It probably cost more in development to port the game to Switch than any other console. Graphics quality is irrelevant when users willingly buy a device with worse hardware than consoles. This seems like a case of “fans” wanting to eat their cake and have it too.
Unless the developer opted out of allowing their iOS app(s) to run in macOS, which, unfortunately, many top games did. And of the games that were made available, there are those that only have touch controls, which are awkward at best and impossible at worst on macOS.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but since this strike is against certain companies and not some entity that represents the entire industry like it does for movies and television, that means that other individual companies who come to an agreement can still hire these people, right? If so...imagine if we had that in movies and television.
We do. A24, for instance, is still making a couple movies by agreeing to work under the proposed terms by SAG. As far as I know, no one else has made such agreements yet. The more of such exceptions that get made, the weaker the AMPTP’s position will get.
Because they have a different contract for work not covered by the current strike? That seems kind of a weird take, especially since they thought the strike did apply to them originally and they shut down for several weeks until the lawyers got together and said, oh no, you have a different type of agreement.
It’s not like they changed or updated their contract to become exempt. SAG just went, oh, your business doesn’t fall into the terms of the strike so you don’t have to strike with the rest of us.
You could. But that's also if it's the only game you play and you don't boot up Sea of Stars, Quake, Halo, Goldeneye, Yakuza, Unraveled, or what have you. I don't have a Game Pass subscription, but the math on it makes a lot of sense for a lot of people.
Yeah. If you play a lot of little indie games, and tend to only play through them once, it’s an absurd bargain.
It’s also great in that you can try a lot of stuff without having to research it at all first, so you get really nice surprises sometimes. And you can try things risk-free, so sometimes I’ll try something I wouldn’t have expected to like and wouldn’t have bought and be pleasantly surprised. It can open up entire genres to people this way, as an intro to different types of games.
I do tend to buy a month or two, drop out, then buy another month when the catalogue is different though.
In this scenario above, playing Starfield and it being too enormous to finish in a month or two, you'd hardly have any time to enjoy these other games either.
You could spend all of your free time for one month playing Starfield and have finished it for $17. You could functionally "rent" 17 games for $1 each to get a feel for each of them, one of them being Starfield, to decide which ones you want to stick with. You could beat two smaller games each month and spend the rest of your time playing Starfield, and four months later still come out ahead of the $70 Starfield would have cost you. There are lots of ways that math works out for you to come out ahead.
Baldur's Gate 3 came out less than a month ago, and I already know at least two people on my friends list who've beaten it, plus several others who put over 60 hours into it in the past two weeks, according to Steam. There are plenty of people who could get through Starfield in one month for $17.
Looking at my game purchases a year and as a pretty heavy gamer, I come out just over the cost of game pass. Big thing is that I get to keep my games without needing to re-up the subscription.
Yeah right now when there’s a lot of games coming out it seems great, but middle of COVID I remember nothing was coming out, and I would have had to keep paying for the games I had already played.
$9.99 for a month of gamepass PC, or $10.99 for console (ultimate you’re paying for cloud access or online play, so it’s a disingenuous comparison) You can play starfield for a month, then buy it for 20% off through gamepass, so $55.99. $55.99+10.99 = $66.98.
So you basically get a $11 month-long trial, then $2 off the full price if you decide you like it enough to keep.
I’m interested in playing this but I don’t own a PS5 and I’m not buying a whole console for one game. They would have gotten a day 1 sale out of me if they released it on PC.
Originally, they did plan to release it on PS5 and PC. My guess is Sony made a timed exclusivity deal with them, which Sony had done with companies before. SE shout themselves in the foot by taking it.
Ditto for me. I have all Final Fantasy games released on PC, but I can’t justify buying a PS5 for a single game. I’ve chosen to watch a let’s play of the game. Glad I did because it’s definitely not a Final Fantasy I’d play a second time.
I would like them to fix the 60 fps cutscene issue. None of the original cutscenes were designed for that high frame rate, they just artificially sped them up which makes a lot of the Halo 3 cutscenes look weird. I’d at least like a proper port, kind of like what Nixxes has been doing for Sony games on PC.
I tend to agree, but it would be nice to play with the nice, rich visuals of Halo 2 Anniversary. And not have to look at Lord Hood’s craggy visage or the slightly polygonal Marine heads.
Reach, on the other hand: no remaster would improve how that game looks. Still a stunning bit of work all these years later.
This feels borderline criminal. Yeah it’s 11 years old, but if someone told you that an early access game stays in early access a decade, that means you need to buy it again on release, would you?
Aspyr has a history of laziness and incompetence, unfortunately. I really want to like the company because they were one of the few companies bringing my favorite games to Linux (KotOR and the Civ series) before Steam and Proton got so damn good. But their Civ ports were always plagued with weird bugs not in the original games, not to mention they didn’t have cross-platform multiplayer, preventing me from playing online with my Windows-using friends unless I dual-booted or tried to fight Wine. And somehow their Civ save file format is different, so you couldn’t even switch between Windows and Linux and continue the same game. It was baffling.
They are, but five of them? It seems like they’re ready and willing to kill current goodwill in respect to their games by stepping on the gas instead of realizing why people suddenly liked the games again.
Considering the glacial pace of modern AAA game development, I don’t think it’s odd that they want multiple games in development at the same time to ensure a steady release schedule.
We don’t really know what these five games are (if they really exist at all), but if they diversify the offer with a mix of first person, third person, remakes of old titles and maybe yet-another-attempt-at-bad-online-RE-that-nobody-wants, which is what they’ve done so far (RE7, RE2make, RE3make, Resistance, RE8, RE4make), I think it’s a good thing.
The past few years have had at least four reaident evil games in development at the same time.
Re3make, 4make, village, that weird multiplayer one all going at the same time. It’s really not as unusual as you are making it seem. People like resident evil more than ever right now.
I imagine the situation is similar to this, but maybe mobile or switch games involved.
The Yakuza team, to release games so frequently (like 1-2 a year) has small teams work on multiple games at once. So like the minigame team may be building games for all of them in a year.
Capcom are making the same mistake with RE as Ubisoft did with Assassin’s Creed in my opinion. Focus the whole giant studio on making games for one IP, then when that stops selling the whole ship will sink.
eurogamer.net
Ważne