Do these execs know DLCs exist? They want a more constant stream of revenue without having to make a full AAA HP game every year. Well, make DLC! Much smaller investment and new revenues every year.
I just played through Fallout new Vegas for the first time in a decade. Those expansions were awesome and were made on short time constraints/small budgets. WB just wants lootbox-style MT's. Their greed will ruin them further.
@@Kakarot64. They have had some closed betas on a game called Quidditch Champions, a few months back. A DLC for Hogwarts Legacy is pretty much impossible at this point, much less a Quidditch one.
idk if u are aware, but they r realising an online game based on quidditch. I had the opportunity to test it in the first closed beta. that's why there is no quidditch in Hogwarts legacy, most likely..
WB games should leave Hogwarts Legacy and Avalanche studios alone to make the game that they want, I'm 100% confident that they can make Hogwarts Legacy 2 an even better game, the foundation is right there with the first game.
I think one of the best features of this game is something Harry Potter has always done. Find the crucial middle line between selling to kids and adults. This game was a true all ages game. Stuff like Mortal Kombat will only ever be for adults and really adult children.
they will mess up the sequel for sure, but maybe after realising that they fcked up they will another sequel to the sequel where they maybe actually listen to us
The irony!! If they were truly "greedy" they would actually listen to fans and give the customers what they want instead of losing money producing content that will flop.
That would make sense, but too many companies look at it from a long term profits pov, a single player experience no matter how good will be a one off sale, whilst a live service are likely to make millions a year. Shit priorities I know, but easy money is what companies live for, all that talk about for the players are PR speak for we hear you but we don't care about anything but your wallet.
All they needed was a steady stream off DLC to the first game. Like the Witcher 3 add big crazy expansions for a reasonable price every 6 months or so.
Exactly this! I so wish they would have went this route. As soon as they saw the massive preorder numbers, WB should have immediately greenlit 2-3 major DLCs plus a sequel.
no all they needed was to add multiplayer/co op to a perfection online game...ruined the whole chance to bring in the best revenue..who cares about microtransactions and online service when you can play offline/single player & have online play aswell with cosmetics to get without spending just money..those are perfect games. (suicide squad is a failure bc its not a good game to make online, let alone a live service...smh out of tune casuals.
Yeah, especially since they already have so many good assets, they could have easily made a diagonal alley dlc and an Azkaban dlc. Add a few more side quests. Maybe just add quidditch. They could keep milking this cow for years, but instead they want to maximize profits by destroying their ip
@@Reezico Not even full multiplayer, cause it would be awkward lore-wise imo to go through the story with other players. Just a PVP arena access would be amazing, giving some end-game content and giving people an aditional reason to 100% the game
I could see the quidditch game they're making being a good choice for a Wizarding World live service game, but definitely not Legacy. The quidditch game has a great model to look at for its success in Rocket League, but I just can't understand how Legacy could be translated to a live service game without losing most of what was great about it. I don't see it.
The fact we're hearing more about WB games plans for their games than any info on Hogwarts Legacy 2 specifically makes it seem like something is gonna change. Like AVA is waiting on their orders..
@@G8oo8N8 sorry everything can't be free. Live service isn't horrible for an open world game that's as good as HL, sequels take $$ to make and guess how they're going to have to pay for it. As big as the first game was the sequel is probably going to have a much bigger budget and they need to add some sort of microtransaction to help pay for that budget.
I don't think they understand how much money I would drop on Hogwarts Legacy DLCs. That is literally the safest bet they could make seeing as the fans have been crying out for DLC practically since release
woulda dropped a grand with multiplayer lol..imagine a social place like GTA servers. missed the biggest take off in history..this was a solid perfect online game..red dead 2 with SP and MP together.
@@Reezico no, hell no. multiplayer would just ruin it, gta online is one of the most toxic shitty online communities along with LoL. and its not even fun, theres nothing fun to do in those games.
@@NefosteuxAlucardi played the GTA story once and was done with it. Online let me play the game for years after. I just finished Hogwarts Legacy story, and now there is nothing to do
They way RockStar did it. Red Dead Redemtion 2 and GTA 5 both released with an online version included next to the single player campaign. If WB followed that model then they won’t kill the franchise. Shit, he just said that in the video.
I don't get it... why can't they listen to the fans? The game sold that many copies for a reason. They're going to screw everything up. They're so out of touch! Congratulations :( I won't buy it.
I want Hogwarts Legacy 2: Year 6 (continue the story) Maybe if they want to continue with Harry Potter type games they can also do a Hogwarts Adventure/Journey Online. I personally don't see the appeal of online games.
how do you see the appeal of single player games? all of them will always lack content, get boring (or have you searching for other games) after sometime..may that be 30 or 200 hours. atleast make PERFECT online games, online. pretty shit how we get a harry potter game of triple A & its only SP. boringgggggggggggggggg
Could say the same about the Multiplayer grindy games, on top of having to deal with annoying people. Go enjoy your hundreds of Multiplayer games and let people enjoy peace in single player games. @@Reezico
The only time I play games is when I have to spend an hour or more in the car or on a train, I don't like games where I have to do constant upkeep. My lifestyle is better suited to one and done games. @@Reezico Instead of trying to start an argument, just accept that everyone lives differently from everyone else. I think it is cool that online games work for you, so please respect that there are just as many single play gamer's as there are multi-online gamer's.
@@Reezico It wasn’t boring at all, and I’m saying this as an MMO player. There are plethora excellent single player games, and Hogwarts Legacy was everything it needed to be… ok, _almost_ everything; they really fucked up by not having Quidditch. It would make perfect sense for someone to make an MMO in the Harry Potter universe, but I don’t trust today’s game companies to pull it off.
@@Reezico idk bc the sims is a very very rich company and it’s always been single player. In 2020 if you had all the sims 4 DLC it added up to $1000.. now imagine the amount of people that have every DLC pack like me lol. And I have over 6000 hours in that game
I’ve been playing Genshin Impact for 3 years. Single player (with small party co-op options) open world RPG that you keep getting more of the story and more of the world little by little over time. This is what I wanted HWL to be. You start at Hogwarts as a first year. You get to explore the castle at depth, go to classes, make friends. Then a few months later new update. Maybe a year later, you’ve progressed through the years, you’re a 3rd year and ‘Tada!’ Hogsmead world expansion update! And so on and so forth. And then by IDK year 5, two or three IRL years later, the lower Hogwarts valley is accessible. The developers could take their time giving more depth to the character interactions and story. Genshin makes the developers BILLONS OF DOLLARS and the only thing you pay for is OPTIONAL character pulls and a small handful of skins. Yes, they are a large game dev company and they do have a full team working full time on the game and in order for HWL to be this ‘on all the time’ game the devs would have to work on it exclusively. But if WB would back them, put money into a full game studio and put the HWL devs in charge of building that studio HWL could have a legacy that’s the like of FF and Zelda and keep printing money for all involved for decades.
Someone at Avalanche has to send the link to this video to WB Discovery. On Zaslav’a desk directly if possible. I will not support Hogwarts Legacy or Harry Potter anything if it goes live service. I hated GTA Online. I never touched any live service game again. It’s absolutely the wrong move and they need to know exactly why it is.
That won't work. This is just another attempt to move towards pay me constantly to play. It's a distinctly planned and chosen move. Without regulations they will constantly circle back to this
@@werejustgaming it’s part of the paradigm of companies not wanting their consumers to actually own any of their content that they legitimately pay for. And then they wonder why those consumers stop legitimately paying for any of their content at all. Streaming, renting, and live-service video gaming is ruining the art/entertainment industry. Once upon a time, it used to be that the only thing a consumer didn’t own was the copyrights to a piece of content. Now they don’t even own the actual content. So those companies can take it away or alter it any which way they choose at any time.
Great video, Retro! Your research, insight, and analysis is top notch. I agree that, based on Perrette's recent comments at the Morgan Stanley event that there may be cause for concern. But also, because WB hasn't clearly set out their plans, we are left to speculate as to what they may be thinking. My opinion is that the WB executive team itself isn't sure what it wants. We don't know what's next because they also don't know what's next. Yet. They are probably still working through their product line and I'm sure they have several "irons in the fire" as to what could be possible, but until they start actually announcing what titles are being worked on, all we can do is hope that they are making smart decisions aimed at pleasing their fans rather than worrying too much about evening out earnings report volatility.
Always appreciate you stopping by and hearing your insights, Troy! I started off doing just a news update video, but realized this video would probably benefit from significantly more backstory to try and give people the full picture of how we got here. You are spot on though...until we hear something official on what's next, all we can do is speculate and hope for the best.
I would like a game where you can play Quidditch online with friends or competitively with other players. I would probably want a Auror vs Deatheaters type game. It would be fun to have it like Hogwarts Legacy but adult characters. It would be even nuttier to use a mechanic like invasions. So you can be an Auror and invade a Deatheater or vice versa. Unfortunately you would need a different company to make that game.
Quite frankly I would love if they took what we have already, and just made a separate multiplayer game where we can just laugh, run around with friends and have wizarding duels, fly etc. A lot of us grew up as roleplayers in other games trying to recreate hogwarts, or roleplaying on the many, many forums between 2007-2015 made to at least be able to be a “small” part of the world, interacting with other roleplay writers. I think many want to just be able to play with others and see a castle full of players chit chatting. Imagine Second Life style Hogwarts in the style of this game. It would look beautiful, people would have too much fun and hit the sweet spot of how many of us just.. Want to enjoy the environment.
People love the idea of a [insert favrouite media franchise] as a MMO so that they can follow their friends around in the game... Till they realise that they will have to putting up with loot boxes, cash shop, spongy enemies, weak power fantasy due to game balance, lag, random server downtime, lack of free content and constant nerfs.
They could make a live service game that takes place at the different schools. One can either play as a student, or an adult playing one of various different jobs either in the school or any local town. One could even be a representative from the nearest government body.
I think it would be a giant mistake to make Hogwarts Legacy 2 a live service game. I think they should keep the formula they set from the first one and recreate a success that clearly resonates with the fans of the franchise and then make some kind of live service MMO that is stand alone. Keep they separate so they don't shoot themselves in the foot with that. They're just two different gameplay experiences that I think shouldn't be overlooked by any company.
I cant wait for Hogwarts Legacy: Kill Harry Potter. S/ I think ideally there should be 2 different games. Hogwarts Legacy 2(continue the story) and Hogwarts Journey Online(multiplayer with its own unique mechanics) Not everyone wants a full online game.
@Draven- the balance of an online game is much different from the balance of a single-player game. They also have to come up with a consequences mechanic for using dark magic. Otherwise, whoever uses Avada Kedavra first wins.
Adding multiplayer to Hogwarts Legacy would make people happy. What I don’t want is always online billions of micro transactions. Pay to win. Pay for skins etc. Pay for seasons etc. Keep monetization out of my video games.
Don't you dare Warner.. If you do.. You will have many witches and wizards at your doorstep.. Ready with the unforgivable curses aimed at you!! 🤬☠️☠️☠️
Why not make a Hogwarts Legacy tv series, or a movie to sell merchandise? Warner Bros CEO should know that the market is oversaturated with live service/microtransaction games.
Hogwarts legacy is the best selling game and I bought it on a whim after never playing a game before outside of MarioKart8 with my kids. I will NOT play any live service games unless they have a single-player aspect. I know a lot of people like multi-player but a lot of people don't. The best way to get people to continue to play their games I think they need to do 4 things. 1)Have a Great story. 2) Single-player aspect that is complete. 3) Multi-player aspect even just as small as quidditch or Wizard's Chess included in the main game 4) DLC that's compelling. These things help bring in money as well as replayability. There are a lot of non-gamers like me that are fans of Harry Potter, that can be drawn in if they keep single-player, story rich aspects of the game
I feel like Avalanche really missed on the opportunity for DLC revenue. They could have made a honestly steady inflow of income to put into the next game while still keeping the fanbase in the world. Take Bethesda for instance, How many times has Todd Howard sold us Skyrim? I probably have about 7 different copies of the game across multiple platforms. That is , in part, due to the re-releases with updated engines and the pretty consistent updated quests, DLC, Making the game easily moddable, adding Lore and even the freaking Creation club which is just paid mods essentially. All before even teasing us with Elder Scrolls 6. Avalanche could do SO much with Hogwarts Legacy as the game currently is, while also giving them the unpressured time limit to work on the sequel.
You would think more corporations would have noticed that when hasbro tried to change their ip to make more money with d&d and mtg, the fans boycotted and they experienced record losses and irreparable damage with their fan base.
This is a big IP. WB should let Avalanche do what they want and have someone else do the "live service" stuff if they want to waste their money so much. I'm very much a single-player gamer and I am not going to play a live service. They make the future games live service, I will not be playing them. I just don't like them. I used to play MMORPGs but as I've gotten older, I've decided "no thanks."
They aren't stupid. They know all signs point to the death of live service. What I believe this is is desperation. They likely know what people actually want but they just don't think that's enough, that to sell a game and make no further money than that just won't cut it anymore. They see that the regular single player stuff is what's selling but they just don't have faith in it and I know that's ironic given that Hogwarts Legacy was last years best selling game. That said I understand their fear of focusing on single player games with no additional monetization since you have to rely on the game itself being good and selling well. The best compromise then I think would be something like what you said which is online multiplayer. Having missions and side quests that specifically require multiple people to complete would be a great way of tackling this and maybe even handling quidditch this way, with entire matches against teams of real people. Maybe also 1v1 and 2v2 Duel modes would be cool, or the ability to invite other players to your room of requirement.
I do have a love for Hogwarts Legacy and AAA single-player games in general. I do love my alone time in a fantastic gaming world. Although, if there's any franchise that should have an MMO/Live Service it's Harry Potter. The franchise itself emphasizes a need for friendship and the help of others in overcoming struggles. The idea of you and your friends, being Wizards and Witches, who can team up, and complete quests, search for collectibles, go off on adventures together, and show off the cool stuff you've made is an inherent plus of the Wizarding World. It makes for a natural online game.
I don't think Live Service is the problem, especially if they do it as a multiplayer game, I think it would be really fun to explore the wizarding world with my friends, but WB needs to remove the cuffs from Avalanche, and let them do their thing with development and story telling, and more just be there to fund the project. As soon as they run their fingers through it and make everything with money in mind, that's when failure comes, prime example will be the separate quidditch game when it comes out.
I don't know what Warner Bros was thinking when they said that the next part of Hogwarts Legacy would be a game as a service or as they say live service...that's a very bad idea because Warner Games has no idea about it or rather whose avalanche studio has to look like a live service...they have no experience in it...I'd rather have a story-driven game than a game that will be a stillborn in the end...how are you going to do that? As a fan, I'm so disappointed with their decision, as are many people...they only see dollar signs in front of their eyes, nothing else
I could see the appeal of a small-scale multiplayer or self hosted multiplayer, but yeah every time I hear "live service" or "mobile" I dread that like so many others a franchise will go down that slippery slope devolving into another brand people won't touch.
Why not just make Harry Potter online where it has the same combat mechanics as HPL, have more spells to use, and make it like ESO without the loot boxes
I would love to play a massive multiplayer Hogwarts School game where all players are just a student at Hogwarts. No super human abilities, no "Chosen One" status. Just students at Hogwarts.
They don't seem to realize that the audience that plays single-player games and the audience for live service games aren't always the same. I hate live service and won't ever play live service.
@Hogwarts Legacy UA-camrs Alright...l really want to point out a massive elephant in the room that people are blind to see. Before Hogwarts Legacy came out it was actually being developed as an MMORPG! The base of the game still is in heart built in an MMORPG style. The game literally plays like a massive multiplayer game but with a bigger story element and only one player. Think about it, it has all of the elements that most AAAA MMORPG's have. There is only one element it is lacking...more players. If they can do that without making it "pay to win" than what's the problem? I am aware of some things that multiplayer could change or have an affect on...let me point some out. - Immersion triggers could be lessened. That means stuff like the goofy knights or Peeves random outbursts might not be something that happens due to technical issues with multiple players trying to trigger them. Though there are possible ways to do it but I would not count on it. - Another thing people may look down on is subscription based services like a season pass or premium pass. Though if done properly they could do it and still have a great free to play system...a good example to me would be something like the current DC Universe Online premium subs. - One thing I see people worried about is toxic players and cheaters. This usually always comes with multiplayer in every format. Sadly that gets worse as the years go by and there is not much that can be done but it can be lightened by not having many competitive modes. Rather than that...they should focus on PVE/Co-op. They could also use a clan system for competitive stuff...it would be easier to track that way. - This ties into the last one a bit but player coziness and privacy to play without hassle is sometimes difficult in MMO's. As previously mentioned you have toxic players and stuff that makes things a bit less fun for some. Even GTA Online gave in to having private lobbies having to adjust to allow private events rather than pubs only. This is a worry of my own because I really dislike intrusive players and trolls unless its not going to hurt or bother anyone. So to me that is something that is a big deal for all of this community. To me it is the biggest worry aside from pay to win DLC. I feel like the community needs to form a feedback and suggestions group to put together a fair sized survey about what will be accepted for a live service HP game for all of us to do. Once its done the results should be handed over as a petition to WB Games to evaluate and respond to hopefully. See, I am a fan of EW (Expansive Worlds) under the Parent of Avalanche Studios...yeah the hunting and fishing games developer. They do regular surveys and pool ideas from fans...which many companies are starting to do for games. In my biggest opinion, this form of community management is and should be the standard in gaming. At the end of the day fans are consumers of the product being serviced so it makes some sense to know what they want.
I saw an article titled "WB going live-service for future games" or similar and I thought "PLEASE leave HP alone! I don't about your other stuff, but if you ruin HP for me with live-service, I will walk away."
one business model that works, would be to make a free to-play game, multiplayer and have in-app purchase for aesthetic content, like cloth skins, etc… it works for game such Call of Duty Warzone, etc… you can still play the game without performance disadvantage, and fans will spend money to get the nice exclusive skins and visual effects… release a monthly or quarterly DLC with new quests and a special storyline, which would promote the new content available in the store. If you don’t want it, just ignore it and play with standard skins.
two dlc's would be better. in Hogwarts Legacy, you're in fifth year. Hogwart students had 7 years of lessons. So the game can build up on 2 more years.
online service is clearly terrible for certain games...not all lol...thats why suicide squad failed...live service in hogwarts would be dope asf if Co-op or multiplayer existed!! dont nobody want to play a single player harry potter game bro foh..certain games need multiplayer capabilities
HL2 can become a Live Service game, but also keep the integrity. As others mentioned, under $10 DLCs dropping periodically would help. Also, it's possible to have multiplayer without that "Massively" part. One player could host a game, others could join. Many of the AA-AAA games that have dropped this year are doing this now.
People who play Hogwarts want to be apart of the story and immerse themselves in the world, you can't do that with PvP looter shooter. You want looter shooter do something like Fallout where it has 25 different endings. Something like Hogwarts has one storyline and the system doesn't let you mess it up. You can get different outcomes, or neglect the storyline up to a point, but you have to engage with it to properly progress. Turning Hogwarts into a Live System looter shooter would be a failure. Now, they could create something like a looter shooter where each player is a student and you can duel, and have multiple storylines for the game. To make it work would take a lot of work. Schmucks who run the company who doesn't play game but think they know better than the people who do that build the games is a major problem. Listen to the market and those who build the games. If you do that and give them what they want, like with Hogwarts, it will be a money maker. And then you don't have to worry about opening your big stupid mouth and mess it all up as a boss. Just sit back and let it take care of itself.
Why not just make both audiences happy. Create something that actually fits the live service model in he Harry potter verse and keep it seperate from legacies so single player game lovers like me can still enjoy ourselves
I’d think Hollywood has issues with the time from capital outlay to delivery. A movie or series has a significantly shorter outlay to delivery time compared to games. Not to mention that the up front costs are higher much earlier in games. Also, the financial / production support environment is less mature. As a studio, movie making is more straightforward. I would be interested what a AAA game production insider thinks about this, especially if he has an idea about how movies are developed and produced.
My game has been unplayable for the past 4 or 5 months. I've requested support from WB but have been given none. My game just freezes in the Shader screen and my CPU overloads and ultimately the game just crashes. Ive tried multiple fixes like deleting the shader folder all together and try to run the game, uninstalling and re installing, etc... Anyone know how I can fix this issue please?
I had the same problem at the point when the game started, after or before the character creation. Could solve the problem but tell me first what you mean with the Shader screen.
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.. (am i right)? Just improve it. They made a billion dollars lol but what do I know, maybe it’ll be a top tier “live service” game.
In my opinion, when companies release half a game and call it live service but still expect us to pay 60, 70, 80 bucks makes that game uninteresting. 1 year in when the game is 80-90% done because of paid dlc, it is uninteresting because its 1 year old and you'll be 100+ bucks into a still not finished game.
I believe if they would finish the story mode with the 6th year adding an online wizarding world where you could own house across the land with more spells things to do as a wizard or witch at an affordable price it could be a good game.
I am not a gamer, but I bought a PS5 just for Hogwarts Legacy. I didn't want online, belles and whistles, or multiplayer. I just wanted to take that solo journey, and live how the books felt. For Hogwarts Legacy 2, just give me Hogwarts Legacy 1 in another timeframe with a new plot, new teachers, change up the highlands and the castle a bit, add a morality system, Diagon Alley, Ministry of Magic and Quidditch. Thats it. That's all you gotta do.
Microtransactions are not the way to go, DLC is. Helldivers 2 is the only game that makes live service right, but an IP like Hogwarts Legacy is not viable when I can't believe the suits already forgotten Magic Awakened. Avalanche is basically like Respawn from EA for making great singleplayer games for their Jedi series.
for gamers who dreamed for this game to become mmo (live service). you don't know what you are wishing for, especially when "free to play" is tagged along and most of live services nowadays is not like what it used to be.
Great vid, happy to see your vids picking up more traction after the original HL spike! A little off topic but what do you think the possibility is of the HL update this summer adding more trophies? @RetroRaconteur
I don't generally do multiplayer. I've tried a few. They are usually nothing more than capture the flag. Even if they start out trying to be more, they generally devolve into that play style and I just want difficulty options, good story and the ability to use them as a distraction rather than a way of life. I LOVE Hogwarts Legacy. I'd hate it if it was a race to get respawn-able items or resources before anyone else. I want DLCs but all they have is cosmetic. Cosmetic is NOT a DLC...I know technically but no.
They’re trying to replace watching tv and television engagement with what they think is more valuable… play time. With this you allow them massive data chunks rather than random increments of play. They also take in a massive amount of revenue for the monetization strategies.
I truly am baffled because they think that the reason why Suicide Squad faild wasn't the bad story, the weak live service, the repetitive boring gameplay or the targeting of "modern audience". So what do they tell as the reason when they talk about these games? With what do they explain the success of Hogwarts Legacy? If they think simply the fans of the universe will buy everything then SQ should've been a massive success.
4:44: No. This game is not finished. We know with almost certainty, that there were significant features that ended up being cut, very very likely due to time concerns. Just because a game got delayed, does not mean it got the time it needed to be finished. Countless examples come to mind. Cyberpunk for example, which didn't even run on the consoles on launch day, despite being delayed several times.
Live-service doesn't mean multiplayer battle royale. It could very well be a story-driven, single player experience - Hoyoverse has become one of the biggest studio worldwide on this recipe. While HL2 will clearly not be a gacha, a live-service, frequently updated game with microtransactions is a viable compromise.
I'll be very happy if they make another single-player game, even more happy if they make an actually good and ambitious MMORPG, and extremely happy if they make both at the same time. I'll admit I have genuinely some trouble understanding why most players talking about this news (I'm not talking about RetroRaconteur, but mainly UA-cam comments everywhere) can't imagine anything other than a "single player live-service game" when they hear about "making a HP live service"... (which, obviously, is indeed a very bad idea) I just hope we get literally anything that is not a single/coop player game as a service.
Yeah to me it all comes down to how much they're expecting from Avalanche. I'm with you on wanting a Potter MMORPG...but I just hope they don't ruin a good thing with Avalanche in trying to force that to happen.
I liked that I could play Diablo 2 as a MMORPG and a single player game, if they make it like that it might not be so bad, but if it's online only, it's not the same.
Ah yes, there's been a history of successful Live Service games lately! Just look at all the successful ones Square-Enix put out over the past few years! Like uh... like uhh... liiike uhm... uhhhh... one moment I'll think of one if I try.
I don't understand why everyone is freaking out?! RDR2 is the best game ever. A great single player involving 1 character and a separate online story involving another. I love the idea of "living and building in a world" This sounds like a good thing to me!
Pride. That's what's going to kill WB and all the other properties that will go down with it. Their "execs" don't give a damn what customers want, they just want to concoct content in the boardroom that they can take 100% credit for.
Just give us DLC that’ll make the game what it should have been in the first place… this game was boring, our actions had no consequences, the world was beautiful but felt dead. I love what is there, but it’s a good wrapper for what could have been an amazing, deep adventure
Games sell MILLIONS more copies now, than years past, as its become a mainstream hobby The selection of coders is much larger, meaning more choice of employees to develop. Physical copies are extinct. That saves money on prosuction, shipping, storage, and manufacturing, etc.. They now patch games, meaning they can sell games early, and broken.. And if it sells well, maybe even fix it! They get so much free advertising via streamers, and youtubers. Theyre also charging $70-$250 for games! I am sick and tired of hearing about the increase costs, while they ignore the plethora of ways theyve cut costs, time, and found new ways to atreamline. The problem is greed, CEOs, and shareholders! Theyre taking tens of millions off the top.. not to mention, wasted costs such as denuvo drm, and paying silly consultants lile Sweet Baby Inc, lol
I’ve spent well over $1,000 on the sims 4 DLC. And I have over 6000 hrs in the game. Just sell good DLC like the fans want and bam you’ll never stop making money
I'm 1 field page short of 100% the green house was bugged and unless they finally bring out the PS exclusive content as they keep saying it'll be out on all platforms
TBH i think this is actually good. If your familiar with warframe then Imagine Hogwarts Legacy with monthly Dev streams massive amounts of new spells and things to do a richer even more active world and MULTIPLAYER. You would prefer a one and done finished product? With one or two updates and A DLC, or a game that will constantly provide you something new as long as you continue playing? Its a no Brainer. Keep in mind Suicide squad is Not an RPG. Lets think outside the box here.
i would say to them to experiment first in a safer way. build a singleplayer game, but make it so that charcter can transition into a multiplayer aspect. see how mutch that multiplayer aspect earns them. than you know if it is the wise thing to do in the first place. dragon age inquisition MP does terrible. but the game still sells today thnx to its single player. though the MP is terribly made in the long run. it is still fun to do every now and then.
nobody can compare suicide squad with Hogwarts Legacy. Live service didn't kill ss, the game itself was complete dogshit and the boss fights were LAME. Live Service just isn't going to kill Hogwarts Legacy and if you think it is then idk what to tell you. Fans of Harry Potter/Hogwarts Legacy aren't going to mind extra shit getting added into the game, not everything a company puts out for in game items can be 100% free. HL will be fine and the future of the sequel will be just as fine if not better.
You don't think Rocksteady could have created an incredible single player SS game if that's what they'd started with? Going down the live service path had a direct impact on the entire scope of the game.
@@RetroRaconteur dude the game wasn’t good to begin with the story was sub par and the boss fights were the same thing over and over again that has nothing to do with live service
@@ZachSweig no it doesn’t. Hell Divers 2 is live service for half the price and the game is fantastic. A bad storyline with a shitty play style is what killed kill the justice league. No matter how much you argue it you will still be wrong
Everyone assumes live service means only PvP and micro transactions. I would hate a Hogwart’s Legacy “Fortnite” game. But a live service game that is Multiplayer or an MMO would be amazing.
how to fck up something done right? *WB enters a room* :live service anyone? put it how ever you want but HL didnt have mind blowing amazing story...it was good at best...(more like ok) so them they want to continue on story is massive L for me (even some of the best story telling games become mediocre when extended to much and live service will do exactly that make it LOOOOOONG and boring)...also now we will have "free" to play mobile looking rushed peace of garbage with microtransactions everywhere.... the moment i hear "in game shop" im not buying and not playing next HL game im actually super sad they will ruin such amazing game and opportunity for quick cash grab
If they really want to make fans happy just introduce quidditch either vs the AI or PvP and make the cross wands dueling club a PvP online for us. I’d be completely happy with this alone until they decide to make a new either Hogwarts legacy game or a new school in the same universe.
NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE LIVE SERVICE, MY GOD
right!! freaking sick of live service games!
Do these execs know DLCs exist? They want a more constant stream of revenue without having to make a full AAA HP game every year. Well, make DLC! Much smaller investment and new revenues every year.
Hahaha. Keep watching 😉 I'm right there with you.
I just played through Fallout new Vegas for the first time in a decade. Those expansions were awesome and were made on short time constraints/small budgets. WB just wants lootbox-style MT's. Their greed will ruin them further.
Complete with accusations from the consumer about cutting parts of the game out and repackaging them later.
Not the worst suggestion ever, but DLC is usually just as costly as making the game itself, they want better profit margins than that
no, they are idjits that focus on one thing and one thing only. money.
Players: We want a quidditch dlc.
WB: How bout live service and micro transactions?
Players: Um…no, please.
WB: Rhetorical question.
I only want a quidditch DLC if the flight controls are revamped.
Plus the quidditch pitch ingame feels like it'll be to small to play in properly.
@@Kakarot64. They have had some closed betas on a game called Quidditch Champions, a few months back. A DLC for Hogwarts Legacy is pretty much impossible at this point, much less a Quidditch one.
idk if u are aware, but they r realising an online game based on quidditch. I had the opportunity to test it in the first closed beta. that's why there is no quidditch in Hogwarts legacy, most likely..
quidditch is useless without having online play and some ranked. dont nobody want to verse cpu players all day man. that shits cringe and old news
and who cares about what u think?@@Reezico
WB games should leave Hogwarts Legacy and Avalanche studios alone to make the game that they want, I'm 100% confident that they can make Hogwarts Legacy 2 an even better game, the foundation is right there with the first game.
I'm with you on Legacy 2. I have no doubts whatsoever it would be better in every way than the first game.
I think one of the best features of this game is something Harry Potter has always done. Find the crucial middle line between selling to kids and adults. This game was a true all ages game. Stuff like Mortal Kombat will only ever be for adults and really adult children.
For sure.
Warner bros isn't using their brains.
Because… Money!
Please don't mess up Hogwarts Legacy, please don't mess up Hogwarts Legacy.
death incoming.....sad
It’s already ass anyways
Did I tell you I wanted to cry when I heard that😢😢😢
they will mess up the sequel for sure, but maybe after realising that they fcked up they will another sequel to the sequel where they maybe actually listen to us
They will, WB never learns.
The irony!! If they were truly "greedy" they would actually listen to fans and give the customers what they want instead of losing money producing content that will flop.
@@Sinjin_Sayre The majority of fans do not want live service. As noted by all the backlash, and rightfully so.
@@dolphinshark3202people whine and cry about everything. Doesn’t make your point valid.
That would make sense, but too many companies look at it from a long term profits pov, a single player experience no matter how good will be a one off sale, whilst a live service are likely to make millions a year. Shit priorities I know, but easy money is what companies live for, all that talk about for the players are PR speak for we hear you but we don't care about anything but your wallet.
@@Sinjin_SayreWB just lost a customer. Games are a product not a fucking service that milks me on constant money.
@@Kikoamaso the people that cried about Civil Rights didn't have a point?
All they needed was a steady stream off DLC to the first game. Like the Witcher 3 add big crazy expansions for a reasonable price every 6 months or so.
Exactly this! I so wish they would have went this route. As soon as they saw the massive preorder numbers, WB should have immediately greenlit 2-3 major DLCs plus a sequel.
no all they needed was to add multiplayer/co op to a perfection online game...ruined the whole chance to bring in the best revenue..who cares about microtransactions and online service when you can play offline/single player & have online play aswell with cosmetics to get without spending just money..those are perfect games. (suicide squad is a failure bc its not a good game to make online, let alone a live service...smh out of tune casuals.
Yeah, especially since they already have so many good assets, they could have easily made a diagonal alley dlc and an Azkaban dlc. Add a few more side quests. Maybe just add quidditch. They could keep milking this cow for years, but instead they want to maximize profits by destroying their ip
@@Reezico Not even full multiplayer, cause it would be awkward lore-wise imo to go through the story with other players.
Just a PVP arena access would be amazing, giving some end-game content and giving people an aditional reason to 100% the game
I could see the quidditch game they're making being a good choice for a Wizarding World live service game, but definitely not Legacy. The quidditch game has a great model to look at for its success in Rocket League, but I just can't understand how Legacy could be translated to a live service game without losing most of what was great about it. I don't see it.
The fact we're hearing more about WB games plans for their games than any info on Hogwarts Legacy 2 specifically makes it seem like something is gonna change. Like AVA is waiting on their orders..
AVA? :)
@@sebicmiel4221Avalanche team
im scared about what wb gonna do with this game tbh 😣
Probably live service 😢 $
They’re gonna ruin Avalanche’s reputation like they did with Rocksteady
@@G8oo8N8 sorry everything can't be free. Live service isn't horrible for an open world game that's as good as HL, sequels take $$ to make and guess how they're going to have to pay for it. As big as the first game was the sequel is probably going to have a much bigger budget and they need to add some sort of microtransaction to help pay for that budget.
@@therealskiiizowhy on Earth wouldn’t the revenue from buying the actual game not cover that? The first one sold millions!
@@Girl4Musicomg a company wants to make more money and give us more content in return?
I don't think they understand how much money I would drop on Hogwarts Legacy DLCs. That is literally the safest bet they could make seeing as the fans have been crying out for DLC practically since release
woulda dropped a grand with multiplayer lol..imagine a social place like GTA servers. missed the biggest take off in history..this was a solid perfect online game..red dead 2 with SP and MP together.
@@Reezico no, hell no. multiplayer would just ruin it, gta online is one of the most toxic shitty online communities along with LoL. and its not even fun, theres nothing fun to do in those games.
@@NefosteuxAlucardi played the GTA story once and was done with it. Online let me play the game for years after. I just finished Hogwarts Legacy story, and now there is nothing to do
They way RockStar did it. Red Dead Redemtion 2 and GTA 5 both released with an online version included next to the single player campaign.
If WB followed that model then they won’t kill the franchise. Shit, he just said that in the video.
I thought I was the only one who thought gta 5
I don't get it... why can't they listen to the fans? The game sold that many copies for a reason. They're going to screw everything up. They're so out of touch! Congratulations :( I won't buy it.
Cool, see ya.
I want Hogwarts Legacy 2: Year 6 (continue the story)
Maybe if they want to continue with Harry Potter type games they can also do a Hogwarts Adventure/Journey Online.
I personally don't see the appeal of online games.
how do you see the appeal of single player games? all of them will always lack content, get boring (or have you searching for other games) after sometime..may that be 30 or 200 hours. atleast make PERFECT online games, online. pretty shit how we get a harry potter game of triple A & its only SP. boringgggggggggggggggg
Could say the same about the Multiplayer grindy games, on top of having to deal with annoying people. Go enjoy your hundreds of Multiplayer games and let people enjoy peace in single player games. @@Reezico
The only time I play games is when I have to spend an hour or more in the car or on a train, I don't like games where I have to do constant upkeep. My lifestyle is better suited to one and done games. @@Reezico Instead of trying to start an argument, just accept that everyone lives differently from everyone else. I think it is cool that online games work for you, so please respect that there are just as many single play gamer's as there are multi-online gamer's.
@@Reezico It wasn’t boring at all, and I’m saying this as an MMO player. There are plethora excellent single player games, and Hogwarts Legacy was everything it needed to be… ok, _almost_ everything; they really fucked up by not having Quidditch.
It would make perfect sense for someone to make an MMO in the Harry Potter universe, but I don’t trust today’s game companies to pull it off.
@@Reezico idk bc the sims is a very very rich company and it’s always been single player. In 2020 if you had all the sims 4 DLC it added up to $1000.. now imagine the amount of people that have every DLC pack like me lol. And I have over 6000 hours in that game
Oh no, I saw an article about it this morning. Hoping it wasn't true.
I guess we'll find out 😬
I’ve been playing Genshin Impact for 3 years. Single player (with small party co-op options) open world RPG that you keep getting more of the story and more of the world little by little over time. This is what I wanted HWL to be. You start at Hogwarts as a first year. You get to explore the castle at depth, go to classes, make friends. Then a few months later new update. Maybe a year later, you’ve progressed through the years, you’re a 3rd year and ‘Tada!’ Hogsmead world expansion update! And so on and so forth. And then by IDK year 5, two or three IRL years later, the lower Hogwarts valley is accessible. The developers could take their time giving more depth to the character interactions and story. Genshin makes the developers BILLONS OF DOLLARS and the only thing you pay for is OPTIONAL character pulls and a small handful of skins. Yes, they are a large game dev company and they do have a full team working full time on the game and in order for HWL to be this ‘on all the time’ game the devs would have to work on it exclusively. But if WB would back them, put money into a full game studio and put the HWL devs in charge of building that studio HWL could have a legacy that’s the like of FF and Zelda and keep printing money for all involved for decades.
Someone at Avalanche has to send the link to this video to WB Discovery.
On Zaslav’a desk directly if possible.
I will not support Hogwarts Legacy or Harry Potter anything if it goes live service. I hated GTA Online. I never touched any live service game again.
It’s absolutely the wrong move and they need to know exactly why it is.
That won't work. This is just another attempt to move towards pay me constantly to play. It's a distinctly planned and chosen move. Without regulations they will constantly circle back to this
I think Games as a service should be illegal. Law that says Video Games are products and need to be playable offline even if they include coop
@@werejustgaming it’s part of the paradigm of companies not wanting their consumers to actually own any of their content that they legitimately pay for.
And then they wonder why those consumers stop legitimately paying for any of their content at all.
Streaming, renting, and live-service video gaming is ruining the art/entertainment industry.
Once upon a time, it used to be that the only thing a consumer didn’t own was the copyrights to a piece of content.
Now they don’t even own the actual content.
So those companies can take it away or alter it any which way they choose at any time.
Great video, Retro! Your research, insight, and analysis is top notch. I agree that, based on Perrette's recent comments at the Morgan Stanley event that there may be cause for concern. But also, because WB hasn't clearly set out their plans, we are left to speculate as to what they may be thinking.
My opinion is that the WB executive team itself isn't sure what it wants. We don't know what's next because they also don't know what's next. Yet. They are probably still working through their product line and I'm sure they have several "irons in the fire" as to what could be possible, but until they start actually announcing what titles are being worked on, all we can do is hope that they are making smart decisions aimed at pleasing their fans rather than worrying too much about evening out earnings report volatility.
Always appreciate you stopping by and hearing your insights, Troy! I started off doing just a news update video, but realized this video would probably benefit from significantly more backstory to try and give people the full picture of how we got here. You are spot on though...until we hear something official on what's next, all we can do is speculate and hope for the best.
I would like a game where you can play Quidditch online with friends or competitively with other players.
I would probably want a Auror vs Deatheaters type game. It would be fun to have it like Hogwarts Legacy but adult characters. It would be even nuttier to use a mechanic like invasions. So you can be an Auror and invade a Deatheater or vice versa.
Unfortunately you would need a different company to make that game.
Have you heard about Quidditch Champions? It sounds like the exact quidditch game you're hoping for!
Quite frankly I would love if they took what we have already, and just made a separate multiplayer game where we can just laugh, run around with friends and have wizarding duels, fly etc. A lot of us grew up as roleplayers in other games trying to recreate hogwarts, or roleplaying on the many, many forums between 2007-2015 made to at least be able to be a “small” part of the world, interacting with other roleplay writers. I think many want to just be able to play with others and see a castle full of players chit chatting. Imagine Second Life style Hogwarts in the style of this game. It would look beautiful, people would have too much fun and hit the sweet spot of how many of us just.. Want to enjoy the environment.
CEOs don't know games...only money.
People love the idea of a [insert favrouite media franchise] as a MMO so that they can follow their friends around in the game...
Till they realise that they will have to putting up with loot boxes, cash shop, spongy enemies, weak power fantasy due to game balance, lag, random server downtime, lack of free content and constant nerfs.
I hope avalanche and WB will fix this problem for Hogwarts please😭💔
They could make a live service game that takes place at the different schools. One can either play as a student, or an adult playing one of various different jobs either in the school or any local town. One could even be a representative from the nearest government body.
I think it would be a giant mistake to make Hogwarts Legacy 2 a live service game. I think they should keep the formula they set from the first one and recreate a success that clearly resonates with the fans of the franchise and then make some kind of live service MMO that is stand alone. Keep they separate so they don't shoot themselves in the foot with that. They're just two different gameplay experiences that I think shouldn't be overlooked by any company.
Live service is killing the gaming industry
its making me quit gaming in general.
I cant wait for Hogwarts Legacy: Kill Harry Potter. S/
I think ideally there should be 2 different games. Hogwarts Legacy 2(continue the story) and Hogwarts Journey Online(multiplayer with its own unique mechanics)
Not everyone wants a full online game.
@Draven- the balance of an online game is much different from the balance of a single-player game. They also have to come up with a consequences mechanic for using dark magic. Otherwise, whoever uses Avada Kedavra first wins.
@@Sinjin_Sayre Now you're just talking to yourself. Bye
@@sanguinetalesthey would just ban it in pvp
Adding multiplayer to Hogwarts Legacy would make people happy. What I don’t want is always online billions of micro transactions. Pay to win. Pay for skins etc. Pay for seasons etc. Keep monetization out of my video games.
Simple fix, if they fuck it up then we just pirate it.
How would you pirate a live service game?
Don't you dare Warner.. If you do.. You will have many witches and wizards at your doorstep.. Ready with the unforgivable curses aimed at you!! 🤬☠️☠️☠️
Cringe
@@brianrich7828why did you say cringe?
mf please delete this comment 💀
Why not make a Hogwarts Legacy tv series, or a movie to sell merchandise? Warner Bros CEO should know that the market is oversaturated with live service/microtransaction games.
Hogwarts legacy is the best selling game and I bought it on a whim after never playing a game before outside of MarioKart8 with my kids. I will NOT play any live service games unless they have a single-player aspect. I know a lot of people like multi-player but a lot of people don't. The best way to get people to continue to play their games I think they need to do 4 things. 1)Have a Great story. 2) Single-player aspect that is complete. 3) Multi-player aspect even just as small as quidditch or Wizard's Chess included in the main game 4) DLC that's compelling. These things help bring in money as well as replayability. There are a lot of non-gamers like me that are fans of Harry Potter, that can be drawn in if they keep single-player, story rich aspects of the game
I feel like Avalanche really missed on the opportunity for DLC revenue. They could have made a honestly steady inflow of income to put into the next game while still keeping the fanbase in the world. Take Bethesda for instance, How many times has Todd Howard sold us Skyrim? I probably have about 7 different copies of the game across multiple platforms. That is , in part, due to the re-releases with updated engines and the pretty consistent updated quests, DLC, Making the game easily moddable, adding Lore and even the freaking Creation club which is just paid mods essentially. All before even teasing us with Elder Scrolls 6.
Avalanche could do SO much with Hogwarts Legacy as the game currently is, while also giving them the unpressured time limit to work on the sequel.
Hogwarts Legacy as of today has made 1.3 billion and Suicide Squad Kill the Justice League has made a total of 1.2 million.
These execs are slow.
You would think more corporations would have noticed that when hasbro tried to change their ip to make more money with d&d and mtg, the fans boycotted and they experienced record losses and irreparable damage with their fan base.
Love the vids! Let’s hope this ship corrects its self, and greed does not enter the scene.
Thanks for always supporting, House!
I think they should do it like GTA. One side of it is the main story mode, the other side is an online interactive world.
This is a big IP. WB should let Avalanche do what they want and have someone else do the "live service" stuff if they want to waste their money so much. I'm very much a single-player gamer and I am not going to play a live service. They make the future games live service, I will not be playing them. I just don't like them. I used to play MMORPGs but as I've gotten older, I've decided "no thanks."
They aren't stupid. They know all signs point to the death of live service. What I believe this is is desperation.
They likely know what people actually want but they just don't think that's enough, that to sell a game and make no further money than that just won't cut it anymore. They see that the regular single player stuff is what's selling but they just don't have faith in it and I know that's ironic given that Hogwarts Legacy was last years best selling game.
That said I understand their fear of focusing on single player games with no additional monetization since you have to rely on the game itself being good and selling well. The best compromise then I think would be something like what you said which is online multiplayer. Having missions and side quests that specifically require multiple people to complete would be a great way of tackling this and maybe even handling quidditch this way, with entire matches against teams of real people. Maybe also 1v1 and 2v2 Duel modes would be cool, or the ability to invite other players to your room of requirement.
I do have a love for Hogwarts Legacy and AAA single-player games in general. I do love my alone time in a fantastic gaming world. Although, if there's any franchise that should have an MMO/Live Service it's Harry Potter. The franchise itself emphasizes a need for friendship and the help of others in overcoming struggles. The idea of you and your friends, being Wizards and Witches, who can team up, and complete quests, search for collectibles, go off on adventures together, and show off the cool stuff you've made is an inherent plus of the Wizarding World. It makes for a natural online game.
I don't think Live Service is the problem, especially if they do it as a multiplayer game, I think it would be really fun to explore the wizarding world with my friends, but WB needs to remove the cuffs from Avalanche, and let them do their thing with development and story telling, and more just be there to fund the project. As soon as they run their fingers through it and make everything with money in mind, that's when failure comes, prime example will be the separate quidditch game when it comes out.
prime example of WB causing failure due to greed^
If they just let avalanche do their thing with Hogwarts legacy, the game would thrive.
WB about to make us wish the boycott succeeded.
They hunt the "success" of Suicide Squad 🤣
PS. Naughty Dog is trash, they have no devs left. To base anything on them is folly.
I don't know what Warner Bros was thinking when they said that the next part of Hogwarts Legacy would be a game as a service or as they say live service...that's a very bad idea because Warner Games has no idea about it or rather whose avalanche studio has to look like a live service...they have no experience in it...I'd rather have a story-driven game than a game that will be a stillborn in the end...how are you going to do that? As a fan, I'm so disappointed with their decision, as are many people...they only see dollar signs in front of their eyes, nothing else
I could see the appeal of a small-scale multiplayer or self hosted multiplayer, but yeah every time I hear "live service" or "mobile" I dread that like so many others a franchise will go down that slippery slope devolving into another brand people won't touch.
Why not just make Harry Potter online where it has the same combat mechanics as HPL, have more spells to use, and make it like ESO without the loot boxes
I really wish people at these industries would see these videos and listen to them
Even if they did, they don't care.. MAXIMIZE PROFIT!!
I'd love to see Hogwarts Legacy grow, but at this point, I'd rather they not touch the game AT ALL if their ideas are liable to disappoint us.
I would love to play a massive multiplayer Hogwarts School game where all players are just a student at Hogwarts. No super human abilities, no "Chosen One" status. Just students at Hogwarts.
They don't seem to realize that the audience that plays single-player games and the audience for live service games aren't always the same. I hate live service and won't ever play live service.
@Hogwarts Legacy UA-camrs
Alright...l really want to point out a massive elephant in the room that people are blind to see. Before Hogwarts Legacy came out it was actually being developed as an MMORPG! The base of the game still is in heart built in an MMORPG style. The game literally plays like a massive multiplayer game but with a bigger story element and only one player. Think about it, it has all of the elements that most AAAA MMORPG's have. There is only one element it is lacking...more players. If they can do that without making it "pay to win" than what's the problem?
I am aware of some things that multiplayer could change or have an affect on...let me point some out.
- Immersion triggers could be lessened. That means stuff like the goofy knights or Peeves random outbursts might not be something that happens due to technical issues with multiple players trying to trigger them. Though there are possible ways to do it but I would not count on it.
- Another thing people may look down on is subscription based services like a season pass or premium pass. Though if done properly they could do it and still have a great free to play system...a good example to me would be something like the current DC Universe Online premium subs.
- One thing I see people worried about is toxic players and cheaters. This usually always comes with multiplayer in every format. Sadly that gets worse as the years go by and there is not much that can be done but it can be lightened by not having many competitive modes. Rather than that...they should focus on PVE/Co-op. They could also use a clan system for competitive stuff...it would be easier to track that way.
- This ties into the last one a bit but player coziness and privacy to play without hassle is sometimes difficult in MMO's. As previously mentioned you have toxic players and stuff that makes things a bit less fun for some. Even GTA Online gave in to having private lobbies having to adjust to allow private events rather than pubs only. This is a worry of my own because I really dislike intrusive players and trolls unless its not going to hurt or bother anyone. So to me that is something that is a big deal for all of this community. To me it is the biggest worry aside from pay to win DLC.
I feel like the community needs to form a feedback and suggestions group to put together a fair sized survey about what will be accepted for a live service HP game for all of us to do. Once its done the results should be handed over as a petition to WB Games to evaluate and respond to hopefully. See, I am a fan of EW (Expansive Worlds) under the Parent of Avalanche Studios...yeah the hunting and fishing games developer. They do regular surveys and pool ideas from fans...which many companies are starting to do for games. In my biggest opinion, this form of community management is and should be the standard in gaming. At the end of the day fans are consumers of the product being serviced so it makes some sense to know what they want.
I saw an article titled "WB going live-service for future games" or similar and I thought "PLEASE leave HP alone! I don't about your other stuff, but if you ruin HP for me with live-service, I will walk away."
one business model that works, would be to make a free to-play game, multiplayer and have in-app purchase for aesthetic content, like cloth skins, etc… it works for game such Call of Duty Warzone, etc… you can still play the game without performance disadvantage, and fans will spend money to get the nice exclusive skins and visual effects… release a monthly or quarterly DLC with new quests and a special storyline, which would promote the new content available in the store. If you don’t want it, just ignore it and play with standard skins.
Once we didn't get the Mauranders on Tv is only fair giving it to us on Hogwarts Legacy 2
two dlc's would be better. in Hogwarts Legacy, you're in fifth year. Hogwart students had 7 years of lessons. So the game can build up on 2 more years.
online service is clearly terrible for certain games...not all lol...thats why suicide squad failed...live service in hogwarts would be dope asf if Co-op or multiplayer existed!! dont nobody want to play a single player harry potter game bro foh..certain games need multiplayer capabilities
If WB wants a Harry Potter Live Service game, they should just release Hogwarts Mystery and it's storyline in the Hogwarts Legacy engine
HL2 can become a Live Service game, but also keep the integrity.
As others mentioned, under $10 DLCs dropping periodically would help.
Also, it's possible to have multiplayer without that "Massively" part. One player could host a game, others could join. Many of the AA-AAA games that have dropped this year are doing this now.
People who play Hogwarts want to be apart of the story and immerse themselves in the world, you can't do that with PvP looter shooter. You want looter shooter do something like Fallout where it has 25 different endings. Something like Hogwarts has one storyline and the system doesn't let you mess it up. You can get different outcomes, or neglect the storyline up to a point, but you have to engage with it to properly progress.
Turning Hogwarts into a Live System looter shooter would be a failure.
Now, they could create something like a looter shooter where each player is a student and you can duel, and have multiple storylines for the game. To make it work would take a lot of work.
Schmucks who run the company who doesn't play game but think they know better than the people who do that build the games is a major problem. Listen to the market and those who build the games. If you do that and give them what they want, like with Hogwarts, it will be a money maker. And then you don't have to worry about opening your big stupid mouth and mess it all up as a boss. Just sit back and let it take care of itself.
Why not just make both audiences happy. Create something that actually fits the live service model in he Harry potter verse and keep it seperate from legacies so single player game lovers like me can still enjoy ourselves
I’d think Hollywood has issues with the time from capital outlay to delivery. A movie or series has a significantly shorter outlay to delivery time compared to games. Not to mention that the up front costs are higher much earlier in games. Also, the financial / production support environment is less mature. As a studio, movie making is more straightforward. I would be interested what a AAA game production insider thinks about this, especially if he has an idea about how movies are developed and produced.
My game has been unplayable for the past 4 or 5 months. I've requested support from WB but have been given none. My game just freezes in the Shader screen and my CPU overloads and ultimately the game just crashes. Ive tried multiple fixes like deleting the shader folder all together and try to run the game, uninstalling and re installing, etc...
Anyone know how I can fix this issue please?
I had the same problem at the point when the game started, after or before the character creation. Could solve the problem but tell me first what you mean with the Shader screen.
I wouldn’t mind a online feature but full blown multiplayer 🙁🙁
The people who made rocksteady good left, naughty dog forced the people who made them great out.
I don't get it... The HL at launch didn't have live service and was loved by many. Why would they ruin it!?!!!??
Live service doesn’t mean they are messing it up!!!
ESG probably...
If it ain’t broke don’t
fix it.. (am i right)? Just improve it. They made a billion dollars lol
but what do I know, maybe it’ll be a top tier “live service” game.
oh i thought they were going to say they were allowing character pronouns lol.
In my opinion, when companies release half a game and call it live service but still expect us to pay 60, 70, 80 bucks makes that game uninteresting. 1 year in when the game is 80-90% done because of paid dlc, it is uninteresting because its 1 year old and you'll be 100+ bucks into a still not finished game.
I believe if they would finish the story mode with the 6th year adding an online wizarding world where you could own house across the land with more spells things to do as a wizard or witch at an affordable price it could be a good game.
I am not a gamer, but I bought a PS5 just for Hogwarts Legacy. I didn't want online, belles and whistles, or multiplayer. I just wanted to take that solo journey, and live how the books felt. For Hogwarts Legacy 2, just give me Hogwarts Legacy 1 in another timeframe with a new plot, new teachers, change up the highlands and the castle a bit, add a morality system, Diagon Alley, Ministry of Magic and Quidditch. Thats it. That's all you gotta do.
Microtransactions are not the way to go, DLC is. Helldivers 2 is the only game that makes live service right, but an IP like Hogwarts Legacy is not viable when I can't believe the suits already forgotten Magic Awakened. Avalanche is basically like Respawn from EA for making great singleplayer games for their Jedi series.
for gamers who dreamed for this game to become mmo (live service). you don't know what you are wishing for, especially when "free to play" is tagged along and most of live services nowadays is not like what it used to be.
Great vid, happy to see your vids picking up more traction after the original HL spike! A little off topic but what do you think the possibility is of the HL update this summer adding more trophies? @RetroRaconteur
I don't generally do multiplayer. I've tried a few. They are usually nothing more than capture the flag. Even if they start out trying to be more, they generally devolve into that play style and I just want difficulty options, good story and the ability to use them as a distraction rather than a way of life.
I LOVE Hogwarts Legacy. I'd hate it if it was a race to get respawn-able items or resources before anyone else.
I want DLCs but all they have is cosmetic. Cosmetic is NOT a DLC...I know technically but no.
The fact that they still haven’t fixed the performance issues of the game should show you how much they care about the community!
They’re trying to replace watching tv and television engagement with what they think is more valuable… play time. With this you allow them massive data chunks rather than random increments of play. They also take in a massive amount of revenue for the monetization strategies.
I truly am baffled because they think that the reason why Suicide Squad faild wasn't the bad story, the weak live service, the repetitive boring gameplay or the targeting of "modern audience".
So what do they tell as the reason when they talk about these games? With what do they explain the success of Hogwarts Legacy?
If they think simply the fans of the universe will buy everything then SQ should've been a massive success.
4:44: No. This game is not finished. We know with almost certainty, that there were significant features that ended up being cut, very very likely due to time concerns. Just because a game got delayed, does not mean it got the time it needed to be finished. Countless examples come to mind. Cyberpunk for example, which didn't even run on the consoles on launch day, despite being delayed several times.
Live-service doesn't mean multiplayer battle royale. It could very well be a story-driven, single player experience - Hoyoverse has become one of the biggest studio worldwide on this recipe. While HL2 will clearly not be a gacha, a live-service, frequently updated game with microtransactions is a viable compromise.
I'll be very happy if they make another single-player game, even more happy if they make an actually good and ambitious MMORPG, and extremely happy if they make both at the same time.
I'll admit I have genuinely some trouble understanding why most players talking about this news (I'm not talking about RetroRaconteur, but mainly UA-cam comments everywhere) can't imagine anything other than a "single player live-service game" when they hear about "making a HP live service"... (which, obviously, is indeed a very bad idea)
I just hope we get literally anything that is not a single/coop player game as a service.
Yeah to me it all comes down to how much they're expecting from Avalanche. I'm with you on wanting a Potter MMORPG...but I just hope they don't ruin a good thing with Avalanche in trying to force that to happen.
I liked that I could play Diablo 2 as a MMORPG and a single player game, if they make it like that it might not be so bad, but if it's online only, it's not the same.
Ah yes, there's been a history of successful Live Service games lately! Just look at all the successful ones Square-Enix put out over the past few years! Like uh... like uhh... liiike uhm... uhhhh... one moment I'll think of one if I try.
I’m wondering if the Harry Potter live service game is the Qudditich game they playtested a few months ago
I feel like making a second one based on a 6th year to continue the story a lot of game progression learning new spells wouldn’t make sense
I hope we get many more wizarding world games
I don't understand why everyone is freaking out?! RDR2 is the best game ever. A great single player involving 1 character and a separate online story involving another. I love the idea of "living and building in a world" This sounds like a good thing to me!
Pride. That's what's going to kill WB and all the other properties that will go down with it. Their "execs" don't give a damn what customers want, they just want to concoct content in the boardroom that they can take 100% credit for.
Just give us DLC that’ll make the game what it should have been in the first place… this game was boring, our actions had no consequences, the world was beautiful but felt dead. I love what is there, but it’s a good wrapper for what could have been an amazing, deep adventure
Games sell MILLIONS more copies now, than years past, as its become a mainstream hobby
The selection of coders is much larger, meaning more choice of employees to develop.
Physical copies are extinct. That saves money on prosuction, shipping, storage, and manufacturing, etc..
They now patch games, meaning they can sell games early, and broken.. And if it sells well, maybe even fix it!
They get so much free advertising via streamers, and youtubers.
Theyre also charging $70-$250 for games!
I am sick and tired of hearing about the increase costs, while they ignore the plethora of ways theyve cut costs, time, and found new ways to atreamline. The problem is greed, CEOs, and shareholders! Theyre taking tens of millions off the top.. not to mention, wasted costs such as denuvo drm, and paying silly consultants lile Sweet Baby Inc, lol
Honestly, I'm down with any new wizarding world content if it's high quality.
I’ve spent well over $1,000 on the sims 4 DLC. And I have over 6000 hrs in the game. Just sell good DLC like the fans want and bam you’ll never stop making money
I'm 1 field page short of 100% the green house was bugged and unless they finally bring out the PS exclusive content as they keep saying it'll be out on all platforms
TBH i think this is actually good. If your familiar with warframe then Imagine Hogwarts Legacy with monthly Dev streams massive amounts of new spells and things to do a richer even more active world and MULTIPLAYER. You would prefer a one and done finished product? With one or two updates and A DLC, or a game that will constantly provide you something new as long as you continue playing? Its a no Brainer. Keep in mind Suicide squad is Not an RPG. Lets think outside the box here.
i would say to them to experiment first in a safer way.
build a singleplayer game, but make it so that charcter can transition into a multiplayer aspect.
see how mutch that multiplayer aspect earns them.
than you know if it is the wise thing to do in the first place.
dragon age inquisition MP does terrible.
but the game still sells today thnx to its single player.
though the MP is terribly made in the long run.
it is still fun to do every now and then.
nobody can compare suicide squad with Hogwarts Legacy. Live service didn't kill ss, the game itself was complete dogshit and the boss fights were LAME. Live Service just isn't going to kill Hogwarts Legacy and if you think it is then idk what to tell you. Fans of Harry Potter/Hogwarts Legacy aren't going to mind extra shit getting added into the game, not everything a company puts out for in game items can be 100% free. HL will be fine and the future of the sequel will be just as fine if not better.
You don't think Rocksteady could have created an incredible single player SS game if that's what they'd started with? Going down the live service path had a direct impact on the entire scope of the game.
@@RetroRaconteur dude the game wasn’t good to begin with the story was sub par and the boss fights were the same thing over and over again that has nothing to do with live service
@@therealskiiizoyes it does
@@ZachSweig no it doesn’t. Hell Divers 2 is live service for half the price and the game is fantastic. A bad storyline with a shitty play style is what killed kill the justice league. No matter how much you argue it you will still be wrong
Everyone assumes live service means only PvP and micro transactions. I would hate a Hogwart’s Legacy “Fortnite” game. But a live service game that is Multiplayer or an MMO would be amazing.
how to fck up something done right?
*WB enters a room* :live service anyone?
put it how ever you want but HL didnt have mind blowing amazing story...it was good at best...(more like ok) so them they want to continue on story is massive L for me (even some of the best story telling games become mediocre when extended to much and live service will do exactly that make it LOOOOOONG and boring)...also now we will have "free" to play mobile looking rushed peace of garbage with microtransactions everywhere....
the moment i hear "in game shop" im not buying and not playing next HL game
im actually super sad they will ruin such amazing game and opportunity for quick cash grab
Mess it up whatever, I haven’t played in a minute.
All I wanted was to be able to have a dragon mount and have it in my vivarium
If they really want to make fans happy just introduce quidditch either vs the AI or PvP and make the cross wands dueling club a PvP online for us. I’d be completely happy with this alone until they decide to make a new either Hogwarts legacy game or a new school in the same universe.