I can understand why this took this long to get to this point: there are so many moving variables and departments to appease that are/would-be core to the design of the game.
Like, if you're sitting down to redo Anthem, the first thing you need to know is what the monetization would be going forward. Cuz if it's going to be free to play, if it's going to be a paid expansion for new players, if you're going to take old gear and carry it forward, if if if if if ...all of that has severe impacts of the core design.
Once you get that sorted, you have to understand what your budget is for assets. How much of the old assets are you using? How much of the core problems of the design are baked into the existing assets (even simple questions like "Well, our world takes so many assets, we don't have enough RAM allocation to allow weapon changes out in the world, unless we have less than XXX unique weapon assets....so do we change the world or do we change the number of assets or do we change how weapon allocation works or or or or or).
Cuz if you have to use mostly old assets, what level of affect can you have on core gameplay? And if you use old assets, what perception is going to come of your revamp? Cuz if no one comes back cuz it looks like an "old game", then there's no point in putting money into it. But if that means lots of new assets, then at what point are you making a new game? And then how do you monetize that for existing owners when it's been already sold at fire sale prices and doesn't (presently) have a recurring revenue stream.
And you can say "well, just build a good game and don't worry about the budget", but that's 1) unrealistic and 2) ignores how monetization directly has an effect on game design.
I do not envy their position at all. I hope it turns out great though.
blog.bioware.com
