Tbh is the ending of this one is as uninspired as the original game, I won't be picking it up.
Game is fairly fun, gets repetitive by the end, but I'm kinda tired of games that just end unceremoniously. Looking at you too, stray.
This was the most “design by trends the CEO’s son saw five years ago” game I’ve ever seen. From day one you could tell it’d be DOA since it would be arriving years late and millions of dollars short, with absolutely zero soul or intent. You could smell the cash shop and sandpaper one-liners from a mile away. I feel for the devs at CA that have been pushed into making this game, and are now facing layoffs for it’s inevitable failure. It’s really time the C-suite started getting consequences for their poor decisions. Let CA make Aliens Isolation already dammit.
SEGA spent the most money ever… on a game that was years late to an old sub-genre, while mimicking games that had already failed like Lawbreakers. Great job.
I don’t get it. The game looked completely unremarkable. Even its big hook of having some microgravity stuff was barely present in the trailers. This was their big play? Really?
a “total lack of direction” around the game, with one contributor stating many members of the leadership team were “asleep at the wheel but they never seemed to lose their jobs”. The same source noted an engine change and “not committing to doing anything adventurous with the game” were all part of Hyenas’ ultimate demise.
As a fan of total war warhammer this is so sad but also so cathartic. Its sad that this is how CA and Sega executives treated their employees and their IPs, but cathartic because it proves that the community was right and we were being gaslit. Pour one out for the community managers who the execs used as disposable flak vests for all their shitty decisions.
Yeah- tbh I can understand why they’d want to do something appreciative for the Day Ones but the Day Ones also could’ve bought it on Steam at the time.
My friend told me about this earlier and that’s exactly what I thought. They knew this wouldn’t be popular and would drop the value so they sold before the announcement, that’s got to be insider trading
Now the share price will drop and he will buy his share back at a discount. Then they will revert the policy and share prices will rise. Boom! Free monies!
I think the part where they had a trend of selling over the course of a year makes this not insider trading (or harder to prove if they were playing the long game).
They probably have automated sell of dates or automated sell of prices.
This is part of a consistent pattern over the last year.
He probably hasn’t bought any stocks due to receiving stock as part of his employment contract.
It could be insider trading, but considering how companies have been doing pricing structures and rapid shifts from free to subscription based and then seeing sales/profit increase I imagine it’s worth it for them to simply keep the stock long term, but an initial sell off was put in place at a certain price. Sometimes there’s smoke and there’s fire, and sometimes it’s just simply the fumes of capitalism creating a system that’s uniquely imbalanced for everyone else, but isn’t really insider trading.
I feel like a scheduled sell shouldn’t mean insider trading investigation is off the table.
Does it really matter if they decided to sell just before they devalue their company, or they devalued their company right after a sell? They knew about both before hand, and they can have the same intent either way.
I suppose, but that’s a different crime under a different statute Im guessing. (Tanking the company because gou have a scheduled sell, versus selling because you tanked the company.)
They’ve been consistently selling off stock for the last year as noted in the article. Many of these execs get paid in a combination of cash and shares. To get their full wage they sell shares.
No, as the article says they’ve been doing it all year. Many execs and important employees often get paid a big chunk of their wage in stock. To get cash they need to sell stock.
I know it’s lazy as hell, but I’m shocked how much I’m enjoying it in spite of that. Its real flaw is the shortage of courses, one that probably won’t get much better because the OG F-Zero didn’t have much variety either.
I recently played through Dredge, and enjoyed it so much I went ahead and spent the time to unlock all the achievements. I saw the news of this delay on Steam, and was really glad that pretty much all the comments there were praising the studio for not pushing something incomplete out just to hit a deadline, and encouraging them to take all the time they need.
Fair enough. Still, games used to be vastly cheaper in my country and the asking price for the basic version of Starfield is 80 USD. There is no way any game is worth this much of my income.
Like I said. The price tag on Donkey Kong from 1994 says 799sek which in today’s market is worth 66 usd. I can’t be arsed to follow index and calculate how much that was in -94 but it’s a lot more than Starfield.
My only point here is that games haven’t really increased in price ever. Anyone claiming it has, is wrong. We can discuss the other parameters all day with (un)finished products, mtx, bugs, paid dlc etc. The fact still stands that games in 2023 haven’t vastly increased in price at all. And we have a lot of free options now as well that didn’t exist back in the ninetees.
In 1994 you were buying a physical, manufactured product which you owned.
Now you are temporarily licensing access to something that doesn’t exist, can’t be transferred or resold or backed up or modified, has unlimited reproduction potential for no cost, and sells at scales unimaginable in 1994 dwarfing all other consumer markets in total revenue.
The expense was probably quite considerable. Not only do you have to have the game ROM on a chip, you would also need Nintendo's lockout chip too. If your game had a battery save system (DKC did) you would also need to buy a RAM chip and watch battery too. That's ignoring any enhancement chips as DKC didn't use any (but many other late generation games did).
And all that before you get to the fact that the only who could officially make these boards was Nintendo. Meaning there isn't exactly much competition driving prices down. Sure, Nintendo couldn't quite take the piss the way they could in the NES days, as Sega was all too eager to try and attract new games for its console, but unless you wanted to completely remake your game, you're dealing with the big N's bullshit.
The boards could probably have been made much cheaper today than in the 90s, as ROM memory was expensive AF, even the couple-of-MB ones used in the consoles of the day.
There's a reason PS1 and Saturn games were massively cheaper to buy than N64 games.
If you buy a game today, does it come with a free SSD to install it in? Does it have a paper manual and a nice box? Is it even finished? Games aren’t cheaper, you’re just getting scammed.
I remember getting Donkey Kong on release for the Super Nintendo and it was more expensive than most games are right now, 66 usd. Name one thing that has the same price in 2023 that it did I 1994. It’s insane.
My dad still reminds me that when he bought me Dr. Mario for NES on release, it was $90USD. I remember seeing many a game at Toys R Us with price tags of up to $120.
But I can name plenty of games in 2023 that cost more $66. Shittons of console titles are $70 now!
Apparently you’re illiterate because I was asking how that makes them cheaper. None of those things matter in the slightest and would only cost marginally more to produce.
$70 is still more than $66, regardless of that unnecessary shit.
You’re arguing that media used to play (i.e. a FUCKING SSD in 2023) costs marginally more? Find me an SSD that could fit Sea of Thieves for less than 25 USD (and isn’t trash). If you’re a shill, delete your account.
How is this part of the discussion? What did a SNES cost? This doesn’t matter. Consoles and hardware always costs money. We are talking about the games here. Or do you want to take in to account what a decent TV cost in 1994 as well? And the second gamepad? We can’t compare life as a whole. Saleries. Living cost. Everything matters, yes. But then we can just end the discussion right here and right now because we will never arrive at anything but ifs and buts.
We aren’t talking about the “console” used to run the motherfucking game, or some peripheral. A game for SNES comes with it’s own fucking storage – the bloody cartridge – while a modern digital game doesn’t. If you can’t get two neurons to fire at the same time, then the discussion really is over.
Digital games and physical games are the same price on the Nintendo Switch. They were the same on the Wii U, the Wii as well. Nintendo never stopped selling physical games. It’s the same on PlayStation as well with the same price. At least it was on my Ps4. The larger piece of plastic didn’t cost more in the 90s compared to the smaller piece of plastic in 2023. The manual/handbook also didn’t cost anything noteworthy to produce back then. I really don’t know where you are pulling these costs from.
Holy fuck, imagine being so completely alienated from the process of creating technology that you believe pressing disks costs the same as soldering circuits.
OIC… You’re just an absolute dingus who has no fucking clue what they are on about. Cartridges were only slightly more to produce than a CD, and Nintendo still makes their games on cartridges (fancier ones than the SNES, too) that cost the same as the digital release. The only time this wasn’t true was during the 64 era, when an earthquake shut down the manufacturers of the carts and fucked up production. Do you work for Capcom? I feel like you’d fit in.
I buy physical copies of ps4 games for under $10 pretty regularly. You can find some absurd sales if you know where to look and how to keep an eye out.
Rare spent 18 months developing Donkey Kong Country from an initial concept to a finished game, and according to product manager Dan Owsen, 20 people worked on it in total. It cost an estimated US$1 million to produce, and Rare said that it had the most man hours ever invested in a video game at the time, 22 years. The team worked 12–16-hours every day of the week.
The Donkey Kong you bought in 1994 had to pay not only for development, but also for the package, for the circuits (think a 1TB SSD in 2023), for distribution, etc. Do you see modern companies having to pay for any of that?
You seem to miss the point it was almost 30 years ago and they spend 18 months developing with a team of 20 people. Read those numbers again. Damn, the electrical bills alone to create Starfield most probably surpasses the entire development cost of a handful of SNES games combined. Yes, old games had manuals and came in physical form but those components where cheap at the time.
I’m not saying game SHOULD cost more. I’m just claiming games haven’t become a lot more expensive.
As much as I don’t want to see game prices increase, I’ve been shocked to see that they haven’t kept up with inflation at all. Especially since the cost of developing games has skyrocketed.
eurogamer.net
Aktywne