EA flop Immortals of Aveum reportedly cost around $125 million, former dev says "a AAA single-player shooter in today's market was a truly awful idea"
EA flop Immortals of Aveum reportedly cost around $125 million, former dev says "a AAA single-player shooter in today's market was a truly awful idea"
"No one bought it"
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm going to chime in on the "never even heard of this game" train.
And based on that, I'll "tinfoil hat" a bit: the game doesn't seem to have any kind of mtx (it does have a deluxe edition items which apparently offer boosts) - so the publisher didn't push the game as hard as it does with it's live service games -> very few even have heard of this game.
edit: because sources: https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Immortals_of_Aveum#Monetization - didn't do any further research on the matter.
edit2: also, on the article:
... trying to make a AAA single-player shooter in today's market was a truly awful idea, especially since it was a new IP that was also trying to leverage Unreal Engine 5. What ended up launching was a bloated, repetitive campaign that was far too long."
...so, they even admit it themselves that it's pretty meh? And then it's framed like single-player games just don't sell.. what?
Yeah, the headline is stupid. If they made a good AAA game that was only as long as it needed to be, it'd sell. The issue is all the AAA publishers think games need to take as much time to play as possible, which sucks so much.
AAA gaming is mostly dead to me for many years now because they don't know how to make good games. They just know how to convince people to buy the crap they make. Theres a few that I'll still play, like anything FromSoft makes (that's available on PC), but not much.
The issue is all the AAA publishers think games need to take as much time to play as possible, which sucks so much.
the thing is, they're somewhat right too. So many times at the steam forums, people ask "how long" a releasing game is going to be, and overall prefer length. To a degree I do understand that people want content for the 60-80 €/$/£. Personally I'd like quality over quantity, but it gets a bit wishywashy depending on genre and what is expected of it.
If we're using the "A"'s as a metric of sorts, I kinda feel like "AA" -range is pretty much where it is at. Generally not overly flashy, designed by a committee or exhaustively long.
I generally prefer indie games. Their budget is usually so small they have to pick one thing to do and to do it well, rather than AAA that wants to do everything and does it all poorly and not well integrated. AA is definitely better about it usually, and will have good enough production quality for the masses though.
Yep, never heard of it until just now. A quick trip to youtube for gameplay vids makes the first 15 minutes look pretty good though. The gameplay would totally get repetitive fast, and the vid I watched didn't get into the skill trees. If the level up mechanics give you more spells to choose from, rather than just increasing the numbers for the 3 spells you start with, I think the game has potential. Right now, it seems like something I would like to try first and maybe buy a physical copy that can't be disabled when some corporate licensing deal falls apart (and make backups of the installer).
Kinda sounds like fairly decent mid-price AA-release the way you put it.
HowLongToBeat puts it around 15h (https://howlongtobeat.com/game/118227) - for a modern title that isn't even overly long, so got to wonder how does it manage to be "bloated, repetitive campaign that was far too long" as the dev (?) in the article was quoted saying...
My guess is because the gunplay is limited and gets stale fast.