I think when they fixed all the obvious jank, went all in on the world building and strong storytelling, and timed it with the incredibly excellent Cyberpunk Edge runners series… Everything turned around.
The game is still pretty crappy as a open-world, loot still feels halfbaked and honestly combat is so dumb that I have to gimp myself and refuse to pick certain skills just to have some challenge.
But I ignore it because when the story pulls you in, you’re hooked!
That’s funny, I feel kinda the opposite lol. The story just feels ok to me (I thought the story of PL was a lot more interesting though) but I just love the setting and just blasting through enemies
I loved the world, enjoyed its story but didn’t like the combat as it felt a bit messy and I felt overpowered as a hacker.
After two playthroughs, I’ll probably do the expansion at one point but I don’t know if I should play it from one of my playthrough or from a new save.
I hope this doesn’t make them think they can do this again though. This should make them realise they should’ve always gave the Devs more time to cook or been more realistic with scope from the get go
A publicly traded company prioritizing consumer satisfaction over short term profits? Learning from their “mistakes” after they still got a shit ton of money for it anyways and probably will if they do it again? I’m not banking on it.
It being released in a essentially a beta state with a terrible UI? half the loot being a bitch to access because you always cast igni? Game breaking bugs and glitch’s? Hard crashes?
I don’t think they have released one game that was actually release ready yet.
CP2077 was far worse, but that doesn’t mean the Witcher 3 was okay, it was still absolutely botched.
I’m not downplaying anything, but comparing a dumpster to a dumpster fire and saying they are the same thing is, at best, a little misleading.
The release of Witcher 3 was bad, but it was industry standard bad. Cyberpunk shipped straight up broken and incomplete. It has been fundamentally reworked at least twice since launch.
I don’t think anyone is apologizing for The Witcher 3 at launch, but let’s not pretend they are the same thing. There are more shades than black and white.
It’s more like both are tornados and one is an F3 and the other being an F5. You’re being disingenuous in defending CDPR for continually inexcusable work.
An industry standard bad? What’s that even mean? At that point in time games were shipping complete still and not in a beta state.
Its always hilarious the excuses people come up with, neither are excusable, yet here you are justifying one… yeesh, give your head a shake.
Haha ok so you’re just one of those people whose understanding of the universe isn’t capable of expanding beyond “this good, that bad”.
I haven’t defended anyone and never intended to. I’m just saying get your comparisons straight. “Hey this game has a bunch of annoying bugs” =/= “Yo this shit is effectively non-functional and empty”.
I didn’t know a a progress breaking bug at 80 hours in is annoying…? That falls in the latter, non-functional. What about not being able to pick up loot? That’s non-functional…. You’re excusing shitty devs lmfao, this isn’t about good or bad, this is all shades of shit, or like I said previously tornadoes.
Sounds like you just aren’t educated on what the issues actually were, rose coloured glasses or something…. So not only disingenuous now.
In my experience it was much less buggy at launch than for example Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. I didn’t experience any game-breaking bugs, just ones that harmed immersion. There was a bit of T-posing, the occasional floating prop/animation bug, and once I got launched into the desert when climbing through a window. No crashes to desktop, no broken progression. It probably helped that I was happy with the game they delivered rather than getting hung up on what may have been promised.
bethesda games are known to be shit and buggy since forever and they mostly don’t even fix em after years it’s just how they operate . which isnt something ppl should normalize even sea-dogs / not developed by them - morrowind - oblivion all had these issues bethesda is really not a rolemodel on these things
Yes, just wanted to contrast the reception they got. Bethesda games don’t generally attract as much ire for the bugs. People expect them and tolerate them (to an extent). Cyberpunk 2077 was a totally broken mess according to the internet, while the Elder Scrolls are the greatest thing ever.
I had crashes to the desktop about every 4th area transition in Oblivion and it still didn’t bother me too much, since it had just saved and took less than a minute to get back into the game.
Some bugs - even total crashes - can still be put up with just fine.
Anecdotally, I feel like there is some survivorship bias going on here. I’ve seen plenty of complaints about Bethesda bugs over the years, but people that are truly bothered by it (me!) have sworn off all their games and thus have no reason to talk about them anymore. The only ones left playing are those that still have some enjoyment/respect for Bethesda games. Cyberpunk felt like more of a “mainstream” hit so it makes sense there was more backlash.
Because bethesda ( unfortunately ) got grandfathered in to making very good open world games FULL OF BUGS AND kinda got away with it undeservedly so ( kinda like how pokemon gets away with making mediocre games coz they were the first . like imagine call of duty ( as shit as they are ) making 2 versions of games and sellling you different weapons on each and you gottta payy 140 dollars :D if you want full content. but ppl are kinda waking up starfield was criticized more than their last games etc… ( id say cyberpunk was still worse than most elder scroll games though ( but still totally agreee with you different fan bases treat games differently both arent ok.
What I think is astonishing to some people lately about Cyberpunk, is that they got most of their information from the popular channels on the internet. Despite its name, these channels (reddit r/all, Twitter, etc) are a (loud) minority of the actual opinions.
Pretty much every one I talked to IRL about Cyberpunk was aware of the controversy, but had a much more nuanced opinion than I was seeing online. Many of them enjoyed it and weren’t really experiencing that many bugs (myself included). But this wasn’t an “allowed” opinion online. Anyone who said the game was enjoyable or they didn’t personally experience many bugs were attacked for being a CDPR fanboy (myself included) and down voted.
Honestly though, I believe the early issues with the game were mostly on consoles. On a decently specced PC, the game would run nicely right after launch, with some bugs, but nothing game breaking. I got it right after launch day and enjoyed myself quite a bit with it. The police and the way the cars drove were the things that bothered me the most.
I remember hearing even some high specced pcs were having issues and you had to essentially be lucky that you had a configuration that they had the time to optimise for. Just having the best gpu wasn’t enough, for example
I don’t remember it being that bad on my 1070 mobile laptop (8th gen Intel i5 H if I’m not mistaken), but it was sub 25 fps also. On my PC it ran better, but after upgrading to a 3080 with a 5800X3D was when it ran smoothly at higher resolutions, although the game also had received some updates by then.
True, though that shouldn’t give anyone dev or publisher the right to release a broken game on consoles because it works on PC. Either postpone the PC release date until the console issues are fixed, or release as a PC exclusive until the same. Part of the reason the game was so successful with phantom liberty is that they stopped previous gen console work so they could only focus on hardware that could actually support the game. As with many devs, their partnerships fucked them, getting pressure from Sony, MS, and Nvidia to release the game before it was a polished product
I played it on a pc that was ok at the time and the physics engine glitched out so things that were supposed to be sitting still on top of/next to each other would randomly collide and sometimes fly off. Still had fun with the game though.
I had some cars that were following an invisible road above where the real road was a few times, and although that broke immersion a bit, I also still had a lot of fun with the game.
It is so damning that the entire industry has reacted that way. It’s not that they closed a studio, that cod have been ignored. It’s how brazenly they closed successful studios for being successful while talking out the other side of their mouth to the press.
It feels gross in a much more palpable way. And with everything else going on in tech it feels so wrong coming from one of the biggest companies in earth.
I’m 100% over Xbox. I hope their next console is the worst release since ET on Atari.
Xbox buys talent, mismanages it in search of impossible scale, and cuts it loose - be that the 20-year experts of Fable, or the battle-scarred makers of Dishonored, or the invigorating new generation behind Hi-Fi Rush.
Talking up the demerits of capitalism in the massive gaming industry has been more common as of late (perhaps especially so on Lemmy), and I do think there is nuance in that conversation.
There’s no reasonable nuance here. Microsoft clearly wants insane return on investment from their studios, and I don’t see how that leaves room for the art of video game design.
When reading opinion pieces, especially ones on topics that I am passionate about, I try and keep a level head and not let the fact that it’s written in a publication I enjoy inform my opinion too much. That being said, I thought this was a well done look back at so many of the things the Xbox brand has gotten wrong over the years.
In today’s fast paced world I think it can be easy to forget stuff like lionhead’s closure and especially the PR releases that were said at that time. The similarities in the pr releases to the recent closures and lionhead’s closure were interesting to see.
I find myself overall agreeing with this piece and it’s conclusions. I do feel the author’s idea of why entertainment companies exist to perhaps be a little idealistic (although I am admittedly pretty jaded on the industry and capitalism as a whole at this point in my life). They claim that entertainment companies exist “to provide that entertainment.” Sure I think creative leads and the devs (especially in the games industry) are there to provide entertainment that they are passionate about. But idk if I can ever see a period where the publisher was in it for the art, despite what they may say. My jaded view is it’s always been for profits. That being said, while reading this and having that view in the back of my head, I did start to question myself a bit. Why is Xbox struggling so hard? I mean if every publisher is in it for the same reason, (profit in my mind) why is Xbox struggling so much with having a clear path. Sure the industry as a whole has been struggling this past year or so, but Xbox seemingly has been struggling for a lot longer. While not a huge Sony fan, they have provided a large list of really excellent games. Sony is of course in it for profits, but they seem to have had more success in getting quality games out the door.
Idk the piece made me think about the whole thing more and I’m not really sure where my thoughts are going to settle. I do know that I really think this shouldn’t have happened. Despite the state of the industry, Microsoft had $20 billion in profit last quarter. I see no reason why this needed to happen.
They claim that entertainment companies exist “to provide that entertainment.” Sure I think creative leads and the devs (especially in the games industry) are there to provide entertainment that they are passionate about. But idk if I can ever see a period where the publisher was in it for the art, despite what they may say.
I agree with you, except that up until the early-to-mid aughts, before Fortnight, and skinner box mobile games, and the promise of persistent revenue capitalizing on addictive tendencies and FOMO, publishers believed that the best path to profit was good games. Konami, to pick the (previously) worst example, published one of the weirdest, most cinematic, ambitious, influential games of all time with Metal Gear Solid. And then, eventually, they saw a straighter, shorter path to profit.
I am…way more personally upset about the Arkane closure than I usually get about these things. I have so much respect for what that studio created. This article is great though and gives the holistic perspective I’ve been looking for the past few days:
The point here, ultimately, is that this cycle has been repeating, and repeating, and repeating, and it does not show any sign of coming to an end. Xbox buys talent, mismanages it in search of impossible scale, and cuts it loose - be that the 20-year experts of Fable, or the battle-scarred makers of Dishonored, or the invigorating new generation behind Hi-Fi Rush. Xbox’s leadership clearly knows it’s a problem…they have to step behind this first, surface-level layer of justification for closing studios, and get to the real cause - not the decisions themselves, but the principles that inform them. The principles that say expertise, creativity and talent are less valuable than the cost to let them flourish.
I think in this business you can survive a generation in the wilderness. Nintendo had it with the Wii U. Arguably Sony had one with the PS3.
Two in a row? Well you’re out. Saturn followed by Dreamcast. MS are in their second, and tbh, it looks like they’re pivoting towards being a cross platform publisher and subscription provider. They can certainly afford to keep throwing money at the issue, but if there’s no results, there’s only so long they’ll be allowed to continue doing that before the boss pulls the rug on it. He does not seem like a man who is excited by his gaming division.
Gaming journalists sure want a Sony monopoly of gaming consoles, don’t they?
If Xbox didn’t exist, consumers could only choose PlayStation. Nintendo has shown they have no interest in making real console hardware to compete with Sony or Microsoft anymore, so consumers will get literally only one console choice. That’s bad. Especially since they could set prices at whatever they want and nobody could challenge it.
I get journalists hate Xbox, but Xbox needs to exist as a consumer option.
The Steam Deck is not a console, it is a handheld Linux PC with “console gaming” TV output as an afterthought, just like the Nintendo Switch is a handheld android tablet with console gaming as an afterthought.
K… This is just not true. Plenty of AAA games run well on the steam deck. Currently installed on mine, RDR2, cyberpunk 2077, horizon zero dawn, Forza horizon, uncharted legacy of thieves, the last of us, and for funsies I just started another fallout 4 playthrough. I’m sure others have lots of other AAA games they play on their deck.
If it’s the exclusives you’re missing, like Gran Turismo or something, I think that’s a different argument.
Being able to play AAA games is not a qualifier for a console. My PC can also play AAA games, but it is not a console.
The Steam Deck, and Switch, are both handhelds. It is a subcategory of game console, but it is not considered a game console just the same as a Game Boy is not considered a console, but it is a handheld. Both the Steam Deck and Switch have a screen and internal battery, along with a controller that is built onto the device, like a Game Boy.
A Steam Machine is a Linux PC, but is more similar to a console than the Steam Deck.
I mean, the nuance you describe is notable. But I sit on the couch, using controllers and play the same games you would on ps or Xbox. Both of which run variants of Linux/windows.
I think that's the point bro above is making tho... sure you an use it like one. But it does not compete directly with PS5 and Xbox. Different audience and primary use case is different.
If Xbox dies, steam deck is not a proper substitute for people who buy TV consoles. I guess steam could make steam console tho tbh
it aint ready for mainstream, it still has issues and translation layer aint perfect at all. my gaming rig is on linux. I guess this will be resolved at some point and valve will release a TV console version.
The hardware is not in the same class, in fact it literally under powered because it is a handheld. Guy who wants headshot noobs 4 loolz wants that 4k60 fps experience.
not “features” per se, but consoles have a better performance-to-price ratio compared to handhelds. In the bill of materials for a handheld you’re paying for a screen and battery that are unnecessary expenses if you just need a console. in a console, that money will go towards higher powered hardware to run games, and maybe some other ancillary things. Also in a console you can have a better cooling system since you’re not constrained to a mobile form factor. Also in a console you can use higher power since performance is not being balanced with batter life.
Reading through the above comments it seems like goalposts keep moving on what counts as a console. Does the wii u not count as a console because the controller had a screen and the price to performance is poor?
I’m not sure any of you have a concrete definition for a console, and maybe there isn’t one. It might be more of a spectrum with open and configurable devices on one end and the more focused devices with walled garden software on the other.
Then you can say that ps5 is more like a console than steam deck is, and steam deck is more like a console than a pc.
Does the wii u not count as a console because the controller had a screen and the price to performance is poor?
The WiiU Gamepad did not function on its own, it had to be connected to the actual console in order to function. It was literally a controller with a screen. It did not have any functionality without the console.
The person I was responding to was citing costs accrued for screen and battery as a reasoning for why steam deck is not a console, so I was giving an example (wii u) that contradicts that reasoning.
I don’t actually care if you consider the steam deck or wii u or anything is a console or not. My point was that I don’t see a concrete definition anywhere in this thread and that maybe a more nuanced view would be appropriate.
I see. I will try to provide as detailed of a concrete definition as possible for you.
A video game console is an electronic device that is built with the specific purpose of playing video games. It can do other things as well, but its primary function that it is designed around is playing video games. A console does not have a built in screen or control device, but instead those devices are separate and connect to the console in order to give it inputs and for it to output its signal to the user. A video game console does not run a standard computer operating system that one might find on a workstation, but it can run a modified version of a standard operating system that is specifically optimized for the console hardware to play video games more efficiently The console device is to be placed in a permanent location while in operation, and must be plugged into an electrical socket or similar power supply, as it is not powered by an internal battery.
A handheld is a subcategory of video game console that differs by having a screen and controller built into the device. It is not in a permanent location while in operation, rather it is operated while held in the users hands. These have a battery to provide power to the unit.
Ah, that does clarify a lot. You’re wanting a term to refer to the Xbox and Playstation class devices since they’re in this closely competing realm, but people already have a preconceived notion of what a “console” is (I would consider handheld to be consoles, for example).
It does seem like it would be useful to have a term for those.
Well this is the traditional definition of a video game console, it includes all video game consoles before the current generation. For example, the SNES, SEGA Genesis, and PC Engine/TurboGrafx16 were all competing consoles, but the SEGA GameGear and Nintendo Gameboy were not competing with those consoles.
As I said, handhelds are a subcategory of console. Like how a laptop is a subcategory of personal computer.
If it’s a subcategory of console then it is a console. Otherwise it’s like saying a square is not a rectangle because it is a square, or a cat is not a mammal because it is a cat.
That’s why I say you are searching for a term for things like the Xbox and Playstation - because it would be useful to have a term for that. Simply “console” is not a good fit imo, but you may disagree.
A handheld is a kind of console. It is not in competition or in the same class as a regular console.
A square is a kind of rectangle, nobody that says “draw a rectangle” expects you to draw a square, they expect a box with two sides longer than the other two but equal in length to each other adjoined at 90° angles. A square is a subcategory of rectangle. Its definition includes some features of a rectangle, but it also has other features that define it as clearly different from a rectangle.
Likewise a laptop is a subcategory of personal computer. A tablet such as a Microsoft Surface could also be a subcategory of personal computer. But if someone talks about their PC, you don’t think of a laptop or Surface.
Its the same with consoles and handhelds. By technicality one could call a handheld a console in the same way a person could call a Surface a personal computer, but that would be the same as calling a hot dog a sandwich, or calling a submarine a boat.
Perhaps “home console” would be more descriptive, but since video game consoles were always understood to not be handheld devices, there is no need to subdivide the parent category. Just “consoles” and “handhelds” works fine.
i would say the wiiu is a special case console. they tried adding a screen to a typical console design and it didn’t really work. that’s why they pivoted to the switch which is much more like a portable than a console.
the vast, vast majority of consoles don’t have screens built into their controllers.
Most of Nintendo’s pre-Switch “consoles” arguably had poor performance-to-price ratios in terms of hardware.
Also, a PC doesn’t have the constraints of a mobile form factor and better cooling and can have better performance without the built in battery and screen. You just argued to me that a PC can be a console.
This all seems arbitrary to argue the differences.
While you can do that with a Steam Deck or Nintendo Switch, that was not their primary design. Its no different than plugging in a laptop to a TV with a wireless controller and gaming on that. That is not a console, it was not designed as such.
Additionally, the quality of gaming experience you get from a Switch is worse than on Steam Deck for intensive games, even for native Switch games sometimes. But the quality of games on the Steam Deck is worse than a purpose built game console like the Xbox Series X or PS5. Keep in mind the Steam Deck is 2 years newer than the Xbox Series X or PS5. While the experience may be comparable on some less intensive games, the console experience is objectively better.
Steam Deck and Nintendo Switch are not competition to Xbox or PlayStation. Valve and Nintendo don’t view them as such, and neither do consumers.
I don’t think anybody wants a monopoly, because it means the leader can stagnate, and honestly that’s already happened. Sony are getting complacent, the big releases are few and far between. We’re all getting less for our money, no matter what team you’re on.
I often buy multiple consoles in a generation, but I didn’t get the Xbox One or Xbox Series consoles, because there’s no reason to, and it’s not because I’ve got an expensive PC either, still being on a 1060. Being late to the game is fine, PS3 did that and ended up selling pretty much as many as the Xbox 360 in the end, but where is that spark from MS? They’ve gambled it all on Game Pass and I’m not sure you can run an entire gaming division on that, same as Netflix couldn’t compete with Hollywood without the box office money. The cloud growth just hasn’t happened for them. It doesn’t feel as good as local play, and I suspect it never will. A PS5 has hit pricing that isn’t really that expensive for fairly casual gamers, although the most casual went mobile ages ago and I doubt they’re coming back.
Xbox hardware is fine, there just isn’t any reason to own it. If it ran Windows and I could install my Steam library on it, I’d have got it on day one, but how does that make MS money? There’s even been noises about the next Xbox allowing Steam, although I don’t know how true that it is. I would guess the only way that can happen is if MS get a chunk of Valve’s money every time somebody buys a game through Steam for Xbox. It’s the only real feature that would get me to buy one right now.
I get journalists hate Xbox, but Xbox needs to exist as a consumer option.
I don’t understand, is this a thing? “All journalists hate Xbox” I mean. I’ve never heard this before. Like there’s a mandate that journalists have to hate the Xbox?
EDIT: I’ll eat the downvotes, I just want to understand what the fuck they’re talking about
Nah, it’s an obviously false take, because as you say, why would all journalists agree on this?
XBOX has been underwhelming for a while and journalists will report on that, and they will focus on those bad parts and certainly also sometimes make it sound worse than it really is, because it brings in clicks.
That can make it look like journalists dislike XBOX, but causality is simply the other way around.
Yeah the comment felt like bizarre astroturfing – Why would ‘gaming journalists’ specifically not want Xbox to succeed, but want Playstation to? Like somehow a Sony monopoly is great for… journalists? A very strange take.
XBOX has been underwhelming for a while and journalists will report on that, and they will focus on those bad parts and certainly also sometimes make it sound worse than it really is, because it brings in clicks.
I worked at Microsoft and I can assure you, they deserve every bit of hate they get. And it really is that bad. There was a point with the Xbox One where Sony was beating ‘us’ in every single market we were actively tracking except specific parts of the US. Yet we had directive after directive for clearly nonsensical ideas like targeting Japan for console sales.
I also worked (third party) with Sony and they aren’t much better, but they at least understand how to get their consoles bought. Microsoft hasn’t known how to do that since the 360.
Nintendo has shown they have no interest in making real console hardware
Ah yes, the no true Scotsman argument.
Nintendo doesn’t make hardware to compete with Sony and Microsoft, despite having the best selling console hardware all-time, among the current generation, and among several previous generations.
You don’t have to be a graphical powerhouse to compete with PlayStation and Xbox…
Nintendo is not competing with Microsoft or Sony, and that’s why they can sell more.
People arent choosing between Xbox, PlayStation, or Switch. Theyre choosing between Xbox or PlayStation, and also buying a Switch. That is not competition.
Gaming journalists sure want a Sony monopoly of gaming consoles, don’t they?
Despite the inflammatory headline, I don’t think that’s really the point of the article. It’s much less “why even bother”, and more “do they even know what they’re doing over there”?
Any hatred the writer has for Xbox seems to be focused on how Microsoft are running things, not letting the studios take chances or even make a bit of a dud game.
As a platform, the point of Xbox is supposed to be to make things people enjoy. But MS seem hyper-focused on insane rates of growth, more users, more subscribers, bigger profits. Anything that doesn’t fit that gets cut, regardless of how well it was received by fans or critics.
I don’t get the impression the writer hates Xbox, but is just frustrated that they’ve been making the same mistake over and over again, which has allowed Sony to dominate the console space.
Microsoft and Google really aren’t too dissimilar, in a lot of ways. The only reason why Xbox still exists isn’t because they’re so incredibly passionate about it. There was a niche for them to make money, and they’ve created a product in it, that has the minimum viable qualities to complete. Issue is that just as Google does, they stopped caring about it entirely, after the initial pitch
They are both irrelevant. They don’t sell bespoke hardware, they don’t sell bespoke software, they just sell you locked down schlock. The era of consoles is over. With the ubiquitous nature of HDMI, 4K huge format TVs, and universal peripherals, there only thing consoles offer you is LESS choice.
You have to be in charge to be a fascist you dumb motherfucker.
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
I fucking WISH we had ecofascism. Maybe then I’d get a winter again.
No you don’t, what kind of alternative facts shit is this? It’s absurd to suggest one can only be a supporter of an ideology if said ideology is in power for any ideology.
I fucking wish we had fascism. Maybe then I’d get a winter again.
The only winter you need is a Siberian one, with a paid-for stay at a Gulag :)
It’s really, really good! Tougher than the first game, but that’s a welcome change. After about ~10 hours of gameplay, I already feel like it’s the best sequel I’ve played.
That’s pretty much what God Mode is. The option that gives you a small permanent defense % boost after every single death. I’m too old to git gud so I’ve used it to boost my progression in Hades. The feature seems to still be present in Hades 2.
Nice. Won’t be playing it till the full release, I still have Hades 1 after all, but all this attention will probably make the game even better than the original
i bought it immediately after work monday and have been playing nonstop in all my spare time. no bugs/glitches whatsoever. the only “placeholder” things i’ve seen are copy/paste images for the keepsakes in the display case
I’ll never understand people jumping to play unfinished games. There’s no way most of those 100k people are actually going to participate in the ea feedback / qa process, so all they’re achieving by playing early is spoiling the game for themselves with an inferior version. It’s not like this is made by an inexperienced studio that might keep it in ea indefinitely neither, you literally just need to wait a year to play it when it’s released. /r
The first game was amazing. This one really doesn’t feel unfinished as-is though. There’s likely to be tons of balance changes, and I’m sure there will be bug fixes and more performance optimization updates to come… It’s still super fun, why wait
When I was younger and had more time to not worry about merely existing, I used to enjoy chasing the updates and trying to find every glitch and exploit and do as much silly shit as possible before patches went live.
Guess the first one was even worse than this one at this stage of development, but nobody knew about the game yet. I’m still waiting for the finished product (as I did with the first one), I don’t want to spoil me.
Some art will probably be replaced too. I remember Charon in the original hades had his generic robed character portrait replaced with a better one. Zagreus even complimented him on his new look when it was added to the game, which was a nice touch.
Yes, it’s unfinished, but my experience with the original Hades is that Supergiant knows how to make sure their product is at a certain level of polish before making EA available. I haven’t played much, but they seemed to hit the mark again.
You’re getting downvoted but I agree. The first game is one of my most played on Steam and I was invited to the technical test for the second. But I probably won’t be buying it any time soon. I absolutely hate the trend of buying unfinished products. While this developer is most likely not taking advantage, so many others do. Why should we pay money to beta test your game???
I’ve purchased a fair number of early access games from indie developers.
For me the benefit is that it’s often cheaper during EA, so I get it at a discount, and it already feels like a complete game worth the price I’m paying. I know they are actively working on adding more to it, and having more things added to the game for me to explore extends its lifespan for me. So I get more enjoyment out of it than I would waiting for 1.0, at a cheaper price.
For small developers it gives them the funds to continue development, and feedback that helps with game balance.
Because they get to play it early. That’s it. I played BG3 early and still had a lot of fun replaying Act 1 when it came out.
The studio gets a number of things, as well. While direct feedback is small, that is still valuable as they could never test that many hardware and software variants. They also get automated data from the software phoning home on crashes if that’s enabled. And they get an influx of cash in the last few months of development as their sales spike gets a bit flattened. It’s a winning strategy if you don’t have the funds for a huge marketing blitz to drive initial sales.
I understand the sentiment and I generally agree with you but I think I can make a case for Hades as an exception.
I picked up the first one in ea because I was thirsty for a new roguelike and some friends raved about it enough to me, and it was already a great game. The changes that came over the period I played were additive in the sense that they just opened more options in a game that already felt complete to me (mostly anyways, but more on that in a sec). But to defend it I can’t just say “oh well it felt like a finished game” there also needs to be a tangible benefit to playing it in early access. And there was! The early access versions of the game included meta banter between the narrator and Zagreus, little jokes about new things appearing or things that should be there but aren’t, references to the fact that pieces of the story’s scaffold were still being set up. It sounds small but it was just more of the wonderful character charm that oozes from every corner of that game and I actually kind of missed it a little bit once the full release came. Anyways I haven’t picked up Hades 2 yet (been making more of an effort to clear my backlog lately), but I’m thinking about it. And as far as the ostensible “point” of early access—community feedback and income to support development—Supergiant has given me ample reason to trust that they’ll make it worth it for me as a player if I don’t want to wait for the polished final product.
A Supergiant game in Early Access is more finished than most fully-released triple-A titles.
Plus, as with the first Hades, they work the continued development into the narrative of the game.
What made you think I want people to quit having fun? If anything it would be more fun to play once it’s finished, and it’s not like there’s a shortage of games to play in the meanwhile.
Edit: I just want people to give more thought into the games they play than “whatever’s on top of steam today”. Just because it became available now doesn’t mean you have to play it right away.
I understand your point but you can also be satisfied with an early access game for what it had when you played regardless of later improvements. Valheim is a great example of this: you’ll be hard pressed to find someone that wasn’t satisfied with it, despite being unfinished.
There’s no way most of those 100k people are actually going to participate in the ea feedback / qa process
On first launch it asks if you’re willing to have your play data submitted. So even if people don’t actively send feedback they are still providing data about what systems/weapons/upgrades they engage with more or less, how successful their run is with any given weapon or upgrade, how frequently they win or lose in a given fight, etc.
It is! You can go to the Steam store > New & Noteworthy > Most Played to see current player counts for the top 100 games. Hades II is currently #6, ahead of Helldivers even!
eurogamer.net
Gorące