Meh. I really disliked Dead Space 2. The time altering ability made the game too easy so I didn’t put any points into it. Then I get to that one regen boss where you have to use it to open a flippin’ door before it smashes you. Really dumb to have an optional ability that becomes mandatory for like one part of the game (and to open a dang door at that). I never got past that door, and I never completed the game.
The first Dead Space is awesome though, but I’m not sad there won’t be a third fourth(???). Never would have bought it because the ability tomfoolery in the second.
SERIOUSLY?! I guess I didn’t use it at all in the first one too and completely forgot about it. Unless it wasn’t in the original game? I seriously don’t remember anything like that in the first one. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Oh well, not that it matters. Hate it just the same.
Stasis was in the first game, yes. You were required to use it several times to be able to pass through a few malfunctioning doors. You get it for free early in the game and don’t have to upgrade it at all to open the doors, preventing the game from soft locking itself.
I remember it having initial difficulties due to optimization problems on most platforms. It’s almost like what they’re really saying is “We see how much time and effort it would take to remake it properly, and we aren’t willing to give that to developers because SHAREHOLDERS.” An excuse which an executive from Larian recently commented on and provided some useful insight towards.
Yeah, but the writing was on the wall when it came to Xbox Game Pass a few months later. If Microsoft deal was better than burning its sales, then that was it.
Also, there was some other rumors that the sequel wasn’t green lit immediately since the sales of the first game didn’t meet EA expectations. Who knows it that can be attributed to missing Halloween and holidays.
I think Dead Space 2 remake will never come. Motive is working on the next BF and the Iron Man game, that look like safer investments than a sequel of a game that failed commercially (in their books).
So if I read this correctly, big changes means doubling down on breaking the pve promise and (finally!) decoupling the available characters pool from mtx.
People are literally only asking for the same console, a few refinements, and with better performing internals.
The form factor is excellent, if a bit flimsy. But games like TOTK and whatever next 3D Mario game comes out deserve to have better graphical fidelity than what the current switch can put out. I stopped playing TOTK because I just kept getting framerate drops.
That's not how it works. Making money today is the only thing these ghouls care about, ruining a company or brand is just dandy because they won't be holding the bag when it bursts. They'll have passed it to someone else. Someone else who will then work to gut the company even more before selling it to someone who will gut it and close it down.
And nothing of real value will have been made, but lots of rich asshats will be slightly richer.
Cutting costs and laying people off makes the books look slightly better (more cash on hand) which makes the stock price jump, which is all these ghouls want because they're going to sell off on the high, and then bail out.
I know people like the originals more than the newer ones, but I really enjoyed those too, I really love Adam Jensen and all the stereotypes on him, and Mankind Divided ended in a huge cliffhanger. I guess I'll never know how it ends =/
I’m not saying that the game would’ve been kept off Eidos was still at SE, but I’m so tired of big corporations acquiring companies just for their IP while killing their projects and laying off their staff.
Embracer has a long history of acquisitions, and I am kind of wondering how long it will take until they decide to just “loan” out the IP they’ve bought instead of putting out any games at all.
The IP they bought was largely neglected in the first place, so I'm not sure there's much of a market for it. More likely they cast a large net with the properties they own, and the winners are the ones that survive the current economic conditions.
the thing is, cyberpunk 2077 released and did gangbusters (after perhaps the rockiest launch cycle in recent memory, but still. game sold well). Deus Ex taps into a lot of the same themes and aesthetics that got cyberpunk 2077 to sell well, it just seems like embracer doesn’t see it as a safe bet, and their definition of safe is informed heavily by their recent fuck-up with their sauid acquisition gambit. It’s a function of a bunch of executives with eyes bigger than their stomach and then having to ballast every possible IP they can manage in order to not ruin the shareholder value they’re working so hard to not shunt into the atmosphere.
Cyberpunk 2077 had the expectations of the Witcher 3 that a Deus Ex never had a prayer of catching, because at a macro level, those two games are not structured the same despite the shared DNA. Embracer probably doesn't see it as a safe bet, because it's not a safe bet in the current economic climate. Tomb Raider probably is. Gunfire Games is probably plenty safe in the wake of Remnant II, and I'm sure the developers of Titan Quest II, Alone in the Dark, Outcast: A New Beginning, and Tempest Rising are all hoping that fans of those genres are as hungry for the games they're making as possible, because it will likely take a Remnant-sized success to keep them safe from layoffs. In the meantime, they seem to be spared, because it's all hands on deck to make those games great before they release.
I am honestly not super sure about this strategy of buying your way into being a major publisher by vacuuming up IP nobody else was bidding for. What did they think would happen? Did they think the old majors were leaving a ton of money on the table and then realized too late that these really weren't that profitable? Or was it just a bid that the low interest rates would last forever and the portfolion would just pay for itself if they bundled it large enough?
I don't know what the business plan was meant to be, and it's kinda killing me that I don't fully grasp it.
Did they think the old majors were leaving a ton of money on the table and then realized too late that these really weren't that profitable?
It always struck me as Moneyball. That yes, the big publishers were leaving a ton of money on the table by not catering to customers that are there but have been long abandoned in favor of the true goliaths like Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed. The way the big publishers used to operate was by making a lot of bets and then building on what worked while making other new bets. Instead, AAA portfolios went from dozens of games per year down to single digits. When you make a lot of bets, some of them inevitably won't work.
Or was it just a bid that the low interest rates would last forever and the portfolion would just pay for itself if they bundled it large enough?
Yes, not mutually exclusive with the above strategy, lol.
bloomberg.com
Aktywne