It's in the top ten most played games on Steam and had sold at least 5 million; even that number is two months old and doesn't include PlayStation. If I were to wager a guess, which you can often extrapolate from the number of reviews on Steam, it's much closer to 10 million, which is how many copies a typical Assassin's Creed or FIFA game will sell. Baldur's Gate 3 is mainstream.
Agreed. It is though an example of a game breaking out into the mainstream from a normally more niche genre (this particular type of dense, top-down, turn-based RPG). I’m curious to see if its subgenre will grow more popular in its wake, too, and by how much.
I find it particularly interesting that it became such a hit because its systems can be rather overwhelming for people who aren’t already familiar with 5e/tabletop rules. The sheer amount of rules to learn, the volume of specific items and text bubbles to read, the fact that some aspects of the interface aren’t really tutorialized well, etc.
I had no understanding of 5e, and there were a couple of things I didn't understand, but so much of that game, especially at the beginning, is choosing an option with a high chance of success and shoving or throwing things that most games wouldn't let you shove or throw. The way the game lets you verb any feasible noun, coupled with higher production value, is probably why this one hit. It's going to continue to make other RPGs with even higher budgets stand out as dinosaurs; not just Starfield but especially BioWare's next couple of efforts, given their Baldur's Gate lineage.
It's because people aren't idiots like developers have thought for years. People don't mind a game where you need to read and learn as long as there is a payoff for reading and learning. We have been paying the price for devs thinking everyone is braindead for over a decade now as more and more mechanics and features are removed to please people who were never going to give the genre a chance anyway. By way of example, Dragon Age II didn't get the Call of Duty audience to play Dragon Age, it just convinced most who liked Dragon Age that EA only accidentally published one of the best RPGs of its decade.
I paid for Overwatch too but tbh I’d rather have Overwatch 2. There’s no loot box bullcrap and the playerbase now is actually pretty sizeable now compared to OW1 near the end.
I do miss the free rewards but they’re just cosmetics. A bigger playerbase is more beneficial to the game than more free skins.
He should start a game company with Don Mattrick and the ghost of Bernie Stolar. Then everyone will know which games NOT to buy, just like back in the days of Acclaim.
He heavily endorsed the bad decision made by Unity and his comments really didn’t help the situation so this is a welcome decision. Of course this will likely not change Unity’s direction.
Standard tactic when making unpopular changes, and a company would really like to keep them. Sacrificial CEO gets replaced, to make it look like things changed.
I saw recent studies show that Facebook is no longer cool to younger generations, and the older generations are either not remotely interested in VR, and/or aren’t interested in Meta out of principle (security, ethics, etc). I know that’s hand-wavy and anecdotal, but I’m trying to gather who is going to buy these in big enough numbers to make them profitable. Probably just another vector that they want to hoard your data from.
@chloyster good, he's been a plague on the industry. When you see your customers as wallets with legs you are bad for the people and bad for the company.
Gamers™ are like baby birds constantly screaming for mom to vomit the next meal in their mouths. They want an 80 campaign they can marathon through in a week, then demand the Devs get immediately to work on the sequel which the absolutely want NOW NOW NOW
“Good” is subjective. I know CoD is mangled corporate moneygrab trash, but it’s still really fun, so I play it. The only reason I bought Cyberpunk was because I knew everyone was going to be talking about it and I wanted to be able to be part of the conversation, and it didn’t disappoint.
Spiderman is a licensed property. Marvel sold time-limited video game licenses. The Activision games were never exclusive to any console because Activision had no particular stake in any one console. Then a video game license, a non-exclusive one, mind you (which means that other people can get the license and make games) was granted to Sony, who obviously does.
Thus, for the same reason 007 Goldeneye never came to playstation, Insomniac's Spiderman games aren't coming to Nintendo or Xbox.
eurogamer.net
Aktywne