Feels like I’ve been hearing back and forth forever about whether it’s going to happen. I never tried the multiplayer personally, but I know this is sad news for many
Is it really? I thought the entire point of this game series was delivering a tightly scripted singleplayer narrative. That’s what attracts people to it. I think the overlap with people looking for some kind of multiplayer shooter is fairly small.
Used to be our favorite single player games came with multiplayer modes attached to them. You didn't expect them to get years of content. You just enjoyed them for a little while with some friends and then moved on. Not only is that totally fine, I'd argue it's preferable.
Absolutely, but that’s not how this works anymore and today, the expectation with every multiplayer game and even multiplayer mode is that it’s live-service. The industry has replaced the “natural” skill progression of players with dangling the carrot of permanent (and in my opinion mostly pointless) unlockables in front of their faces at all times.
I think some of it is the audience’s fault. I have heard many friends complaining about multiplayer games being “dead” or “abandoned” because there’s no new content and I’m like “I’m pretty satisfied, it doesn’t need anything else”. If there’s enough people playing for matchmaking, I’m good.
Let's change that expectation. Baldur's Gate 3 won best multiplayer at the Game Awards, and it's not a live service. In a talk with some friends, I realized how antagonistic the relationship between players and developers always ended up as well when the developers make more money with more "engagement". Diablo IV will get fun builds nerfed into the ground; Baldur's Gate 3 will let them rock, but only in the pre-existing difficulty levels before they add in extra challenge modes for fun. That's the difference.
Meanwhile, Agent Under Fire multiplayer for the Gamecube is more fun than any live service FPS I've ever played. It certainly didn't require years of support to be that fun, and you only need one other person to play it with, but preferably 3. Very easily doable regardless of how many people are in matchmaking.
It's a really good, well done stealth game that rewards very deliberate action and awareness of your surroundings. The multiplayer in the original was unique and really fun.
It had some pretty good aspects to it, but their reasoning behind cancelling (would need to “shift to a live service model”) it is pretty unfortunate and telling of the industry.
The game solely exists as a multiplayer team death match with the gameplay mechanics of The Last of Us. It was like Max Payne 3 meets Gears of War.
It was fun for PS3, I could see it faring well enough today but if their plan was to monetize it then it’s better off dead. Especially considering the state of the PC release, it just wasn’t the type of game to feasibly monetize. What can you do, skins? So any fun free unlocks are now paid or locked behind a battle pass, nice. What else is there, game enhancements? There were consumables so, we could have been paying for packs of those! Truly, we’re missing out.
I've been hoping people on the inside would start speaking out now that the studio has shut down, or rebranded, or whatever they've done. It definitely feels more like a scam if they knew from the start that it was never going to be an MMO. I do feel bad for the developers working on the game. It really sounds like they had no control over the project and were basically catering to the whims of the founders.
They have games on Netflix already that you play using your TV remote. They’re basically just choose your own adventure books, but in a TV show/movie format instead of a book.
There is also old crap like Doodle Jump, too, on other services that work on a TV using your remote.
There’s some you play on iOS already. For example storyteller and Into the Breach. It basically checks that you have a Netflix account and then you can play the game.
Wait, what?! 😂 Okay, so is this gonna be a cloud based thing, because how stadia was so successfull? Or are these going to be downloaded apps? Or just stand alone choose your own adventure like black mirrors bandersnatch?
On its website, Netflix says by the end of the year it'll have 86 games for subscribers to play. This includes the recently announced Grand Theft Auto Trilogy - Definitive Edition off the back of the first trailer for GTA 6.
Or are they gonna mail me a disc for gta again? Lol I'm genuinely so confused what this will eventually look like.
They have games for Android already and you actually download the games; you don’t stream them. Notice that this article doesn’t specify whether these 10 games are for mobile or PC, though…
Stadia was successful. Everyone just hated on it for some reason. Didn’t get the playerbase so it was sold off. Was a fantastic service and I curse google daily
It’s fine if it actually worked perfectly for you, but “just working” isn’t exactly a measure of success.
They still needed the playerbase to actually use it, and devs to actually make games for it. Which they got very little of both. So it wasn’t successful.
It kinda is though. In terms of what others attacked it for. All the attack videos and yet I played it via VPN in a non supported country. Google fucked up by launching in America. A place with plenty cash and a spoiled player base. Where it would win would be poor countries. Just look at down votes ? For saying a device worked as intended. Tells you all you need to know.
Internet infrastructure was a big issue and games were mostly Ubisoft but still. What a game changer. Then I moved to GeForce and haven’t looked back.
I think you’re saying it showed it could work. Where others are saying a success on the sense of a viable product that can make enough money to operate and, ideally, to be profitable.
And unfortunately when it comes to a service that requires servers, bandwidth and staff to maintain and operate it then there has to be a certain threshold of users to make it profitable or else it is doomed to fail.
But it did I work. I used it. Many other used it. It was cloud gaming. What hadn’t been accomplished before.
That was an issue. However many companies aren’t profitable in their first few years. The toll out was a complete mess. Also as stated they chose wrong. I get why they picked murica. Infrastructure was always going to be an issue but that’s not where you get people looking to save money and not buy a console. Third world would have been the sweet spot. A rig they can play red dead for pennies.
They opened it up to phones and with Enough bandwidth you could play games you’d never manage before.
Yes but long run. Nobody thought Google was going to saunter in and beat the big Bois. Takes time to build a playerbase get the product actually working and improve it. None of that happened in first year.
I don’t think 3rd world countries would have the Internet infrastructure for wide spread adoption of cloud gaming. Also it’s not like they were giving the games away, those were full-price titles on stadia.
Even if there was a demand for something like this you want to deploy you product first in countries with as much disposable income as possible. If people can’t afford the prices how are you going to make money? (not just in the first few years, but ever) In the end someone has to pay for the servers and GPUs.
People are not saying it wasn’t functional. Just not financially viable.
They don’t have as good as first but they do obviously have some capacity. Plus you can use data. Obviously very expensive using data but you save not buying the console. It’s still where I think Google should have pushed. America didn’t want or need stadia. Same with Europe.
The games were discounted and you got free games in the paid tier. 10er a month for games. Not the worst deal.
Which is where they went wrong. They didn’t get the numbers as people already had gaming units that were better and faster… the issue
It didn’t have a way to function in the event of system failure.
Steam sometimes goes down. When that happens, people can often still play their singleplayer games. If Steam had totally failed business-wise, it either would have been sold to another publisher who would maintain access, or the games would’ve been unlocked for permanent offline play.
Take a look at Stadia’s failure resolution strategy; they had to fully refund every person who bought a game there, because all purchases became completely unusable. Imagine if they’d gone a decade selling games to people and building off of their revenue, before encountering failure.
Nothing works in a system failure. It’s a system failure.
They can only play their download games if it doesn’t need to access steam for a reason. Yeah you can go get a Nintendo 64 and play a game. Modern games require an internet connection. Yeah it’s a downside to it but it’s like saying you can’t play when it’s a powercut. It’s what board games say to video gamers.
Also true. An issue that has just come up with Ubisoft. They have discontinued a game. No way to access it. That’s probably the most legit point.
Very true. Look at Sony. Look at discovery. They aren’t refunding. Are you calling them failures ?
I was about to say, this sounds like a classic tax dodge. Start developing a ton of games, drop 8 of them come next year to make the charts look nicer for the shareholders, maybe release 1 game 3 years down the line.
I downloaded Forza on PC on Game Pass. It looks great, but GT definitely looks better in most situations. I have a gray Mustang in real life, and I couldn’t quite get the paint to match. I feel like GT does a better job in that regard as well.
eurogamer.net
Najnowsze