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.
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 =/
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.
Fuck Embracer. I was following the rumors for quite a bit and this is such a massive disappointment. Deus Ex has to be one of the most mismanaged video game franchises of all time. I don’t understand why they’d give up on a loyal fanbase in favor of an “original franchise”.
As a mass effect and dragon age fan, I empathize so much with you. Love deus ex too, so many rpgs just left ignored.
I really don’t understand it. All of these games would be smash hits. Let’s be honest even if they weren’t very good the franchises are known so well that they would all be bought, and older game sales would swell too. To me it’s a no brainier, make the game, it prints money. They’re just so terrified of having to… Invest in something to get a payout.
The only one remotely close to being a hit was the first reboot. I guess it depends on whether you count the "I can't believe it's not Deus Ex" franchises they kept spinning up for a while. The first Dishonored probably did very well.
It makes even less sense considering the pivot to an “original franchise.” If they’re cynically trying to print money, why not cash in on something with an established active fanbase? Seems like less of a risk.
I’d have bought a new Deus Ex game, regardless if it got badly reviewed. Not really interested in whatever they’re cooking up now. I’m sure most of us fans probably feel the same way.
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.
Hey, at least that game came out. Plus Eidos Montreal also made the actually really, really damn good Guardians of the Galaxy game nobody played. I'd make that trade.
Man, these guys really can't catch a break. That sucks, they make pretty solid stuff.
Well, it depends on when they cancelled it and on how much it cost. That thing didn't sell THAT poorly, but Square, as usual, was aiming way above what's realistic. Estimates on Steam alone put it above 1 million copies sold. You can assume PS5 was at least as good.
Based on those same estimates it actually outsold Guardians. Which is an absolute travesty and I blame anyone who hasn't played it personally.
Well, then you're my enemy, because that game is great, Marvel connection or not. In fact it's a fantastic companion piece ot the third Guardians movie, because they're both really good at their respective medium but they are pushing radically oppposite worldviews (one is a Christian parable, the other a humanist rejection of religious alienation).
And yeah, holy crap, they made a Marvel game about grief and loss and managing them without turning to religion and bigotry and it was awesome and beautiful and nobody played it and you all suck.
Nah, I'm mostly kidding. About the being my enemy part. The game is, in fact, awesome, and you should fetch it somewhere before the absolute nightmare of licensed music and Disney IP bundled within it makes it unsellable on any digital platform forever.
Seriously, I bought a physical copy of the console version just for preservation, beause if you want to know what will be in the overprized "hidden gem" lists of game collectors in thirty years, it's that.
Some day my Marvel fatigue will have worn off, and I'll be in the mood for it. If it's still for sale, I'll buy it. If not, maybe I'll pirate it. I'm glad they made a good game; it just wasn't a game I was looking for when it came out, and I don't think I'm alone. If you want to see this cycle happen again in real time, keep an eye on Suicide Squad over the next few weeks.
Oh, big difference there, though. Suicide Squad actually IS a looter shooter driven by a wish to chase a business trend from five years to a decade ago. Guardians is a strictly single player Mass Effect-lite narrative action game (which yeah, given the material that fits).
I'd be with you in the argument that it would have been an even better game without the Marvel license, because then they could have skipped trying to rehash bits from the movies' look and feel, which are consistently the worst parts of the game. But then, without the license it would never have been made, so... make mine Marvel, I guess. Well worth it.
Oh, sorry, I meant the Avengers cycle, since that article I linked was about a combined loss between the two games, but really...Avengers was the more expensive game and did the brand damage. Suicide Squad will be that again, even though WB had several years to see this coming.
Oh, yeah, for sure. The marketing they did for Guardians was also very bad, it really made it seem of a kind with Avengers, which it really wasn't.
There will be a lot to say about why Rocksteady is getting to the looter shooter space so late and why it was the exact wrong move for the studio and the franchise. Unless the game is great and everybody buys it, I suppose.
I might recommend going and taking a look at Andor. It is IN Star Wars, but it is not Star Wars. It felt like Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy, but better pacing.
Or also possibly discoloration, I had an OLED display on my last phone, and while it was amazing in terms of deep blacks and vivid colors, the screen looked kind of tired and green-ish after 6 years of use… rip Galaxy S5
I never really got burn-in because I mostly ran my display at lower brightness levels, however pretty much everyone else I knew with an OLED just treat it like a normal display left cranked at max brightness 100% - safe to say I’ve seen a few devices with some pretty noticeable burn in text and UI element outlines 😅
My current phone is an LCD, and I may actually end up staying with LCD due to the extra brightness - particularly outside because I now use it as a bicycle computer too.
I’m a little disappointed Steam discontinued the LCD edition of their Deck (besides the 256GB model) but it’s pretty understandable looking at how competitive the handheld gaming PC market is getting, and how much of an improvement the OLED display is for colors, HDR, and battery life in particular
LCD for extra brightness? I don't think you've been keeping up as mobile OLEDs are usually brighter than mobile LCDs. Not that there are many LCDs left.
The Nokia XR21 is one LCD phone released in 2023:
IPS LCD, 120Hz, 450 nits (typ), 550 nits (HBM)
Another phone with brightness listen on gsmarena is the Oukitel WP30 Pro:
IPS LCD, 120Hz, 430 nits
Take a few popular OLED phones for comparison...
Galaxy S24: Dynamic LTPO AMOLED 2X, 120Hz, HDR10+, 2600 nits (peak)
iPhone 15: Super Retina XDR OLED, HDR10, Dolby Vision, 1000 nits (HBM), 2000 nits (peak)
Or for consoles, Steam Deck LCD is about 400 nits, while the OLED is up to about 600, or 1000 in HDR.
bloomberg.com
Gorące