Final Fantasy XV [Formerly Versus XIII] (Xbox One, PS4)

[KHCast]

Multiplayer has multiple times though been patched into games. For free. I simply don't see why some are okay with them charging for a feature that has been  free and added in games for free in the past. This isn't even mentioning how we already need to pay for PS+ and XBL to access these modes anyway.

[Radiant Hero Ike]

12 hours ago, KHCast said:

Multiplayer has multiple times though been patched into games. For free. I simply don't see why some are okay with them charging for a feature that has been  free and added in games for free in the past. This isn't even mentioning how we already need to pay for PS+ and XBL to access these modes anyway.

I personally can't think of any games off the top of my head that added free multiplayer... Not saying you're wrong, but it doesn't really change anything for me. Free would be nice, yeah, but it's not expensive, so. $25 for the Season Pass which has the 3 other episodes in addition to multiplayer and those other extras, by themselves they'd be around 4 bucks each.

That's just my opinion. I can see why you don't want to spend more on it, so you should be able to see why "some" (i.e., me) don't mind. :V

Overwatch adds characters and maps for free after launch, should I be mad that Smash made me pay for them just because other games had them for free?

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

12 minutes ago, Radiant Hero Ike said:

Overwatch adds characters and maps for free after launch, should I be mad that Smash made me pay for them just because other games had them for free?

Ahem, well obviously those are distinctly different game genres, not to mention, not even equivalent to paying extra to unlock something traditionally free like multiplayer.

Now making that proper comparison, do you know how many people would dish out the due objections for making multiplayer in those other games an extra payment?

With the Overwatch and Smash cases (though Overwatch can get a bit controversial) their bouts are the equivalent of paying for dessert, whereas with this case, it's more like paying extra to actually get the full meal you originally already paid for.

[Radiant Hero Ike]

1 hour ago, Jovahexeon the Sapphire said:

Ahem, well obviously those are distinctly different game genres, not to mention, not even equivalent to paying extra to unlock something traditionally free like multiplayer.

Now making that proper comparison, do you know how many people would dish out the due objections for making multiplayer in those other games an extra payment?

With the Overwatch and Smash cases (though Overwatch can get a bit controversial) their bouts are the equivalent of paying for dessert, whereas with this case, it's more like paying extra to actually get the full meal you originally already paid for.

Hey, more characters were traditionally free as well. You'd unlock them through normal gameplay as opposed to paying for them. Multiplayer also isn't something that's common nor traditional for the FF series either (I think this is the first main game that has online multiplayer aside from XIV, which is online only). Smash I'll give you, but unlike FF, it's always had multiplayer, online or not.

I don't see much of a difference. You're spending more money than the base game for something extra. I mean, I never said you couldn't be bothered by it, that's perfectly fine. Lot's of people don't like DLC in general. I'm simply saying why I'm not bothered.

[KHCast]

Spending more money than the cost of the actual game for likely less content doesn't exactly process in my mind in how some are okay with that. Also, being the first to include online multiplayer, doesn't really come off to me as valid justification, otherwise BBS would have charged for the feature.(it wasn't the first in the series for multilayer sure, but online yes) but to each their own.

[Radiant Hero Ike]

41 minutes ago, KHCast said:

Spending more money than the cost of the actual game for likely less content doesn't exactly process in my mind in how some are okay with that.

Wait, what? I'm not spending 60 bucks on DLC, I'm spending 25. Unless I'm misreading what you're saying.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

1 hour ago, Radiant Hero Ike said:

Hey, more characters were traditionally free as well. You'd unlock them through normal gameplay as opposed to paying for them. Multiplayer also isn't something that's common nor traditional for the FF series either (I think this is the first main game that has online multiplayer aside from XIV, which is online only). Smash I'll give you, but unlike FF, it's always had multiplayer, online or not.

I don't see much of a difference. You're spending more money than the base game for something extra. I mean, I never said you couldn't be bothered by it, that's perfectly fine. Lot's of people don't like DLC in general. I'm simply saying why I'm not bothered.

Yes indeed, and you can bet that character dlcs when done badly certainly get their proper flogging of reception, and the very idea was met with mixed reception.

Also, characters as DLC should be are mainly meant for adding onto the game, new cool features to enhance your fun, without being assets one might expect or even feel something of a requisite.

Locking down an entire co-op behind a paywall does not fly nearly as well with the public. Regardless of who it bothers, paying extra for multiplayer is never really going to catch on as feeling natural or well-received.

Not even for a Final Fantasy game, which doesn't even have a sturdy excuse of it being oh so "rare".

 

1 hour ago, Radiant Hero Ike said:

Multiplayer also isn't something that's common nor traditional for the FF series either

Making something paid dlc, let alone multiplayer, just because it's a feature that doesn't show up in every game is already a brittle sense of reasoning.

And the lack of local multiplayer which quite a few past Final Fantasy games main series and spin-off wise have very well accomplished, also isn't reassuring. Considering how unreliable and connection-problem-prone many "online-only" game components are.

Worst of all is that it sparks a sense of lack in faith in one's own product selling well, in making co-op a paid feature instead of a crucial selling point.

2 hours ago, Radiant Hero Ike said:

 

I don't see much of a difference. You're spending more money than the base game for something extra.

Let's be honest, despite technically being "extra", a co-op/multiplayer mode in many respects can be as crucial as being a videogame's half, and paying extra for it in a game like this is going to suck especially for the players who actually have a preference towards such. And tacked on with the idiocy of consumers' certain editions not even coming with the season pass (i.e Ultimate Collector's Edition), which this mode is relegated to, and you've got a strong case on why this is a bad idea.

2 hours ago, Radiant Hero Ike said:

. Lot's of people don't like DLC in general. I'm simply saying why I'm not bothered.

Simply being DLC isn't the problem here. Assuredly the complaints would be notably less common and legit if it were actually just a proper patch update that they felt had to be made because of how long the  game had been in development, since apparently many of the recently announced DLC properties were time-schedule-based-omissions from the core game.

Seriously though, what legit reason outside of "more money" would Square have to pull a stunt as looked down upon as forcing folks to play for such a simple feature, when such a decision is bound to get more negative or "I'll just wait for the GOTY" edition/port" relations than good, especially in wake of the other controversies orbiting about their dlc choices?

[KHCast]

2 hours ago, Radiant Hero Ike said:

You're spending more money than the base game for something extra

Maybe I read that wrong.

[Radiant Hero Ike]

Just now, KHCast said:

Maybe I read that wrong.

Oh whoops, my bad. Should've put "extra money". I meant like, you're paying for something extra after you've already purchased a game. No way would I spend that much on DLC. Not all at once, anyways (most I've spent was like... 30 bucks?).

In the end, I still dont mind. Should it have been free? Sure. But I don't mind spending a few extra bucks on something the developers spent time on to create.

Although, we don't actually have any information on what the multiplayer is like. If it isn't allowing you to play through the whole game with friends, I won't see a point in using it.

[MegasonicZX]

I'm kinda mixed on this one to be honest, I mean yeah its probably something that the dev team decided to start working on when they were looking at feedback for what people wanted but at the same time I feel like its a bit of a slap in the face to have people pay for something thats normally available right from the start with most games these days and its even worse with the fact that you still need to pay for online services these days anyway so its not really making the sting any lighter and character switching, which is something that people have been begging for since noctis was announced to be the only playable character (which to be honest, I never minded since he can do everything anyway so whats the point in playing as anybody else?), is also tied to this so people are reasonably even more upset by it.

Personally, I could care less about this because multiplayer isn't the reason why I play RPG's and I don't care to be buying PSplus/xbox live for it so this isn't a big deal to me and if I were inclined to, I might even buy it just to give it a try when it comes around but I can definitely see where people are coming from in being angry over it especially knowing how money hungry square is these days.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

19 hours ago, MegasonicZX said:

character switching, which is something that people have been begging for since noctis was announced to be the only playable character (which to be honest, I never minded since he can do everything anyway so whats the point in playing as anybody else?), is also tied to this so people are reasonably even more upset by it.

 

Really? Oh snap, that was even shown to originally be in the game itself back when it was Vs XIII. Yikes, is that a dumb move!

[Marcello]

After seeing this thread and expecting it to be a PS1 case similar to what they did with Rise of the Tomb Raider, I made these for fun:

Spoiler

Once the game is out, I could fix those serial code numbers.

[Toa Axis]

So uh

This is what happens if you type "Final Fantasy XV" into Google Translate using English -> Latin:

 

By the way, has anyone checked out the Judgement Demo Disc? You'll need a JP PSN account download it, but creating one is rather easy. Here's a quick and to-the-point video showing how for those interested.

I've been playing it, and I like it so far. The overall visual quality is a quantum leap from the Games com/August build, with better lighting, textures, more foliage on screen, better draw distance, better LoD/streaming, and a much improved TAA solution in place, leaving you with a very clean image. Mostly happy with the visuals here.

The combat, which I already liked from the Platinum Demo, feels much better here now that that nasty input lag is gone (same can extended to general navigation, of course). Your party members are also fun to fight with, and they'll help you out in battle with various team attacks and their own unique abilities. Lots more to say, but overall I'm very impressed with the combat.

No side quests available in the demo, but there are Hunts, which are fun. The open world is large, maybe too large, but things may not be as bad in the full game with quests, Chocobos, and whatnot. There are some neat locations to see and cool things to find if you scour the map, however.

Overall, I liked it. I would give it a look.

[Graystripe2000]

Not sure if anyone posted this yet but, the demo is plagued with glitches. 

http://www.siliconera.com/2016/11/11/final-fantasy-xvs-new-demo-gets-flared-kinds-bugs-glitches/

[Xenos]

On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Jovahexeon the Sapphire said:

Yes indeed, and you can bet that character dlcs when done badly certainly get their proper flogging of reception, and the very idea was met with mixed reception.

Also, characters as DLC should be are mainly meant for adding onto the game, new cool features to enhance your fun, without being assets one might expect or even feel something of a requisite.

Locking down an entire co-op behind a paywall does not fly nearly as well with the public. Regardless of who it bothers, paying extra for multiplayer is never really going to catch on as feeling natural or well-received.

Not even for a Final Fantasy game, which doesn't even have a sturdy excuse of it being oh so "rare".

 

Making something paid dlc, let alone multiplayer, just because it's a feature that doesn't show up in every game is already a brittle sense of reasoning.

And the lack of local multiplayer which quite a few past Final Fantasy games main series and spin-off wise have very well accomplished, also isn't reassuring. Considering how unreliable and connection-problem-prone many "online-only" game components are.

Worst of all is that it sparks a sense of lack in faith in one's own product selling well, in making co-op a paid feature instead of a crucial selling point.

Let's be honest, despite technically being "extra", a co-op/multiplayer mode in many respects can be as crucial as being a videogame's half, and paying extra for it in a game like this is going to suck especially for the players who actually have a preference towards such. And tacked on with the idiocy of consumers' certain editions not even coming with the season pass (i.e Ultimate Collector's Edition), which this mode is relegated to, and you've got a strong case on why this is a bad idea.

Simply being DLC isn't the problem here. Assuredly the complaints would be notably less common and legit if it were actually just a proper patch update that they felt had to be made because of how long the  game had been in development, since apparently many of the recently announced DLC properties were time-schedule-based-omissions from the core game.

Seriously though, what legit reason outside of "more money" would Square have to pull a stunt as looked down upon as forcing folks to play for such a simple feature, when such a decision is bound to get more negative or "I'll just wait for the GOTY" edition/port" relations than good, especially in wake of the other controversies orbiting about their dlc choices?

 

I think there's a few misconceptions here.

This game is gigantic, I'm sure everyone knows how huge this game is, and it's been in development on it's own for about four years, and the very first open area has several dungeons, monsters, and sidequests that are and aren't fully voiced. This is all available during the very waking moments of the game, and on top of that it has a seamless open world where you can fly an airship, or travel on the ground through car or chocobo. All of this has to function and run well at 30fps, (and as far as they've said, they want it to reach 60fps on Pro) and be relatively free of horrid bugs and glitches as the game comes to release.

 

In a game like this, multiplayer is never a given, and there are very few RPGs of this size, let alone in this series with full four-player co-op. And more importantly, it was never promised. This was clearly something they decided to do completely seperate from the main game, anyone who's followed the development of this game knows that something like this came up well after the game was far into development, and is completely not necessary, nor should be an expectation for this kind of jrpg. It's not crucial to this game, it's not a huge selling point, it's something extra that they decided would be a nice thing people would want to see, it would make no sense for anyone to expect otherwise for this game.

 

 

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

 Errrr,  @Xenos kinda already knew the trivia about how large the game is,  so I assure ya misconception is the least at play. 

 

Unless it's just maybe a few dlc exclusive missions,  I'm sorry but I can't really condone walling off content that was originally going to be in the game in the first place,  behind an unnecessary pay wall. Let alone a whole new gaming mode like multiplayer.

Furthermore as to why these actions are being met with doubt is also fueled by Square's rather messy track record over the past few years. 

That coupled with the fact that the season pass that grants such is also the center of the nonsense of the UCE consumers getting remarkably shafted,  so there's that baggage already topped on. 

Like the wise saying goes at this point,  "I'm just await the GOTY edition complete with the Dlc content". Nothing wrong with doing that,  which quite a notable amount of fans feeling jaded have stated they'll be doing. 

[Marcello]

After being delayed to not have a Day 1 patch, FFXV will have a Day 1 patch:

Source

[pppp]

16 hours ago, Jovahexeon the Sapphire said:

I'm sorry but I can't really condone walling off content that was originally going to be in the game in the first place,  behind an unnecessary pay wall. Let alone a whole new gaming mode like multiplayer.

Who said the multiplayer was gonna be in the game originally? No one said that.

[KHCast]

2 hours ago, Marcello said:

After being delayed to not have a Day 1 patch, FFXV will have a Day 1 patch:

Source

Jesus Christ this game. Just a few weeks before release after ten years and I'm getting turned off so quickly 

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

7 hours ago, pppp said:

Who said the multiplayer was gonna be in the game originally? No one said that.

I was referring to the story parts being made into dlc that were originally to be in the game,  before I got to the "let alone" part.

[pppp]

34 minutes ago, Jovahexeon the Sapphire said:

I was referring to the story parts being made into dlc that were originally to be in the game,  before I got to the "let alone" part.

Link? I don't remember hearing the DLC story eps being originally in the game. In fact Square went out of their way to debunk that:

http://eu.square-enix.com/en/blog/icymi-final-fantasy-xv-getting-season-pass

" The FFXV DLC is not content that has been cut from the main game just to sell to you later. This is really important because we want everyone who buys and plays the FFXV base game to know they are getting the full FFXV experience. The FFXV DLC will add new and unique experiences to the FFXV Universe with each piece of DLC designed to offer something brand new. So I’ll say it again because it’s important - the FFXV DLC is not content that has been cut from the main game"

[Radiant Hero Ike]

8 hours ago, KHCast said:

Jesus Christ this game. Just a few weeks before release after ten years and I'm getting turned off so quickly 

They're saying "extra features", huh? Sounds like it's not necessary to start the game, like actual day one patches. Maybe you can have it download while playing, which would be nice. My Internet sucks for downloads, hehe.

[KHCast]

37 minutes ago, Radiant Hero Ike said:

They're saying "extra features", huh? Sounds like it's not necessary to start the game, like actual day one patches. Maybe you can have it download while playing, which would be nice. My Internet sucks for downloads, hehe.

Well it's not just the patch, it's just the corporate meddling that's gone on with this game as well. I'm just gonna wait for the inevitable GotY edition so I don't need to buy the season pass.

[Radiant Hero Ike]

5 hours ago, KHCast said:

Well it's not just the patch, it's just the corporate meddling that's gone on with this game as well. I'm just gonna wait for the inevitable GotY edition so I don't need to buy the season pass.

Not... sure why that came up, I was actually just wondering if the extra was necessary to start or not.

Oh hey, on the GOTY subject though, do FF games usually get those?

[KHCast]

2 hours ago, Radiant Hero Ike said:

Not... sure why that came up, I was actually just wondering if the extra was necessary to start or not.

Oh hey, on the GOTY subject though, do FF games usually get those?

No, but other final fantasy games didn't heavily promote season passes and tons of DLC. This game is doing a lot of firsts with the series 

As for the patch, with the way it's been worded, it could be taken either way tbh, but knowing square, I assume it will be a mandatory install first before you can play.