# SWORD COAST LEGENDS: Xbox and PS4!



## Nebulous (Jun 9, 2015)

wow. As someone who has invested many of thousands of dollars into plasticrack, i wonder what this will mean.


----------



## EthanSental (Jun 10, 2015)

Pre-order a couple months ago, looking forward to playing this game.


----------



## Jester David (Jun 10, 2015)

I still want a LOT more information about what is included for DMs and if the game requires microtransactions for DM content.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jun 10, 2015)

I have yet to see someone say that they hope this fails. In other words, I think we're all hoping it's great and useable by DM's for more than a simple video game.


----------



## pming (Jun 10, 2015)

Hiya.

  I don't want it to fail. I honestly could care less one way or the other. The only thing I'm wondering about is all the things they _aren't_ saying...

(1) How long is it expected to take a player playing the single-player version? 20 hours? 40 hours? 100 hours?
(2) Will it be "modable"? If so, how extensive?
(3) With regards to modding... will there at least be capability for DM's to "write their own text, create their own monster stats [using a model already in the game], determine their own magic items, 'overrule' the game system [e.g., change how healing works or how many spells can be slotted], etc."?
(4) Microtransactions; if this is their key revenue, yukko!
(5) Voice-over chat with players/DM (re: Ventrillo, TeamSpeak, Vivox C3, etc)...yes, no?

Right now, I'm more on the "not for me" side of the fence, but still holding out hope.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Vampyr3 (Jun 10, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> I still want a LOT more information about what is included for DMs and if the game requires microtransactions for DM content.




what makes you think there will be Microtransctions? I've yet to see anything about that at all.. 


but I can't wait! even if only for the solo game.. but the DM mode to me, just sold this...


----------



## God (Jun 10, 2015)

Vampyr3 said:


> what makes you think there will be Microtransctions?




This: *"Robust post-launch module expansion program"*

And this: *"PlayStation 4 pre-orders also include a bonus $10 worth of Warframe™ Platinum in-game currency."*


----------



## Jester David (Jun 10, 2015)

Vampyr3 said:


> what makes you think there will be Microtransctions? I've yet to see anything about that at all..



The middle tier pre-order has a beholder for DM, implying if you buy the regular you won't be able to use the beholder. 
Since it seems unlikely that you'll just be denied the beholder unless you re-buy the complete game, his implies you *might* be able to unlock the beholder. Which suggests microtransactions. 



pming said:


> (1) How long is it expected to take a player playing the single-player version? 20 hours? 40 hours? 100 hours?



They haven't said.


pming said:


> (2) Will it be "modable"? If so, how extensive?



They haven't said.


pming said:


> (3) With regards to modding... will there at least be capability for DM's to "write their own text, create their own monster stats [using a model already in the game], determine their own magic items, 'overrule' the game system [e.g., change how healing works or how many spells can be slotted], etc."?



They haven't said.


pming said:


> (4) Microtransactions; if this is their key revenue, yukko!



They haven't said, but very likely (see above).


pming said:


> (5) Voice-over chat with players/DM (re: Ventrillo, TeamSpeak, Vivox C3, etc)...yes, no?




We know it will use Steam. That everyone playing will need a copy of the game. We know the platforms and the system requirements.
Actually, all in all we know surprisingly little about the game itself beyond that it will encourage non-adversarial DMing.


----------



## Serrrg (Jun 10, 2015)

We have forgotten the most "awesome 5e feature" - abilities with cooldown ...


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 10, 2015)

I'm surprise they are releasing it so close to the release of the AP. Won't they cannibalize each other? I thought the whole one campaign world and few books release was about avoiding cannibalization.


----------



## Parmandur (Jun 10, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I'm surprise they are releasing it so close to the release of the AP. Won't they cannibalize each other? I thought the whole one campaign world and few books release was about avoiding cannibalization.





Why would a video game and a RPG book cannibalize each other, especially if the initial game plot ties into Rage of Demons?

As to the question of microtransactions:

OF COURSE they will use microtransactions as their revenue model.  This is 2015; love it or hate it, that's the market.  Myself, I have had positive experiences with Crusader Kings 2 model, allowing me to get the parts of expansions I want, when I want, as impulse buys.  Expecting a non-Indie game to not use microtransactions is a losing proposition these days.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 10, 2015)

Parmandur said:


> Why would a video game and a RPG book cannibalize each other, especially if the initial game plot ties into Rage of Demons?



Finite revenues and finite time. Do I buy the AP or the game? Do I play the AP or the game? If I just play one, why buy the other? Plus you know, all of what we have been told about how "too many books hurt D&D". Is it books or more specifically too many products? I always took it has too many products.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 10, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Finite revenues and finite time. Do I buy the AP or the game? Do I play the AP or the game? If I just play one, why buy the other? Plus you know, all of what we have been told about how "too many books hurt D&D". Is it books or more specifically too many products? I always took it has too many products.




They aren't the same plot. They're two different stories happening simultaneously around a central theme. Same with the book set to be released about the same time. Each is a separate, but related, adventure. So if you want to see all sides of the story, you _have_ to buy both. Seems pretty smart to me.


----------



## TheSwartz (Jun 10, 2015)

Parmandur said:


> Why would a video game and a RPG book cannibalize each other, especially if the initial game plot ties into Rage of Demons?




Agreed.

I think part of WotC's strategy is to get D&D 5e into as many different formats as possible. That's why there are MMO tie ins as well as this video game, and then the novels, and dice masters, etc... I'm OK with that. I want them to make plenty of money involving other niches of geekdom, so that they don't try to do the old "let's release 5 D&D splat books a month" strategy...


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 10, 2015)

ThirdWizard said:


> They aren't the same plot. They're two different stories happening simultaneously around a central theme. Same with the book set to be released about the same time. Each is a separate, but related, adventure. So if you want to see all sides of the story, you _have_ to buy both. Seems pretty smart to me.




But producing a campaign book, a splatbook and a AP, that people _have_ to buy, is bad and stupid?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 10, 2015)

goldomark said:


> But producing a campaign book, a splatbook and a AP, that people _have_ to buy, is bad and stupid?




In their current model there one RPG book to buy, one CRPG to buy, one MMORPG to "buy", and one novel to buy. Anyone interested in those things can pick up the single item associated with their preferences. This is good because you aren't overwhelming any one particular audience more than another. In other words you aren't saying to the tabletop crowd that they have to buy three products while the video game crowd only has to get one. And, by going for multiple layers of products, each player is free to get only the media interests them. It's actually a pretty brilliant strategy assuming they can pull it all off. (ie As long as Sword Coast is a good game. We'll see.)


----------



## Parmandur (Jun 10, 2015)

ThirdWizard said:


> In their current model there one RPG book to buy, one CRPG to buy, one MMORPG to "buy", and one novel to buy. Anyone interested in those things can pick up the single item associated with their preferences. This is good because you aren't overwhelming any one particular audience more than another. In other words you aren't saying to the tabletop crowd that they have to buy three products while the video game crowd only has to get one. And, by going for multiple layers of products, each player is free to get only the media interests them. It's actually a pretty brilliant strategy assuming they can pull it all off. (ie As long as Sword Coast is a good game. We'll see.)






Indeed, the video game doesn't even need to.be all that great for the strategy to work.  Neverwinter, by all accounts, is fun yet mediocre and is performing very well.  And Salvatore is not precisely Shakespeare, but he is a New York Times best-seller, so must be doing something right.


----------



## Parmandur (Jun 10, 2015)

goldomark said:


> But producing a campaign book, a splatbook and a AP, that people _have_ to buy, is bad and stupid?





4 media, 4 audiences, 4 products.  There is obviously quite a bit of crossover, but those who are in more than one of those audiences have time and money to burn.


----------



## S_Dalsgaard (Jun 10, 2015)

I am curious if it will be playable (or rather enjoyable) as single player. I get my social urges more than covered with TRPG, so I don't need more interactions with other people if I can avoid it


----------



## Parmandur (Jun 10, 2015)

S_Dalsgaard said:


> I am curious if it will be playable (or rather enjoyable) as single player. I get my social urges more than covered with TRPG, so I don't need more interactions with other people if I can avoid it





Reading past the hype, it looks like Neverwinter Nights; they have said there is a solo storyline mode, in addition to the DM mode they are pushing in marketing.


----------



## pming (Jun 11, 2015)

Hiya!



Jester Canuck said:


> ...snip... Which suggests microtransactions.
> 
> They haven't said.
> 
> ...




 That was my point. It is what they are *not* saying that has me concerned. These things matter to me with regards to if I'll buy a video game. Right now, the video game market is, IMHO, in a big change-over. The "big games" model, like Halo, Oblivion/Skyrim, and Destiny (...which, btw cost $500 _million_ to make... O_O ) are going to die-off or mutate into something else... and the Indi video game sector is pumping out a bajillion games every week. And I'd say a GOOD percentage of those indi games are rather good if not outright excellent. I play a lot of 'alpha/beta-build' indi games; many of them are fun as is, and will only get better. Like "The Forest" or "Cities:Skyline" (both available on Steam). Lots of other cool games I just don't have the cash for right now (Stranded Deep, ARC, Salt, Blockscape, Medieval Engineers, Besieged, Kerbal Space Program, Kholat, the list goes on and on...!)

  Anyway, before I get into a big diatribe about video game creation (I do that as a 'serious' hobby; I'm a 3D artist by trade, and have been making maps and assets for various video games since the day I installed DEU and WadAuthor for making DOOM maps back in 1994 and 1995), I'd just like to say that when a "big video game launch" deliberately hides things that a fair number of it's targeted audience would be interested in, it's *always* a bad sign.

  So expect a game to be released that has many features that many people would assume would have been in it (re: modability, primarily; it _is_ an RPG with direct player and DM input). Then, after some decent negative press/reviews, they announce that "Modability was always planned, but we just wanted to get it into all our fans hands, so we had to delay it for a bit. A patch will be forthcoming in the following weeks/months that will address this". It won't be a hard date. They will hem and haw about "soon" and "it's almost ready" for weeks if not months...trying to get as many people to buy into it before they release it. When they do, it will either (A) work flawlessly and be more than what was asked for [_very_ unlikely), (B) it will work, but only barely meet the promised criteria [re: you, as a modder, have to jump through 19 hoops in order to get your new magic-item into the game....in stead of just a one or two click "import"], or (C) it will be released in two patches; one is for players and lets them access stuff uploaded by a DM, and the second one is for DMs...which will be basic [but don't worry, for the "serious DM" there is always the monthly subscription "Master Dungeon Tools" option which lets the DM add/change stuff he wants and store it all 'online' ala Obsidian Portal campaign's, but with SCL].

  I'm hoping for A, but expecting C.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Jester David (Jun 11, 2015)

Parmandur said:


> Reading past the hype, it looks like Neverwinter Nights; they have said there is a solo storyline mode, in addition to the DM mode they are pushing in marketing.



It could be like Neverwinter Nights, with lots of content and options for the DM, including lots of monsters not in the main campaign.
Or it could be like NWN2, which had almost no monsters that weren't in the campaign. 
Or it could be different than both, with fewer monsters than the main campaign but requiring microtransactions to unlock.


----------



## Jester David (Jun 11, 2015)

Parmandur said:


> As to the question of microtransactions:
> 
> OF COURSE they will use microtransactions as their revenue model.  This is 2015; love it or hate it, that's the market.  Myself, I have had positive experiences with Crusader Kings 2 model, allowing me to get the parts of expansions I want, when I want, as impulse buys.  Expecting a non-Indie game to not use microtransactions is a losing proposition these days.



The fact that it's 2015 is exactly why there shouldn't be microtransactions. In paid games those are so 2010.

I expect microtransactions in F2P online games and fremium mobile games. I dislike them in paid games, especially if basic options are behind a pay wall. 
Little perks and bonuses are fine. Cosmetic stuff like more armour and such. Or time saving stuff like maps or NPCs. Or actual bonus content after release. But if it comes at the cost of modded content or basic stuff then I have no interest in playing. Day 1 DLC sucks plain and simple.

Much like how I played the eff out of Sims and Sims 2 but didn't touch Sims 3 for it's focus on microtransactions over fan content. If you need to lay extra to actually use the DM options for more than basic adventures I'm skipping the game.


----------



## Shasarak (Jun 11, 2015)

It looks very nice so I am hoping that it turns out to be good.

Otherwise there is always Torment 2 coming soon.


----------



## PnPgamer (Jun 11, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> It looks very nice so I am hoping that it turns out to be good.
> 
> Otherwise there is always Torment 2 coming soon.




Yeah i am anticipating this game but will buy it the soonest on 2016 summer sales.

Wait what?  -> TORMENT 2 <- !!!!???!!??!!??!!1
View attachment 68802


----------



## PnPgamer (Jun 11, 2015)

Double post


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 11, 2015)

Parmandur said:


> 4 media, 4 audiences, 4 products.  There is obviously quite a bit of crossover, but those who are in more than one of those audiences have time and money to burn.




Indeed, but Thirdwizard said fans will _have_ to buy them all and that was a good strategy. I find it conflicts with saying that making too many RPG books is bad because people will _have_ to buy them all. 

Seems, more like it is important to say that whatever WotC does, it is good, rather than have a coherent explanation for what WotC is doing.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 11, 2015)

ThirdWizard said:


> In their current model there one RPG book to buy, one CRPG to buy, one MMORPG to "buy", and one novel to buy.




But this is not what you said originally. You said people will _have_ to buy them all and that was a good idea. Now your changing your tune and saying they will buy just one. People say it is bad that they _have_ to buy stuff WotC makes (RPG books). Suddenly they _have_ to buy stuff that isn't RPG and that is good? Yeah, not coherent. 

Either too many products hurt D&D or it doesn't. Judging from Pathfinder's release calendar it doesn't. So, WotC's slim release schedule isn't because they are afraid to hurt D&D, but because there is no will to produce RPG content. Even if there are people willing to buy it. The RPG is now ancillary to the D&D brand. 

Ashame.


----------



## chibi graz'zt (Jun 11, 2015)

definitely excited for the PS4 option!


----------



## Parmandur (Jun 11, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Indeed, but Thirdwizard said fans will _have_ to buy them all and that was a good strategy. I find it conflicts with saying that making too many RPG books is bad because people will _have_ to buy them all.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems, more like it is important to say that whatever WotC does, it is good, rather than have a coherent explanation for what WotC is doing.





The coherent explanation is that they are trying to maximize return on investment by diversifying the brand across a number of mediums.  As a business, this is a good and responsible move (one that Paizo does, too; fiction, card game, online MMO, etc.).

As a customer, love it; I hope the trend continues, and to encourage this I will buy the things I want from them.


----------



## Parmandur (Jun 11, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> The fact that it's 2015 is exactly why there shouldn't be microtransactions. In paid games those are so 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I dunno; most of my game purchases are from the 90's (thank God for GOG.com), but the recent games I have played, such as the Civilization series or Paradox Interactive games, follow the model of a certain large amount of base content, and then tons of optional DLC.  I can only imagine that is what SCL will do.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 11, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Indeed, but Thirdwizard said fans will _have_ to buy them all and that was a good strategy. I find it conflicts with saying that making too many RPG books is bad because people will _have_ to buy them all.
> 
> Seems, more like it is important to say that whatever WotC does, it is good, rather than have a coherent explanation for what WotC is doing.




Have to buy them all if they want to see all the various stories centered around the plot, yes, absolutely. In other words, you can't just buy Sword Coast and skip the others _if you want to know what happens_.

It's a different kind of have to buy than what you seem to be implying.

I feel that you aren't having this conversation in good faith, and you're just trying to make some kind of point by using me as a scapegoat by nitpicking.


----------



## Jester David (Jun 11, 2015)

Parmandur said:


> I dunno; most of my game purchases are from the 90's (thank God for GOG.com), but the recent games I have played, such as the Civilization series or Paradox Interactive games, follow the model of a certain large amount of base content, and then tons of optional DLC.  I can only imagine that is what SCL will do.




A large amount of base content followed by DLC would be fine. If the majority of the game available is available for free to DMs and a couple premium features - monsters they want to be rare and only show up occasionally - then that's fine. If you could remake 75% of the single player campaign and add a bunch of sidequests feature unrelated monsters then that's good. 
And if they're using DLC to pass off the creation of additional monsters, maps, adventures, etc then that's cool. Extra development requires extra costs. 

But if much of the base content is behind a secondary microtransaction pay wall then that's frustrating. If the DM needs to pay extra money beyond the base cost of the game to do more than a half-dozen encounters then this becomes frustrating. If common and expected monsters (dragons, golems, demons) are freemium content then the game becomes a pain.


----------



## Mirtek (Jun 11, 2015)

Given the content of the preorder packages, I expect to see a lot of micro transaction for everyday stuff like monsters, dungeon tiles, etc.


----------



## Shasarak (Jun 12, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> A large amount of base content followed by DLC would be fine. If the majority of the game available is available for free to DMs and a couple premium features - monsters they want to be rare and only show up occasionally - then that's fine. If you could remake 75% of the single player campaign and add a bunch of sidequests feature unrelated monsters then that's good.
> And if they're using DLC to pass off the creation of additional monsters, maps, adventures, etc then that's cool. Extra development requires extra costs.
> 
> But if much of the base content is behind a secondary microtransaction pay wall then that's frustrating. If the DM needs to pay extra money beyond the base cost of the game to do more than a half-dozen encounters then this becomes frustrating. If common and expected monsters (dragons, golems, demons) are freemium content then the game becomes a pain.




I am pretty much OK with the Beholder being an add-on because although they are an iconic DnD monster they are a PITA monster to fight.


----------



## Parmandur (Jun 12, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> A large amount of base content followed by DLC would be fine. If the majority of the game available is available for free to DMs and a couple premium features - monsters they want to be rare and only show up occasionally - then that's fine. If you could remake 75% of the single player campaign and add a bunch of sidequests feature unrelated monsters then that's good.
> 
> And if they're using DLC to pass off the creation of additional monsters, maps, adventures, etc then that's cool. Extra development requires extra costs.
> 
> ...





Agreed, a balance is needed.  Hopefully they will strike it acceptably well, I won't lose any sleep over it for now.


----------



## Jester David (Jun 12, 2015)

Parmandur said:


> Agreed, a balance is needed.  Hopefully they will strike it acceptably well, I won't lose any sleep over it for now.



I'd feel a lot more confident if we were dealing with a known company. Nspace is an unknown that has mostly adapted existing games for mobile platforms. This is their first original game. And we know next to nothing. They're really relying on the concept, the D&D name, and the fact they share some management with DragonAge.


----------



## Parmandur (Jun 12, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> I'd feel a lot more confident if we were dealing with a known company. Nspace is an unknown that has mostly adapted existing games for mobile platforms. This is their first original game. And we know next to nothing. They're really relying on the concept, the D&D name, and the fact they share some management with DragonAge.





I've been burned by known and unknown companies alike; time will tell, once the hype has died down and the actual game is present.


----------



## Burticusb (Jul 6, 2015)

I hope they have couch co-op, I'm already getting this for the PC, but I'd love to have a version to play with my kids on the PS4... it'd be even better if you could play cross platform...


----------

