What'll happen as things come to a head is the interesting question. And has been for the last decade.

Titanfall 2 got a second chance, is getting high review scores across the board, and it's still adding up to disappointing sales numbers, which doesn't help the notion of $60 standalone AAA games.

I'd blame that on the publisher. Seriously? Launch it smackdab between BF1 and CoD? The hell were you guys thinking?

That was my thought as well. And really, if we're looking at it purely in terms of "what is best for Titanfall 2", then clearly EA did the game a disservice.
But Jeff Gertsman at Giant Bomb mentioned an interesting theory: he was wondering if EA is focusing more on the long term, "big picture" competition with CoD. He presented the idea that BF1 and TF2 coming out back-to-back ahead of CoDIF could act as a sort of "1->2 punch". For EA, the biggest challenge they face when trying to dethrone CoD is that massive group of players that buy COD every year automatically because all their friends are doing the same. His thinking is that by releasing BF1 and TF2 right before CoDIF, EA could be trying to tip the wavering CoD fan base over the edge and get them to simply "try something else".
"You like a more grounded, military shooter? Here's BF1. You like the futuristic sci-fi thing? Here's TF2".

From that point of view, it might not be such a bad plan. BF1 has received positive press, and TF2 is the critical darling of the year so far. Meanwhile CoDIF seems to continue the trend of a declining (but still very strong) franchise. It looks like even the mainstream "CoD every year" crowd is starting to look for something new.

I bought the bundle, which I found very attractive, and it means it's even less likely that I'll buy COD, although I'm not a regular buyer of the franchise regardless. Unlike most, I was actually more interested in this one than in the last few, but in my case time is great limiter.

they don't have time to grind. They don't have time to raid. COD was a nice, familiar safe zone for them. They didn't need to train to much to learn a new game, even through COD editions, and they seldom unlocked all the guns anyway so it wasn't to big an issue.

I've been trying to get them into different, less twitchy shooters for some time. Destiny ended up being too fast and to grindy, but Evolve, Titanfall, and Overwatch have worked. Overwatch's zero grind is especially appealing to them.

For everyone who wants to specialize and stream, there a are a bunch of "filthy casuals" who just want to mess around with their buddies every once and a while. Sadly, this demographic always gets swamped by the hardcore 24/7 gamers. They have all the prestige, money and pull people in.

If I'm following your point correctly, it sounds like the upgrades in Deus Ex have more in common with the in-game collectables of other games in terms of how it effects your gameplay loop. Similar to how power upgrades work in Quantum Break (in that case, power upgrades literally were collectables spread throughout the levels).

That sounds like it. Augmentations in the original Deus Ex were found items in the game world. One augmentation canister would give you the mutually exclusive choice between two augmentations.

But it is not an investment system as implemented in that game. Leveling up and gaining new skills does not automatically mean investment.

What world do you live in? Is it fun there?

You have such narrow definitions for everything, I swear I need a Cody Miller dictionary just to have a discussion with you. It's exhausting.

You can't have it both ways, Cody. The skill points in Deus Ex aren't any different than the ones in The Witcher 3 or Dishonored or even Destiny.

To ask if something is part of an investment system, as yourself if grinding it gives you any benefit. You can't grind in Deus Ex at all, since the EXP is given out as the game progresses, in fixed places and amounts, and the game has a finite duration. The augmentations are discovered in the game world. It's simply a part of progressing through the game.

You CAN grind say, Destiny's subclass skills (and in fact have to with the 3rd subclass).

Ask yourself if time or spent money determines your final skill set. That will tell you if it's part of an investment system. Another way to tell is to see if the resource that determines your power (items, exp, whatever) is in infinite supply.

If I'm following your point correctly, it sounds like the upgrades in Deus Ex have more in common with the in-game collectables of other games in terms of how it effects your gameplay loop. Similar to how power upgrades work in Quantum Break (in that case, power upgrades literally were collectables spread throughout the levels).

But it is not an investment system as implemented in that game. Leveling up and gaining new skills does not automatically mean investment.

What world do you live in? Is it fun there?

You have such narrow definitions for everything, I swear I need a Cody Miller dictionary just to have a discussion with you. It's exhausting.

You can't have it both ways, Cody. The skill points in Deus Ex aren't any different than the ones in The Witcher 3 or Dishonored or even Destiny.

To ask if something is part of an investment system, as yourself if grinding it gives you any benefit. You can't grind in Deus Ex at all, since the EXP is given out as the game progresses, in fixed places and amounts, and the game has a finite duration. The augmentations are discovered in the game world. It's simply a part of progressing through the game.

You CAN grind say, Destiny's subclass skills (and in fact have to with the 3rd subclass).

Ask yourself if time or spent money determines your final skill set. That will tell you if it's part of an investment system. Another way to tell is to see if the resource that determines your power (items, exp, whatever) is in infinite supply.

But it is not an investment system as implemented in that game. Leveling up and gaining new skills does not automatically mean investment.

What world do you live in? Is it fun there?

You have such narrow definitions for everything, I swear I need a Cody Miller dictionary just to have a discussion with you. It's exhausting.

You can't have it both ways, Cody. The skill points in Deus Ex aren't any different than the ones in The Witcher 3 or Dishonored or even Destiny. Sure, it gets muddy when you start talking about progressing through unlocks in competitive multiplayer, but, if that's what we're talking about then Deus Ex doesn't even enter the conversation.

RPGs automatically have investment elements by their nature of leveling up,

Untrue. See: Deus Ex.

You earn skill points and unlock new abilities in Deus Ex. That's leveling up.

But it is not an investment system as implemented in that game. Leveling up and gaining new skills does not automatically mean investment.

RPGs automatically have investment elements by their nature of leveling up,

Untrue. See: Deus Ex.

You earn skill points and unlock new abilities in Deus Ex. That's leveling up.

RPGs automatically have investment elements by their nature of leveling up,

Untrue. See: Deus Ex.

I think there's an argument to be made that we're in the middle of the downfall of AAA gaming, but I'm not wholly convinced by that argument. It's not going anywhere, it's just shifting. Maybe that's a bad thing, but I don't know. I still think Hitman is the best example of this. It's easily in the top five games this year, and it's still the best argument I've ever seen for episodic gaming. I can wait for the package of Telltale games or something like Life is Strange, but Hitman, I believe, was an entirely different (and better) experience if it was played as content dropped. Six levels in 8 months, with a few smaller, special stages thrown in, along with the elusive targets--it was an active experience that encouraged folks to play the same level multiple times, something I wouldn't have done if the whole game had dropped at once. I know their games are very different, and the way they make content has to be different too, but I still think Bungie could learn a lot by looking at the way Hitman put out releases. If Bungie kept up with a pace even half of what Hitman did, I'd probably never stop playing it.

Don't get my wrong--I don't want to see every game turn into that. I don't want any more Destinys. I like games that I can say "Alright, finished that one. What's next?" and move on. I just finished the first Dishonored, and I loved every second of it. I also loved that it's traditional video game, and it has a clear end point, and no series of numbers that just keep getting bigger for no reason. But Dishonored 2 just released--those kinds of games aren't going anywhere as far as I can tell.

I've seen multiple posts all over the internet about how bad 2016 was for games, and it feels like a completely asinine statement to me. 2016 was the best year for games in probably ten years, it's just a different landscape. We're not being spoon-fed AAA releases anymore. With the rise of Steam and even the Xbox and Playstation digital stores, it's so easy to find a game to play. There are so many games now that I would seriously be happy if games just stopped releasing for two years so I could catch up and play everything I want (Two years probably wouldn't be enough time!). I would argue that anyone that says gaming is worse than ever just isn't paying any attention, or only wants to play AAA games as they were a decade ago.

I know that's not the argument you were making Cody--that's just a tangent I've been thinking about for a week or two after seeing post after post of how bad gaming is now.

I understand that there is data that needs an explanation, and his is probably a good one. I question if bad launch week sales are appreciably hurting the industry. When people are bored of their games, they get new ones, and MMO players do play other games, but tend to pick them up on sale. I wonder if the increased numbers in discounted sales make up for it.

About number one. Anecdotal evidence: just left Best Buy and it was packed. Most AAA games were for sale digitally.

On a related note, it's worth pointing out that many branches of retail are down this year. I do think the AAA game space is dealing with some issues at the moment, but retail sales in general are not doing great, so I wouldn't be too quick to put the blame on the different styles of AAA games at the moment.

Pretty much EVERY AAA game these days has either investment elements or microtransactions. Every single one. Many have both. The pressure is clearly there.

About number one. Anecdotal evidence: just left Best Buy and it was packed. Most AAA games were for sale digitally.

On a related note, it's worth pointing out that many branches of retail are down this year. I do think the AAA game space is dealing with some issues at the moment, but retail sales in general are not doing great, so I wouldn't be too quick to put the blame on the different styles of AAA games at the moment.

Titanfall 2 got a second chance, is getting high review scores across the board, and it's still adding up to disappointing sales numbers, which doesn't help the notion of $60 standalone AAA games.

I'd blame that on the publisher. Seriously? Launch it smackdab between BF1 and CoD? The hell were you guys thinking?

That was my thought as well. And really, if we're looking at it purely in terms of "what is best for Titanfall 2", then clearly EA did the game a disservice.
But Jeff Gertsman at Giant Bomb mentioned an interesting theory: he was wondering if EA is focusing more on the long term, "big picture" competition with CoD. He presented the idea that BF1 and TF2 coming out back-to-back ahead of CoDIF could act as a sort of "1->2 punch". For EA, the biggest challenge they face when trying to dethrone CoD is that massive group of players that buy COD every year automatically because all their friends are doing the same. His thinking is that by releasing BF1 and TF2 right before CoDIF, EA could be trying to tip the wavering CoD fan base over the edge and get them to simply "try something else".
"You like a more grounded, military shooter? Here's BF1. You like the futuristic sci-fi thing? Here's TF2".

From that point of view, it might not be such a bad plan. BF1 has received positive press, and TF2 is the critical darling of the year so far. Meanwhile CoDIF seems to continue the trend of a declining (but still very strong) franchise. It looks like even the mainstream "CoD every year" crowd is starting to look for something new.

Titanfall 2 got a second chance, is getting high review scores across the board, and it's still adding up to disappointing sales numbers, which doesn't help the notion of $60 standalone AAA games.

I'd blame that on the publisher. Seriously? Launch it smackdab between BF1 and CoD? The hell were you guys thinking?

And competing against another AAA EA title, no less. Still, understandable that everyone wants to get those big-budget titles out before the Holiday season.

Titanfall 2 got a second chance, is getting high review scores across the board, and it's still adding up to disappointing sales numbers, which doesn't help the notion of $60 standalone AAA games.

I'd blame that on the publisher. Seriously? Launch it smackdab between BF1 and CoD? The hell were you guys thinking?