Was the switch 2 a successful launch from a monetary perspective: Hopefully
But people also have to understand. Gaming gets more and more mainstream every year AND population increases every year. Of course units sold are going to increase. The last time we had a console launch was 2020-ish. It has been five years of new people getting into video games and so forth.
Its similar logic to any time we see “Call of Auto 789151 is the fastest selling Call of Auto ever!”… Of course it is. If it wasn’t then that would be a huge red flag for the franchise.
Honestly compared to other handhelds and current-gen consoles, the price seems OK for what you're getting. The problem for me has always been how expensive Nintendo's games are, $80 seems way too much.
As if, the console’s a scam and the game pricing is just the cherry on top. Half committing to caring about how much things cost is a waste of time, either acknowledge they’re both garbage or stop spreading this half assed attitude.
The steam deck doesn't come with a dock, has a worse screen at 800p/60Hz compared to the S2's 1080p/120Hz, is way larger and thicker, doesn't have detachable controllers so if you do buy the dock you'll have to bring your own controller. It also can't play in a kickstand mode which is a negative if you're wanting to play with friends outside which is something I do often with my Switch 1.
I like the Steam Deck, really, but it's not a 1:1 comparison and I think the average person will still really prefer the Switch 2.
The Switch 2 being a bad deal and Nintendo having a VERY strong history of anti-consumer behavior has nothing to do with console wars. The person you are replying to is equally allowed to have a nuanced take.
What, are you expecting every comment critical of Nintendo to also include criticism of how terribly Xbox has managed it’s game studios just so we can be “fair and balanced”?
The comment I replied to believed that both the console and the game price is a scam, that is their valid opinion.
They criticised OP for “half caring about the rip off pricing”. OP didn’t think the console had ripoff pricing. Why is that a character flaw of op like is suggested by the commenter?
The truth is that literally everything costs too much. $399.99 (switch 1 launch price in 2017 USD) is $524.57 in USD today (source so $499.99 bundle with Mario Kart World is actually cheaper than Switch 1 with no game.
Blame the system that fucked your currency, and refuses to raise your pay appropriately.
Your comment was removed for being an ass, stop playing a victim.
For reference, it was:
All you motherfuckers who bought this can no longer bitch about their prices nor any of their anti consumer practices You have the right to shut the fuck up for anything they do for all time
Not yet. The 3DS and Wii U sold out at launch, too, but after the diehards all got them, nobody else wanted them. The 3DS recovered after they dropped the price by $80 6 months after launch, but the Wii U never did. Maybe that won’t happen this time and we truly are fucked, but time will tell. Historically, Nintendo fucks up after they have a successful console and get cocky with the next one.
Don’t forget that the Wii U had one of the most incompetent console marketing campaigns of all time. Just two years ago I met someone who still didn’t know it was a console and not an accessory.
That’s true, but that alone doesn’t account for how just how bad it did. The idea that Nintendo consoles are always bought up by lots of people no matter what is completely untrue. One big advantage they’ve always had that they no longer do is affordability compared to the competition. What will determine whether it’s a success will ultimately be how many good exclusive games they can pump out, and their track record has been awful since the launch of the Switch. A very large chunk were Wii U ports, which worked because nobody had one, but they’re already heavily shilling Switch 1 upsells. Diehards will of course snatch them up, but with 150 million Switches out there I question how interested the masses will be in them. If Nintendo seriously ups their game and consistently puts out new good games, I imagine people will stomach the prices. But are they even capable of that any more?
Live service garbage has costed the industry billions in losses and costed tens of thousands of devs their jobs. Fad chasing in general.
Everyone wants to make the fortnite killer or overwatch killer. They set billions of dollars on fire and get nothing for it. And it’s the devs who pay the price. Not the c-suite dipshits who threw all that money in the fire pit.
I mean they also created a ton of jobs and it‘s not like devs working on single player games don‘t face layoffs and bonuses fraud. Besides Overwatch 2 killed Overwatch already.
Way to make a truly bad faith argument or perhaps you are lost or something. To clarify: Are you implying it‘s any different for AAA SP games? Because that’s the discussion here.
Yes, imo live service games are very bad for the people who buy them and the people making it.
They are only there to make cash. And they make this cash through terrible predatory monetization - loot boxes, microtransactions, season passes. These companies actually want to run casinos that target the most vulnerable and children. You can argue that people wouldn’t want to work on this if they had a choice.
There’s almost always very little artistic value.
At least with sp AAA, you can gain a cult following if you have an interesting gameplay, or story. what are you doing with a live service one? Nothing, just offering the same thing that someone else has already created in another flavour, just to chase a trend. What this means is that they’re more likely to fail and not for the fault of the devs for sure.
They’re also bad for preservation of games. All live service games die, you can’t play them once support ends. You paid 60 dollars to rent a game? (Though I suppose that’s true with sp always online games as well and it’s not directly a bad thing for the dev)
Though… you maybe sort of right, the Industry is so bad right now that it doesn’t even matter whether you are working on sp or live service, you are in some sort of hell regardless…
I‘m just going to say that the distinctions between the two you‘re laying out here seem irrelevant to the discussion to me. I am not arguing about a season pass or preservation of games. Again, that is not what this discussion is about. This is about the developing side of games where these things don‘t mean anything. To give an example of what I mean: World of Warcraft employed and paid more people over a longer period of time than most AAA games.
I don’t know of the statistics, so yes, I can’t say for sure sp employs more people than live service. But in my opinion live service games are more risky and harmful to the industry as a hole.
But my original comment was about how it doesn’t matter if they created jobs or not because they are trying to replace everyone with AI. Coders, designers, artists… So it doesn’t matter sp or live service. They want to not employ anyone and run casinos
This one and FairGame$ are both screwed, and they’ll mark the end of an era for Sony and live service. What’s funny too is that Bungie was purchased in large part for being experts in making successful live service games, but it reminds me of something in investing where those who appear to be very smart after a string of successes are compared to being “expert coin flippers” who just got heads a number of times in a row. As we’ve gotten a peak or two behind the curtain after the purchase, it certainly looks like Bungie was only lucky.
Bungie is a lot like Bioware in that regard: Some real bangers on the resume, but none very recently. It should serve as a reminder that companies don’t make games, people do. If the right people aren’t involved, or too many of the wrong people are, past successes are entirely meaningless.
It's not only the people, it's the people at specific timepoints, nobody wants a remake of skyrim and another iteration of assassin's creed is only gonna get a lukewarm reception. Games are lightning in a bottle, their successes are basically impossible to replicate because there's so many variables at play.
That’s what weirds me out when people say things like: i will always pre order the new (insert developer name) game because i trust them. It’s not the shareholders or the suits who make the games, it’s the people, and these people may work somewhere else 10 years later.
It is a little funny that even after Sony backpedaled hard on live service after Concord, the one studio they bought to make live service games instantly started failing too. Destiny hasn’t been doing too great either. Sony have been very unlucky this generation.
Maybe, but their own actions helped. Everybody said that the 12 live games was a terrible idea. They replaced the guy behind the idea, but they're still pushing marathon without any single player nor co-op.
This smells like another Concord, to the point where I will be absolutely surprised if it lasts even 2 months.
I think Bungie still has experience making successful live service games, Destiny 2 has been a massive success for Bungie. The issue with Bungie is that they've forgotten how to release good games. Destiny 1 released kinda meh, but a year after launch started crawled back to being generally well received. Destiny 2 release (followed by the Curse of Osiris expansion) almost killed the studio, a year after launch started crawling back into being great and only in the last years really dropped off (when resources were pulled away from Destiny to Marathon). It feels almost like there are some head up their ass lead designers at Bungie who just won't listen to feedback and release a shitty game. Then the live team takes over the project, listen to actual feedback and fixes the stupid shit that should've been fixed the first time around.
Even with Marathon they had that event where streamers (and some other media people) got to play the game at Bungie and then Bungie asked for their feedback and when they got feedback on some really stupid things (like not being able to take off attachments from guns) they just went "We know, that's intentional". They're deliberately making design decisions that anyone with experience within the genre would instantly say "that's a bad idea". I don't know whose head needs to be pulled out of their ass but if Bungie doesn't want to release Marathon as a flop they need to do it quickly.
On a slightly different topic. I love how some people got to experience Marathon and Arc raiders in close proximity. Prior to the playtest people were cautiously optimistic about Marathon but Arc raiders evoked no emotion in anyone. And now it's more than reversed. People are praising Arc raiders and Marathon is seen as a lost cause.
I can name plenty of shooters that don’t let you take attachments off of guns. That might not be your best example of ignoring feedback, because the presence or omission of that feature can be for any number of very good reasons.
I was talking in the context of extraction shooters. I can't think of a single extraction shooter where you could add attachments but not remove them. I've also yet to see anyone familiar with the extraction shooter genre think it's a good idea. If you think it's a good idea you're free to defend it.
Jeżeli celem ma być realne przeciwdziałanie bigtechowi to moim zdaniem to realną alternatywą jest zapraszanie, promowanie i namawianie na media etyczne jak np. PeerTube.
Damn reading the impact this has is some combination of hilarious and horrifying to see people bought into a service like this. If it was free or simply a monthly sub like Netflix I could kinda understand. But a sub to use things you also had to buy? Fuck that.
Yep, all my GoG games would be installable without internet if I have the installer downloaded, games without DRM bought from the devs directly like Factorio would also work just fine. Loads of games are available outside of steam, some are even on github for free.
Not sure if this is still the case, but with Steam it used to be that if you didn’t put the client into “offline mode” ahead of time the client wouldn’t open, let alone allow you to launch a game once the connection was lost.
At least in 2013 when I started using Steam more seriously if your connection dropped it would prompt you asking if you wanted to switch to offline mode. And I know this because I had Steam on a laptop that I carried in my bag hibernating and I didn’t had internet in some places I went to. So that has been fixed for over a decade.
they fixed that, but if you are connected to WiFi that blocks steam it will refuse to launch your games even after you disconnect from the WiFi. I think this is to prevent piracy I guess??
I needed a software that I bought on steam for schoolwork and I couldn’t use it because steam was having a panic attack over my schools wifi. Inst of preventing piracy I went and pirated the software to not have that issue LOL
Looks like PlayStation’s Auth servers are down among everything else. Even if multiplayer was free, I don’t see how modern games would function without that service running. Who am I playing against? What’s their name? How did I get my account progress?
Just about everything multiplayer nowadays relies on account / Auth services. Especially on console.
You used to be able to type in an IP address whether or not the official server is running. Sometimes you still can, but seeing as Baldur’s Gate 3 has LAN and direct IP connection on PC but not on PlayStation, it sure seems like Sony is asking them to specifically remove the feature if they wanted it in the first place.
Then beyond that, you’ve got a mismatch behind what your money is actually for. It used to be for paying for their servers, but you often don’t even connect to Sony’s servers anymore. Plenty of games behind that same paywall have their own servers, like Call of Duty for instance, but Call of Duty’s multiplayer is behind the same paywall as Helldivers 2, which is running servers on Sony’s dime. And beyond that…the reason multiplayer is free on PC is because your purchases are funding them. The majority of game sales on consoles are now digital, just like Steam, and that is a trend that’s accelerating. Meanwhile, the subscription fee compared to free online on PC is probably one of a multitude of reasons that people are leaving consoles for PC.
Being able to type in an IP address is a late 90s and early 2000s thing within the AAA space, much as I hate to say that. I do know of at least one unpopular, indie PS4 game that had IP address entry so it wasn’t outright banned then.
I’m pretty sure PlayStation requires games with certain types of multiplayer to authenticate with them as part of the agreement to publish on the platform so that’s restrictive.
However, Sony does provide services that cost something to run, both directly for the studio, and indirectly for players who consume that studio’s game. Not the least of which includes account authentication which is one aspect of ensuring piracy isn’t happening on that platform. Friends services and the ability to join friends helps people jump back into your game. I’m sure there’s more.
I’m pretty sure PlayStation requires games with certain types of multiplayer to authenticate with them as part of the agreement to publish on the platform so that’s restrictive.
It sounds like that requirement is just a bad deal for the consumer. And they charge you for it. And they can’t guarantee uptime.
From the consumer’s perspective, at its cheapest, it’s $10/month to play with your friends on PlayStation, be able to claim new games monthly which are good for as long as you are paying the subscription, and have cloud saves (among a few other minor benefits).
No service can guarantee uptime, that’s just the reality of it. This is the largest PSN outage in 14 years. Most outages have not been this long or widespread.
Napkin math shows their uptime to be ~99.5% in the 18 years it’s been operational. Not that good nowadays, but not something you can’t sell to people.
Cloud saves that are free on PC, and they don’t block your access to transfer saves without it like consoles do. Playing online on PC is free, and we know exactly how to make it free on consoles, but they’re not interested in doing so. No one can guarantee 100% uptime, which is why it’s a bad deal to make the subscription for that stuff mandatory instead of allowing things like direct IP connections.
You apparently can transfer saves on PS4/5 offline. For PS4 they can be copied to a USB drive, but more to your point here, the only way to copy PS5 saves around (besides PS+) are to do console backup and restore processes and then during that process say you want to take save games wholesale (and then restore them wholesale). That’s definitely greedy bullshit.
I don’t know what more to say, consoles are walled gardens that consumers pay to be in. Within those walled gardens, the company dictates the rules. There’s plenty of good arguments for using a more open platform like PC. Not the least of which is that PlayStation has had an abysmal console cycle for trying to prove their console is worth purchasing - what with it having basically no exclusives that won’t eventually come to PC, first-party or otherwise.
consoles are walled gardens that consumers pay to be in
Less and less as time goes on, is my point, for the reasons we’ve discussed. Maybe any one or two of those reasons aren’t doing it on their own, but in the aggregate, it appears consumers are slowly deciding not to put up with the downsides anymore.
It also helps that consoles are becoming more and more PC-esque and expensive. Consoles were a good alternative because they were cheaper, had exclusive titles, and had the ability to couch game, and usually were just “pop disc in and play”. They were also pretty stand-alone devices. My biggest issue with PC gaming prior to really this generation was I cannot stand M+KB, I like sitting back in a chair with a controller. But now, peripherals are more able to operate on multiple platforms, games do cross-platform releases, cross play is more prolific (and cross-saves as of late), and it’s easier to switch now and not “lose” your friends. Plus, the cost of consoles anymore are much closer to equivalent PCs now.
Console positives are dwindling, or at least becoming neutral to PC.
No, but I didn’t want the headache of multiple peripherals, and when you’re 15, it’s hard to convince a parent to spring for more expensive options out of convenience lol. There were options, but even still, some games didn’t come with native controller support (I built my 1st PC in college in…2013? for ESO, and the controller support was through a mod, and it barely worked at the best of times).
Theyve just gotten so similar in their function, it’s increasingly hard to justify a console anymore. Microsoft basically forgoing exclusives now only strengthens it
You’re mixing stuff up, the direct connect for multiplayer where you put the IP has nothing to do with authentication that he’s talking about. Whenever you open up a multiplayer game it will authenticate yourself with PSN using the account you have on the playstation, then if your authentication succeeded it will authenticate with the game service-servers which will reply with stuff like your progression in the game, whether someone has sent you a message or a friend request, etc. Modern games are a platform in and of themselves, essentially they have an entire Discord on steroids internally which you’re using before, during and after playing online matches. If the PSN is down you can’t authenticate with those servers… I mean, they could allow you to login using username and password, but that’s: 1 not needed since the PSN is almost never down and 2 probably against some TOS from Sony for you to release games on their platform. So if the PSN is down you would not be able to get into the main screen for multiplayer anyways, so there’s no place where you could input the IP for the game-server you want to connect to.
I’m not defending the system, but it is what it is, games have organically evolved to have all of these social features which people do use and like, it makes sense that Sony won’t allow you to go over them and authenticate directly with the game specific service-servers and it makes sense that if you’re relying on all of that for login you also rely on it for matchmaking (which is where the IP would come in place). Could it be better? Sure, but there’s no incentive for it to be, PSN is rarely down and games (at least large ones) take forever to be sunset, and by that time there are almost no people playing them anyways.
I’m not mixing anything up. If they allowed for things like direct IP connections, you could still play Baldur’s Gate 3, online, regardless of this downtime. It wasn’t organically that we arrived here. It’s objectively worse.
This is the relevant bit of what you’re replying to:
I don’t see how modern games would function without that service running. Who am I playing against? What’s their name? How did I get my account progress?
None of that comes from the game-server but rather from the service-server. Even if social games that have those features allowed you to connect to a server directly, you would still need to connect to their servers for all of that stuff.
Direct IP connection has nothing to do with authentication and social flows (e.g. names and progress like the comment you’re replying to mentioned) and would not help in the slightest with it.
It would help people who wanted to have a functioning video game. Then you could ask your friend (or someone on Discord) what their IP address is and play with them.
You’re again mixing the point, your friends IP doesn’t have authentication, progress, chat, etc, etc, etc. You’re talking about a different kind of server.
The thing I’m criticizing is that they make this other kind of server impossible, even though it would be exactly the kind of backup plan you’d want for a situation like this one.
But that is an apples to oranges comparison, just because you personally don’t care about those features doesn’t mean others don’t care either. For games without those features mentioned in the original comment (like Baldur’s Gate 3) not having join by IP is ridiculous we agree there. But for games that do it’s just not feasible, there’s too much of what makes the game the game in those features. Don’t get me wrong, I personally think that companies should not just kill the game and should provide ways to make their game playable offline after closing the servers, but it’s not as simple as allowing you to join by IP for the games being discussed here. What level would your character be? What load out would it have set? Which items would be unblocked? Etc, etc, etc, the servers that control all of that are too engrained into the fabric of the game, and that’s something that happened organically because people liked those features and wanted cross-progression, security, etc. Can all of that be removed? Sure but then you’re left with a shell of what the game is/was, still I believe companies should make such a release before closing the servers, but again this has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with direct join by IP.
Nobody’s gonna dispute the necessity of some sort of server somewhere in the mix. But does it need to be something like PSN? A central 3rd party service that most games only use because they’re forced to?
Walled gardens and all. That’s the cost of doing business on PlayStation. Perhaps we’ll see some pushback from developers to PlayStation that might carve a path for sidestepping PSN services if the developer wants to.
It’s important to note, though, that PSN (and Xbox Live, and Steam) does provide useful services to developers in exchange for that cost of doing business.
Free your mind! There is another way. Video game servers should be open-source, and the games should permit you to choose a custom server. This way, games can survive the bankruptcy of their creators’ companies.
I don’t disagree completely, but it’s not as easy as you think. We’re not talking about server in the sense of a headless game client that will coordinate a match, we’re talking about a whole infrastructure of micro services and a web of communications and APIs just to get a basic authentication working. Not to mention possibly encrypted hard coded addresses to contact. That being said I 100% agree that before a game is abandoned a plan should be put in place to allow people to keep playing it, even if it’s complicated and cumbersome to setup, or even if it’s as crude as removing authentication entirely.
This would basically be my reply as well. Companies are in the game to make money, and setting up all this infrastructure, not to mention maintaining it, is NOT cheap.
To be clear, that was not a thing. Just the PSN account doesn’t require payment. The subscription is for playing in MP and (I think) access to online media like yt.
Been a minute (this was a nice reminder that I hadn’t even booted up my PS5 in almost a year…), but I want to say it depends on if you have your console set as your primary console or not. Primary doesn’t need to go online to authenticate. Secondary does.
Most people just have a single console so it is auto-primary. But people who bought a ps5 pro or who do super convoluted account sharing shenanigans always have trouble when auth servers are down.
Also, I think the PS+ IGC requires network to make sure you still have PS+?
I only have the one ps5. I did have a ps4 if that matters. Tried to play like 5 games this afternoon. All of them had a lock on the icon and when I tried to play it complained about PSN.
forbes.com
Aktywne