Isn’t Dishonored 3 Dishonored: Death of the Outsider, or is it more of a spin-off the second? Disclaimer: I’ve only played the first and part of the second, haven’t finished it nor played DotO yet.
DotO is basically a huge DLC for Dishonored 2 and not a main game. It’s still great though and has some fantastic lore. It also released in 2017, so a bit early for a spot on this list.
Unsurprising. They already split remake up to milk more money out of long time fans, and now they’re doubling down on the mobile market. I remember long wishing for a remake and now I want my wish back. DAMN YOU MONKEY’S PAW!!!
I have room in my life for exactly one gacha game, which I don’t spend money on. Sometimes this is a fun little distraction, even though progress is slow without buying currency. This is how I felt about Record Keeper before they shut down the global version. I love FF7 so I’m giving this a shot, but it’s been a week and I’m struggling. There are so many superimposed mechanics that it feels like a new player starting a free to play game at year 5 or 6 of its life, after they’ve steadily added new mechanics, currencies, and other powercreep for years. But it hasn’t been out for years, it’s been out for a week and there are already so many things to keep track of. It feels like work.
Also, the “automatic” battle AI is VERY good. Better than I am. And you can double the speed so the battles go quicker. At first I was relieved because it meant I didn’t have to pay attention while grinding, but why am I doing this at all if I’m not even playing it?
Imo the anger is a bit misdirected. Making a toned down version of the game takes equal the amount of resources, if not more compared to other ports. Performance wise the switch always has been a toaster, even compared to the last gen of consoles. There probably are now phones with more graphical power, so ports to hardware that is so far behind is difficult.
I’ve ported games to switch and there is a lot of extra loops to go through to make it even remotely run at decent frame rates.
The publisher could have made the switch version cheaper, but they probably invested more resources into it than porting it between xbox and playstation, so i can kind of understand why they didn’t.
The argument “it looks worse so it should be cheaper” is kind of questionable, when the console they are buying it for just doesn’t allow for much better considering the art direction. If the switch was as powerful as the ps5 or current xbox, they would have made the game look as good as it is on all the other platforms.
A valid question is if this needed a switch port at all, and considering the backlash, the publishers are probably asking themselves the same question.
Aren’t most Switch games still $60, though? Just flipping through the US E-store, the only game I saw at $70 was Tears of the Kingdom, and this version of Mortal Kombat is not going to compare favorably to that.
But typically publishers are not making the price on release based on what platform you run it on. It looks worse, but that isn’t really the game’s fault. It has the same amount of cost attached to it as any other port of the game, if not more. On the other hand, from the consumer perspective, I can 100% understand why someone wouldn’t want to spend $70 on this.
In the end, will it be worth the money they put in to port this game to less-than last gen? I have no idea.
The argument “it looks worse so it should be cheaper” is kind of questionable, when the console they are buying it for just doesn’t allow for much better considering the art direction.
I disagree.
When you have to pay the same or more for something less then that's simply not justified for the consumer. If the console can't handle anything better and is that expensive to port over, then you should simply not port your game over to it. If that's a general Switch problem, then the Switch maybe shouldn't be a thing either. I thought that's how markets are supposed to work, no?
But it’s not something less, it’s something less, in your device. That’s the distinction.
If the console can’t handle anything better and is that expensive to port over, then you should simply not port your game over to it
If enough people want to play it on the switch, the investment is worth it.
I thought that’s how markets are supposed to work, no?
Well, if it were up to you maybe, but if there’s enough people that will buy it just to play it on the switch, then the markets are working as intended.
The Switch is also a whole generation older than the PS5 and latest X1 Series X (or whatever it’s really called). Important thing to factor in when understanding why the Switch port is so compromised. They aren’t scaling games down from more powerful consoles of the same generation anymore, they’re porting games from much more powerful consoles of the next generation.
Imagine bitching because your 10 year old phone GPU can’t push polygons.
You are lucky they made it work as well as they did on switch and don’t charge you EXTRA for the absurd amount of optimization that it must have took to get it even workable.
Ah yes, I'm sure Sony lost oodles of money sitting on Spider-man and FF7R for years before they were ported to PC, or the other console "exclusives" that have a 3-12 month waiting period.
I mean, it probably would have been better than this. Not every game needs to release on all platforms. NeverRealm made a stupid decision trying to release on Switch at the same time as other consoles, especially when the Switch already has a foot in the grave as it is.
If they'd have waited for the new hardware, sure some fans might've been a little upset, but it's not like there's a whole lot of crossover between MK fans and players who only own a Switch in the first place. Half of the MK games never got released on a Nintendo platform at all, and several that did didn't release simultaneously with other platforms, and were also heavily modified ports.
They could've waited a year or two, and not left such a bad taste in players' mouths. I'm sure most people would've rather waited.
I’m sure there are people out there with Switch as their only means to play games that would like to be able to play Mortal Kombat now and are happy it’s available. The people complaining have unrealistic expectations, either for what the Switch’s hardware can render, the amount of work that was and is required to make a game like it work on the Switch in the first place, or both. If you don’t want to play an inferior version of the game don’t buy it, but you clearly aren’t the target audience for the game.
That’s for the development company to decide. If its profitable they will keep releasing because there’s a market of people that want to play the game and only have a switch. Mortal Kombat is a multiplayer game that you play for the combat, not the graphics. You can play it for the graphics but fighting games fans don’t really, so if the game runs on the switch they open up to a huge extra market.
Yeah I tried playing it this weekend. The very beginning was amazing and nostalgic, but as soon as I finished the opening mission I was bombarded with all the deals and packs and unlocks… I went from excited to feeling sick to my stomach over the amount of bait I had to dismiss before I even saw the main mobile landing page for the first time. I haven’t opened it since.
Seriously, it’s a product for sale. Don’t like the price, vote with your wallet and don’t buy it. What’s with the manufactured outrage for every topic nowadays
Its not an old game, MK1 is the latest release. The people getting served this are running it on hardware that was weak last generation. At a certain point you simply cannot push these devices any further. MK1 for Switch was never going to look beautiful, the current gen Switch can’t do it. I’m okay with devs making their games available, I mean at least you can play it. Theres a reason a Switch 2 is in the works.
Because you have the full choice to not buy and support it, if you think the price is unreasonable. It’s not a vital need, and nobody’s forcing customers to buy it. Housing, food, healthcare, we don’t have a choice. Buy or die. A video game? Not so much. The issue is not game publishers overcharging, it’s players who moan and whine… AND THEN BUY IT ANYWAY, thus ensuring the publishers will continue the practice
Others have already replied with this info but I’m just spelling it out for anyone who is not familiar like me:
They fucking named the brand new game mk1. Is it a remaster? No. It’s not a remaster. Is it a recreation of mk1? No. It’s an alternate timeline game given the worst name in the history of naming things. It’s genuinely a brand new game.
Sometimes I wish I could have a job where companies just say “hey should we make this decision” and I tell them “that’s so fucking stupid no one will actually like that” and get paid well for it.
I've had some similar roles before, but more often than not companies just do it anyway, even if you have a lot of data to the contrary. It's stupidly easy for someone in management to push some of this through despite the data, choose an arbitrary metric to define their success, get their bonus, and then bail for another company. Meanwhile, folks left at the company have to then try and fix all of the nonsense. It blows that we value failing forward. I've seen a few decent products just tanked this way.
Which is bullshit. It reminds me of when web email services offered ridiculously small inbox sizes, such as 25MB or 50MB. Then in came Google and offered 1GB, and all of a sudden all those companies found the way to match Google’s offering.
But I guess if people are willing to pay for those ridiculous prices, and deal with in-game payments… shrug.
People are complaining because they don’t like a thing, that’s fine. Same as you’re complaining in this post. Call companies out on their bullshit. Also don’t buy bullshit, that’s a good point too.
Because it doesn’t qualify as bullshit. Company made a product, set a price. Either you find it worth the price or not, but either way what’s the reason to kick up a fuss over an optional good
Company also sold pre-orders for a product, which means people can’t really decide whether the product is exactly what they want until they get it. At which point they complain, because they trusted the company not to sell a sub-par product. What is your issue?
My guy, the complaint is about the price because of the quality. Or, as you are asking, are you saying people didn’t know the price when they bought it?
On a side note, preorders are a scam. If you’re dumb enough to preorder a game in unlimited supply, that’s on you.
I agree that pre-orders are a scam, but it’s shitty to say “you knew what you bought!” when some people literally couldn’t.
I’m not saying they knew what they bought, I’m saying it’s on them for choosing to buy before they knew what they were buying. Seriously, people need to take responsibility for their choices already.
Company made a product, set a price. Either you find it worth the price or not, but either way what’s the reason to kick up a fuss over an optional good
Now you’re saying it’s on people who pre-order. Can’t we stop pushing this on the consumer and start demanding better from the manufacturers? Why can they sell shitty products, instead of being held to higher standards?
In this particular case, it’s not on the publisher. The switch is an old console, and there’s only so much they can do with the hardware. It’s not a particularly big surprise to anybody familiar with the technology.
Why SHOULDN’T we hold consumers to task for their bad decisions? They are arguably making things worse for the rest of us, by repeatedly rewarding bad behaviour from companies. There is no good reason for them to preorder, they just had to be the first instead of waiting a day for reviews to appear. Well, if you’re going to be impatient, guess what? The risk is on you.
In this particular case, it’s not on the publisher. The switch is an old console, and there’s only so much they can do with the hardware. It’s not a particularly big surprise to anybody familiar with the technology.
Then they should be open about this before and during release.
Why SHOULDN’T we hold consumers to task for their bad decisions?
Because it doesn’t work. One side of the equation spends lots of money to make sure as many consumers as possible make bad decisions, because it makes them even more money. You can’t fix this only by changing the other side.
I didn’t suggest fixing it. I said the consumers consciously made a bad decision, and they should take responsibility for it. I’m tired of grown ups acting like kids.
It doesn't work the same here as with B2C products. Excluding hobby developers who wouldn't been hit either way. most people paying for Unity are trying to make a living and a company eradically throwing the pricing model around is not a good look when there are altrnatives around.
People can and will go to alternatives for new projects. Unreal, if you want a marketplace and impressive 3D and Godot if you want FOSS. Not to mention the otber game engines.
It's about money here, in some cades not little amount of money.
It all depends on where you work and what lines you personally draw in the sand. Some novice game developers will not draw a line in the sand near release and management will work them to death. Stress causality is the term for when people don’t quit, don’t say anything, and just stop showing up for work. If you work at a studio where crunch is normalized then usually there is a stress causality normalization too.
Thanks for sharing ! Looks like the usual “small white male feeling powerful because he’s the boss” bullshit more than a problem specific to the gaming industry.
Anyway, unionizing should protect them better from these kind of abuse, which is good :)
eurogamer.net
Aktywne