That’s the kinda forward thinking that I like to hear! Here‘s your 200m, you have 2 years, I expect a prototype of the ingame shop by the end of next week
I mean if it actually had good diverse gameplay per character and allowed us to obliterate our surroundings I could see it having a player base for a bit. Trying to balance it would be a nightmare for whatever team was tackling it.
The last time this happened was when Anonymous hacked PSN and took them down for a month after they went after Geohotz(cant remember the spelling) for jailbreaking/reverse engineering the ps3.
Radio silence like before as well. I hope they weren’t breached again.
Why would you want them to be breached? The only people that are going to be negatively affected by that are the users who was involved in the breach.
Yes and no. Sony would face repercussions for lax security, and while it would indeed affect the consumers, Sony would be at the epicenter. Forgive me for not giving a shit to what happens to Sony, and if they did in fact get breached I'll be there with some popcorn enjoying some Shadenfreude.
What I’m saying is that you have to look at the bigger picture. Not only Sony would be affected by that, back in 2011 when they were breached consumers were charged in the estimated tens of millions of dollars range. A figure that Sony only ended up having to repay about 15 million in settlement fees for after a solid year and a half.
Additionally, Sony still managed to go up in profit that year, despite the PR nightmare out of it. Going up from 1.2 billion after operating costs in 2010 to 1.4 billion after operational costs in 2011 and still made 1.1 billion in 2012 ( after the 172 million in damages was done)
I understand hating big business and their practices as much as the next guy, but I have a hard time getting a sense of satisfaction knowing that at the end of the day the company itself isn’t going to be impacted by the hack more than a small itch, while fucking over the everyday consumer significantly more
…You want their security to be bad enough that they get hacked, so that they’d have to face repercussions for having bad security? What?
How about they just don’t have bad security and people don’t risk having their private data stolen?
Nice to know you’d sit there with popcorn watching people who just want to play video games suffer, a small price to pay for you to hurt Sony it seems, who I guess you hate for some reason.
They never pretended it was going to run literally everything. It’s a handheld.
The fact that there are still very few games it can’t run (excluding the publishers actively blocking Linux) is impressive, but it was always expected that some games would leave it behind.
Hell, the whole reason for “deck verified” is because their default assumption is that a game won’t work.
Can’t wait for them to try this, it flops, half the staff gets laid off, the CEO steps down with a golden parachute, the CEO trades places with the CEO of another tech company, that new CEO makes an even worse decision, another half of the staff gets laid off, the new CEO gets a raise, Microsoft buys both companies, Google makes a competing game studio that gets killed before their first game release, and Apple releases their first video game for $3000 that only runs on M2 and above.
Apple releases “iTetris” for $3000. Their fans claim it’s way better than the original. It’s the same game with only 8 levels, but you can pay extra for more.
This involved a wild situation where someone was giving the pros hacks like aimbots and wallhacks as they were playing in the Finals event, effectively ruining the entire thing without anyone actually attempting to cheat.
Didn’t we also learn this from Tears of the Kingdom, or God of War, or Horizon Zero Dawn, or Dark Souls, or indeed hundreds of great selling AAA single player games?
But we also learn from the repeated success of Call of Duty, FIFA, Fortnite or any successful multiplayer games that people fucking love microtransactions.
Different players? Maybe, but I’d suggest there’s also a lot of overlap. I know lots of people that play both. People consume. Some games support the microtransaction model better than others, and those are typically the ones designed to be played in fits and starts all year, rather than completed and shelved.
I’m gonna say yes, different people, just based on my own play habits. I’ve played and enjoyed most of the big single-player franchises, but the multiplayer games don’t appeal to me much. I gave Overwatch a try because a bunch of my coworkers were raving about it, but the experience just felt shallow and hollow. They might be great if I was playing with friends in the same room (like back when I was in college), but playing with a bunch of strangers is no fun for me.
I mean I stay away from the mtx games as well. But then I was raised in an age where you paid the price on the box and that was it.
New gamers don’t know better. And kids especially have all the time and hardly any of the money, they’re happy to throw $10 pocket money at a “free” game they already enjoy for an outfit now, rather than save $70 for a new game they might not like in a few months.
I mean tears of the kingdom make $700 million + and Diablo Immortal made 525 million in it’s first year despite being almost universally rebuked online. Really seems like micro transactions have a really solid, if maybe not top tier return. Lots of companies try to make something like Horizon Zero Dawn and it totally flops instead.
There’s a lot of games that go with the free with mtx model that flop as well. eFootball comes to mind. They had decades of experience with Pro Evo Soccer, their only real competitor costs $70 and is still laden with microtransactions, and it still couldn’t get off the ground.
None of these games are cheap to make, and they’re certainly not cheap to market.
I have not heard of it yet. Sounded intriguing. But a quick search of “eFootball” took me to a mobile game, with in-app purchases - not looking good and I am staying the fuck away. If they really don’t have mtx then they are doing something very wrong.
or indeed hundreds of great selling AAA single player games?
It’s important to note that the amount of single player AAA games has greatly diminished overtime. Most of those “hundreds” you’re referring to are not in the last 10 years, and the big bucks have been in live service. So yeah BG3 did great but it was a huge, 6+ year gamble ultimately. I WANT those gambles, but businesses would rather push out cheaper games at a faster clip because they make money. People still buy them and they still pay for DLC/MTX like crazy. It’s hard to compete against that.
I’ve often come across this sentiment in Steam reviews and it’s very reductive to judge games based mainly on this metric. Getting older I have less time for videogames and I value shorter games more. There are games that are extremely valuable because of their high quality even if very short, like the first Portal.
This is why we have companies like Ubisoft trying to game the system constantly with low quality content to pad the game to 100 hours or whatever is fashionable in open world these days. I will take 6 hours of quality single player anytime over 100 hours of AssCreed grinding and ridiculous ‘story’
I also have less time to game, but I sure as hell don’t want to play shorter games. I like to play games with good stories, who are engaging and with fun play. Witcher 3 is a prime example of how even the majority of the side quests can be meaningful and not feeling too generic. I also enjoyed the last of us part 2. And I usually feel sorry when I finish a good game.
And shorter games should naturally command a lower price which isn’t always the case.
It is debatable, but would you pay 70$ for a 2-hours game and another 10x70$ for DLCs and expansions that would extend the original content?
But this also doesn’t mean that you should feel your game with generic content in order to make it longer either. It is a fine line but I know that I would have a real problem justifying 70€ for 2 hours of game content without replayability, even if the game is amazing.
And shorter games should naturally command a lower price
This is exactly the thing that doesn’t make any sense. Should The Last of Us be priced at a fraction of The Witcher 3 because it is shorter? What about Bioshock? It’s half the length of The Last of Us 2
Nintendo has spent decades building an extremely loyal, multigenerational consumer base. They also release very popular, high quality games. I have no interest in owning a Switch, but I get why so many people do.
Ah yes, the one Nintendo IP that has gone to shit. Not fully by the way, as Legends Arceus was fantastic, and even my mom who hasn’t given a fuck about Pokemon since Yellow loved watching me play it. If Gamefreak would finally make another side game like Mystery Dungeon (or the more forgotten cult classics like Pokepark, Ranger, Conquest, Rumble, etc.) we wouldn’t be trolling them so hard. It’s also more of a Gamefreak problem than anything, as other companies that did Pokemon games (Chunsoft, Genius Sonority, etc.) did fantastic.
Anyway Zelda and Mario are still making bangers, Kirby Air Riders is coming back, Metroid fans are fed, Splatoon is getting a whole new game for Switch 2 (fuck me…), people are still relatively happy with Animal Crossing NH, we’ll see how Donkey Kong’s new game does, and while FE’s newest entry wasn’t so hot you can’t ignore how Three Houses brought in a brand new wave of loyal FE fans.
Literally everyone knows Pokemon mainline has been going to shit (and not the characters, designs, music, etc. imo, just the animations and story writing). Pick another game, even Nintendo (and Pokemon) fans make fun of it.
The vast majority of Steam games can be easily cracked and played offline if they ever go rogue. Modern console games are much more difficult to jailbreak like that.
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.
So apparently they had a bit asking players to not share info about the game, but you could technically back out of it without agreeing so legally they can post whatever they want. It feels like a case of “this is legal to do but maybe kinda shitty and valve might be upset”. Basically the agreement was informal and not enforceable and the verge just said fuck it. They did get banned afterwards, but I think that and not working with them in the future is all valve can do.
Edit: didn’t even require agreement, so honestly it’s kinda fair game. I was a bit hostile calling it shitty, I felt like it was a loophole or something but it’s more Valve just saying “hey pls don’t” and the verge replying “no thanks”, and eating the game ban since that’s all valve can really do.
This isn’t some grand conspiracy it’s a closed beta for a video game. It’s pretty normal to have an NDA or embargo agreement to get access. It sounds like valve just goofed the implementation. So yeah it’s totally legal for them to post it, valve just might avoid giving them early copies in the future.
Polygon is Vox’s gaming site and I imagine the shitlist will extend to all Vox properties. So the editors at Polygon now have another department to blame for their woes.
There is no NDA for Deadlock, and anyone in it can invite anyone they want, as often as they want. It’s not like Valve has no idea how to privately test their game. I think they made these decisions deliberately.
A bit of the eula says not to share info about the game, but you can literally back out without accepting the eula, and still play. So I don’t know if I’d call it intentional, but there’s definitely no legal reason they can’t post whatever they want. They just got banned for it and might have damaged their relationship with valve somewhat. Depends on how much valve cares tho.
Edit: it wasnt even a eula apparently, just a “pls dont tell people ok?” Pop up. Thanks to the folks clarifying <3
Don’t know why you’re getting crushed for this. It’s not even just about this particular game; one of the major players in the largest entertainment industry on the planet is doing something highly unusual. That’s in the public interest.
Lemmy users should know better, too, as The Verge was one of the leading reporting outlets on what happened on Reddit last year. Adversarial tech journalism is part of what they do.
Yeah that’s a fair point. I was mistaken thinking it was an actual eula they bypassed because valve didn’t make it so you couldn’t just close it, but it’s not in any way legally enforceable. I thought at least it was one of those grey “technically correct but obviously an unintended loophole” kind of things, but they literally just said “pls don’t tell”. I’m mostly thinking that risking the connections you might have to valve aren’t worth a scoop on a game still in what seems to be alpha or closed beta, but if I were valve I really don’t think they can be that mad, everything the verge did was basically fair game if they were fine with a game ban.
I guess when I think of public interest I think of stuff like reddit selling user data without consent, or games using manipulative tactics. It’s hard to feel like it makes sense to be aggressive with something as benign as “game we don’t know much about yet, smells of dota/moba” But then again I’m not a game journalist, and I stand corrected.
There isn’t even an informal agreement. It simply says not to share anything. Not even “by playing this, you agree not to share anything”. It’s just “please don’t share anything”.
Yeah, gaylord_fartmaster let me know. I thought the message was one of those “scroll down and click agree on this eula” things but its just a pop up box, so it’s def not enforceable.
Nobody is saying it’s enforceable. It’s just a shitty thing to do when someone shows you something in confidence, asks not to share it, and you publish an entire news article about it. It’s just a dick move. Obviously nothing illegal about it.
Bullshit. The actual reason will be that this is far better marketing once you’re at a level of Valve. Shit gets leaked anyways, might as well make it intentionally so to fuel the hype cycle.
Yeah, that statement is so dumb. Even if it’s hugely successful, a game of this type is made for a niche audience. That niche audience does hate microtransactions but they’re in no way representative of the mainstream.
I think, with 700k concurrent players, we need to recognize cRPGs may not be as niche as we previously thought. However, your point stands: this isn’t going to hurt anyone’s revenue from MTX.
forbes.com
Ważne