Ignore the thousands of employees we’ve laid off, we have AI that is going to QUADRUPLE our productivity. I’m talking AAAA-AAAA games here, folks. The best is yet to come, it’s going to be fantastic.
They’ve gotten drunk on the hype of AI (LLM in disguise); I can’t wait for them to make a costly mistake that wakes them the fuck up. Or dissolve into a formless mass of corporate sludge.
In the tech industry (likely every industry but I wouldn't know) we could make a 200 level course in college that covers tech that's been over hyped. A few choice hits like:
Crypto
Blockchain
Quantum
Cloud
WS-I
LAMP
XML
P2P
WORA
OOP
Now some of those went on to become useful concepts, but all hardly lived up to the hype of transforming the industry forever. There's just no shortage of people who lack any kind of set of morals that will, without any knowledge in the domain, jump on some train and hype it to get some quick cash before the thing derails in a fit of coming to terms with reality.
I mean, at least it's been this way since I've been in the industry.
Yeah, there is always new Kool-Aid for executives to consume. I just wish more research, discourse, and testing were done before these concepts became either a scam or a true innovation. Of all the things that you’ve mentioned, there are only a few things of which I have no knowledge of; as a lay person, my familiarity with some of these tech developments is due to the major media coverage some got. I’ll have to look into the unfamiliar tech innovations.
Nintendo: Actively standing against game preservation and ownership in an attempt to rent you their back catalog forever; their outdated hardware exclusivity model also stands in the way of future-proofing preservation. They hate their fans, and don’t forget it. They’ll sue you for playing Super Smash Bros.
Riot: They normalized rootkit anti-cheats, and for something that extreme, it had better render cheating impossible, but it doesn’t. Purveyors of live service games, which also stand in the way of preservation and ownership by putting an expiration date on the game. For the sake of brevity, I won’t expand on the live service concept again in later bullet points.
EA: Making billions of dollars off of legalized gambling for children. Always-online DRM on games that otherwise never even need to touch the internet.
From here, you can put most companies that have reduced their library down to live service games for similar reasons as the above.
These companies piss me off, but…:
Sony: Clinging slightly less to the outdated hardware exclusivity model and pivoted largely to live service games, but the writing is on the wall, so they may abandon one or both of those things in the not-too-distant future. Their new shenanigans with requiring PSN accounts on PC shakes my faith in that though.
Microsoft: Layoffs to rival Embracer, and not even a successful, acclaimed game will save the developer. Purveyors of live service games, not just from classic Microsoft studios but also from Activision, Blizzard, Bethesda, etc. Still, they eventually bent to the whims of the market rejecting their Windows storefront for anything outside of Game Pass, and they did a ton to make PC gaming as good as it is today, including standardizing a good controller for it.
Epic: Exclusivity that’s actively hostile to what customers really want, purveyors of live service games, removing their classic games from sale from other stores and their own for basically no reason. But Tim Sweeney, in pursuing his own self interest to become king of the world, sometimes cries loudly enough to score a win for consumers, and Epic is going to be instrumental in any kind of change, in any country, for destroying walled gardens in tech.
Valve: Making untold amounts of money off of legalized gambling for children, purveyors of live service games, but they’re also basically the only ones creating open ecosystems and allowing them to flourish.
Embracer’s pretty low on the “piss me off, but…” list. They made a horrible gambler’s bet and were surprised to have to pay the bill later, and they do have a few live service games in the bunch too, but outside of that, what they were going for is something I really wanted to see succeed. The big publishers stopped making a lot of types of games that they used to make as they honed in on a select few money makers, and Embracer was picking up old, discarded, forgotten properties or subgenres and trying to show that there can still be a market for those. The fact that the bet has failed could be up to their execution, since as Keighley reminded us at SGF, customers do in fact respond when the right games show up outside of those AAA publishers, and Embracer had a vision. They pursued that vision irresponsibly.
That was a really excellent write up, thank you for elaborating. It’s helpful to know the truth of how these companies are acting, and important for consumers to try not to forget. They will continue to take advantage, if we allow it.
Embracer, functionally speaking, have zero understanding of how game dev works. The whole thing is just a massive investment fund. Basically a bunch of rich assholes who bought up every small developer they could get their hands on and then tried to MBA all the numbers up by cutting headcounts and doing other useless metrics driven bullshit. Then when this failed to produce meteoric returns on investment they all went surprised pikachu face.
I’m curious to see how the combat mechanics will be accepted. Reads like Mass Effect in a high fantasy setting. Could be cool, but at the same time, Dragon Age fans will come to expect something more strategic.
My impression from the trailer was that the combat lacks any weight. The player character floated all over, the attacks looked like they didn’t even make contact, and the enemies seemed to be on the spongy side. That makes it look and feel bland. If that is the case the reaction won’t be great even from players who like action games.
And yeah, I think making this the first Dragon Age game after so long is a mistake. People will expect a game that follows on with same or similar gameplay. This feels like a spin-off game. That’s not inherently bad, but you do want mainline games to also release to keep the main fan base happy. Right now it’ll just be judged compared to mainline expectations and will obviously not meet most of those.
With all the news coming out the past couple days about The Veilguard, I’m starting to piece together a suspicion that Bioware is picking things back up where they last had decent ideas: early to mid 2010s.
I think Veilguard will feel like a stuck-in-time successor to Inquisition, stale by that period’s standards and grossly outdated by today’s, especially in the wake of Larian’s enormous success reinvigorating the kind of game Bioware has forgotten how to make.
I’ve been a fan of Dragon Age since Origins and this game looks like another step towards the kind of simplified gameplay that every game has made. It’s disappointing that the series has gone from an RPG to a generic 3rd person action adventure game, but given the gradual evolution of the other games it’s not really surprising.
kind of game Bioware has forgotten how to make.
Such a nice way to sum it up. You would think that the success of Baldur’s Gate 3 would show publishers that there is a (large) market for actual RPGs, but that’s maybe too much to hope for.
That is what their marketing wants you to think, the reality is going to be its just another soulless shallow designed-by-committee AAA rpg. Nothing ive seen so much has led me to believe otherwise and they have quite a streak of bad games to break.
The most agonizing debate is one you agree with, but not nearly to the extreme degree of the position you’re responding to.
There are some nuts out there that literally only buy a certain gun because “it’s in Call of Duty and it’s cool.” Worse, this demographic are not likely to be responsible gun owners - they are not buying for any perceived need. They don’t lock their guns correctly, or keep ammo separate. Those guns are the type most likely to be stolen for use in a mass shooting (or used by their owners). Arguably, those guns are designed to appeal to this exact crowd, not serve as a functional tool or hobby item.
That said, there are much better targets for gun legislation than “scary looking black guns” or Call of Duty’s choice of theme.
some of y’all definitely aren’t reading the article. this isn’t a “video games cause violence” thing. they are suing Activision and the gun manufacturer Daniel Defense for marketing a specific model of gun in Call of Duty, and maybe? that the Uvalde shooter used that same model of gun in the shooting. i dunno if there’s merit to the argument, but like, categorically, this isn’t the “video games cause violence” argument y’all seem to think it is. its about a gun manufacturer advertising their product in a video game.
So I did read the article, and… I’m not understanding a word you are saying. The families are suing a video game company for a gun in their video game. Also the article is not at all making the emphasis that you are making between marketing a specific game and video games writ large (the article kind of speaks to both of those at the same time and isn’t making any such distinction), so I don’t know what you are talking about. As far as the article is concerned this has everything to do with the fact that the gun was in a video game, and even Activisions statement in response was to defend themselves from the idea that their video game is a thing that pushing people to violence. So even Activision understands the lawsuit as tying their video game to violence.
I’m not saying I agree with the logic of the suit, but I literally have no idea what you think in the article separates out video games from the particular model of gun because that is just not a thing the article does at all.
that makes two of us, i guess? i don’t know what it is you’re trying to say i was saying. to be more clear, i’ve been seeing a lot of talk in this thread arguing against the “video games cause violence” claim, as if that was what the lawsuit was about. i don’t think the contents of the article present the families’ lawsuit as primarily concerning that particular claim. i then attempted to describe what i believe their actual claim to be.
i’ve emphasized the words i think are relevant here:
These new lawsuits, one filed in California and the other in Texas, turn attention to the marketing and sale of the rifle used by the shooter. The California suit claims that 2021’s Call of Duty: Modern Warfare featured the weapon, a Daniel Defense M4 V7, on a splash screen, and that playing the game led the teenager to research and then later purchase the gun hours after his 18th birthday.
that Call of Duty’s simulation of recognizable guns makes Activision “the most prolific and effective marketer of assault weapons in the United States.”
the fact that Activision and Meta are framing this as an extension of the “video games cause violence” thing is certainly what they’ve decided to do, but it seems to be talking past what the complaint and lawsuit are about, which is the marketing of a Daniel Defense M4 V7 in 2021’s Call of Duty: Modern Warfare.
the reason i emphasized the gun model is that that seems, to me, to be the core feature of the case the families are trying to make. not that video games cause violence, but that Activision bears responsibility for the actions of the shooter because the shooter played their game, then proceeded to kill people with the specific model of gun that was being advertised in that game. the fact that the article takes the time to reference another case where the specific naming of a gun model lead to a sizable settlement, and says this
The notion that a game maker might be held liable for irresponsibly marketing a weapon, however, seems to be a new angle.
seems to support my reading. that isn’t the same thing as saying video games make you violent, which is the claim a bunch of people in this thread seem to be shadowboxing.
i dunno, maybe there’s some ambiguity there? are you arguing that the lawsuit is about rehashing the video games make you violent claim, or what? i genuinely don’t know what you’re trying to communicate to me. i hope this clarified my stance.
It's still not a convincing one though. If it wasn't this weapon used, it would have been another, regardless of where the perp first saw it. I'm not a fan of Activision, but this isn't on them.
So I’m not a fan of guns but, “marketing guns” is not per se illegal nor unique to video games. Yet the lawsuit separates out video games specifically. So I am not sure I agree that it’s less crazy at the end of the day.
If and only If this law suit leads to the banning of advertisements across all media, I’d be 100% for it. But that isn’t the purpose, it’s purpose is a cash grab for a law firm.
Gun makers in the USA cozying up to government law makers to keep gun laws loose especially with respect to export and control is the force driving gun violence in the USA. Follow the $$$.
gamedeveloper.com
Najnowsze