not a shooter. There's little direct competition for this game at all in the genre. The nearest is For Honor.

Largely because no-one wants this. No-one wants shallow MOBA style combat transplanted into simplistic multiplayer modes. Lots of games have tried to take bits of MOBAs and transplant them into different genres. The one standout success is Overwatch which is, of course, a shooter. The vast majority have failed and Bleeding Edge will most likely be one of them.

It gives me no pleasure to say it, because frankly I was quite intrigued by it when it was announced, but the high level design decisions in this game are going to doom it. I think there is a gap in the market for an online arena brawler, even one based around MOBA style heroes, just not one based on MOBA combat.

The fact it's on Gamepass massively opens up the player pool. There's no $40/60 barrier here.

Game Pass probably will benefit from it, in that it will allow the game to survive rather than die, but that doesn't mean it will be successful.
 
Last edited:

TheGhost

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
28,137
Long Island
Wasn't it the same with Gears 5? They added in Jack as a playable character for accessibility reasons because they knew a bunch of newbies were going to be playing thru GP. Either way, eww. Service business models dictating game design is just horrible.


Ewww....because they want to add a god damn tutorial...

Now I've read it all

So instead of playing one game and getting stomped....and quitting.... players are actually going to have a fighting chance and stick around? The horror.
 

roguesquirrel

The Fallen
Oct 29, 2017
5,483
Wasn't it the same with Gears 5? They added in Jack as a playable character for accessibility reasons because they knew a bunch of newbies were going to be playing thru GP. Either way, eww. Service business models dictating game design is just horrible.
Yeah its so HORRIBLE they're having a better onramp for players not experienced with the genre lmao some people