Yeah, and they had so much DLC that was not even always bad value for money… but you need to have a hell of a proposition for people to leave that investment behind.
It’s going to be more convenient and economical just streaming games and renting them forever and then upping the subscription rates and making them exclusive to game stream platforms.
In cost of the game itself for sure, but then you’d have costlier price in the disc too.
With the discs the scratches and storage were a bitch of a problem and later games even needed internet connection to activate games running on disc. It had pros but wasn’t all rosy either.
Part of why Sony nowadays is a game company with a movie hobby is that discs were dirrrt cheap compared to cartridges. They’d fund any stupid bullshit people wanted to make, get finished cases on shelves, and know whether consumers loved it, before N64 developers had finished negotiating a production run. Their cost per disc was measured in cents and their manufacturing turnaround was measured in days. One of the slowest and riskiest aspects of game publishing suddenly cost next to nothing.
Digital distribution isn’t necessarily cheaper per-gigabyte… but there’s no mastering. There’s no lead time. There’s not even the concept of a production run, anymore. Developers can ship whatever they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want, essentially for free.
Or, you know, Unreal if you are after making a 3D game. Between that and Godot, I wonder if Unity is just slowly strangling themselves to death? They don’t have much to offer. Perhaps most of what they have is existing tutorials, community and general knowledge of the engine, but if you piss off those people and/or they have to learn something else because you make it harder for them to profit, that could disappear fast.
I thought the standards people were talking about were the exceptional treatment the players received (Larian provided a full game experience. This is no abusive DLC scheme, no predatory microtransactions and way more polished than the average AAA game experience)
It turns out all the fuss was about the game size?
I think it was about all of the above. The actual quote is about the game size, but not all the way. He says that smaller studios may not have the resources to do what they did by having a multi-year early access period. Remember, they have to pay people that whole time without getting much money from the product. Also, he points out that larger studios such as the one making Starfield should have the resources to do what they did and more.
The size of Baldur's Gate 3 isn't the standard I want it to set anyway. I just want RPGs to be that deep with that level of production value. I finished Act 1 in the time it took me to finish all of Mass Effect 1, and I can't believe I've still got two thirds of the game left. This game is the entire Mass Effect trilogy in one game, but Mass Effect didn't give me a ton of ideas for different ways to play the game I just finished. You can play a Shepard who kills more with powers than with guns or more with guns than with powers, but it's nothing like this.
Also, here's the other standard. The game has multiplayer, but it's not a horde mode. It's not a live service hero shooter. It's just co-op; the video game version of playing tabletop with your friends. It's got LAN mode and direct IP connection. It's available DRM-free. It supports controllers and mouse/keyboard really well. Other than that weird Larian launcher that you can disable easily enough, this game is doing everything I need it to do from a software perspective and to stand the test of time in a world where live services inevitably keep dying.
Something I’d really like a group to be brave enough to address is the fallacy that “DEI” or “Diversity” initiatives stand in direct opposition to games featuring “Adult” or “Sexy” content, or that they encourage censorship.
We’ve had a wave of pretty bad games from AAA spaces recently, many of which have been uninteresting to anyone. Some people sadly latch onto these themes, and the fact that some of these developers promoted diverse spaces, to suggest that it’s a deliberate worsening of the media space.
In fact, tons of indie devs, as well as LGBT game devs, specifically hope to make adult content. They can suggest new ways of making characters attractive in ways that can still be inclusive; those devs even get harmed by censorship actions. Yet so much of the male-isolated booby-go-boing crowd has been cowed into a simple understanding of battle lines, wherein everything related to diversity and fairness stands against their fetishized hobby.
There’s this weird thing where the censorship of sexual content comes from the right and the gamers who are mad that they don’t get enough sexual content are on the right and blaming the left. Meanwhile the left generally comes to the position that sexual content is totally fine, but should ideally be humanizing rather than objectifying and should include diversity as well as less sexual options being available.
Like, both sides have a prude faction and a slut faction, but on the left our prudes generally have little say over policy demands so long as our sluts display some self control and act respectfully. The right does the inverse and lets its sluts be as boorish of pigs as they want, but the prudes decide what the rules are. As a slut, the left is a far better deal
I don’t really see the problem with sexualization in video games. Of course it shouldn’t be in every video game, but if the creator wants his characters to look a specific way then so what? If you don’t like it don’t play it, not every game is for everyone, in fact there’s a quote I’m forgetting but it’s something along the lines of “a game for everyone is a game for no one.” There’s obviously exceptions to this, like you can go too far, but generally speaking, if you’re upset that there’s an unrealistically attractive male or female in a game, respectfully, go fuck yourself. There’s millions of video games that you can also enjoy without your weird preconceived notions that video game characters need to be as attractive or less attractive than you personally are. Video games are a fantasy for a reason. This of course also doesn’t mean that you can’t have “realistic” looking people in video games, it’s just that you shouldn’t be restricted to only that, get some massive bodonhonkaroos in there, give that guy a massive bulge and a 18 pack, who fucking cares it’s a video game.
As long as people are able to stay civil, I’m definitely happy to dive into this subject, because it interests me a lot and I’m eager to see if anyone feels they learn something from it.
if the creator wants his characters to look a specific way then so what?
Valid sentiment, but it gets weird when “the creator” is not just one auteur, but a big network of interconnected developers. One may “really want a hot springs scene with detailed looks at the female lead’s boobs”, while much of the rest of the devs are uncomfortable with it, think it will hurt narrative pacing, or even think it could hurt sales.
I do think it’s hard to argue that sex un-sells, but there’s at least some slight data to suggest it. Two games come to mind. One is Xenoblade Chronicles 2, the other is Nier Automata. Both games sold well and had dedicated fans - but both also had a decently large number of players that saw what they viewed as “cringey anime hornbait” and decided to ignore it - even if the game would’ve readily contained other features they might have enjoyed - intricate JRPG mechanics and DMC combat. I don’t even view that audience as “prude” - they just generally held the sentiment that the sexiness was so out of place, it was distracting from the core themes of those games. In N:A’s case, it was a much smaller minority, but you could see in Xenoblade Chronicles 3 it kind of toned sexualization back.
if you’re upset that there’s an unrealistically attractive male or female in a game, respectfully, go fuck yourself. There’s millions of video games that you can also enjoy without your weird preconceived notions that video game characters need to be as attractive or less attractive than you personally are. Video games are a fantasy for a reason.
THIS, I think, is the biggest misconception. Although this is hard to cite with data, I feel reasonably confident in positing a theorem: Aside from an absolutely tiny, vanishingly small base, many of whom don’t even play games, I don’t think anyone * is upset at game characters being “too attractive”*. I watch quite a few female streamers, and by and large, they’re happy and eager to play games with gorgeous women in them. On many occasions, they don’t even care too much about sexualized outfits.
Where I think there’s the most silent sensitivity, and perhaps game publishers haven’t quite parsed this thought, is in objectification. captainlezbian kind of covered the thought - how sex should be humanizing and treat the sexy characters as people, with agency. When an attractive character is an “award”, or never speaks, or their decisions/actions have no effect on any story events, that can go from losing people’s attention to even making them feel uncomfortable - like their gender is “not allowed” in the medium.
Dead or Alive: Sexy, not always quite objectifying. The large-breasted characters range from master assassins on missions, to secret weapon projects, to girlboss CEOs bent on world control.
Bayonetta: Quite the opposite of objectifying. Bayonetta’s domineering personality, even when she’s stripping nude, evokes control over the characters and space around her.
Xenoblade Chronicles 2: VERY objectifying - would be even if Pyra had smaller breasts. Pyra is cute, but she’s incredibly subservient, and basically relies on Rex, the male lead, to take charge as leader and protect her. She’s constantly oblivious to the more pervy characters in the cast. A lot of classic anime at least skirted the latter issue by having female leads highly aware, and beat up the lechers near them (even if the viewer benefited from their exploits). I don’t mind saying this was too much for even me. Again: Agency.
get some massive bodonhonkaroos in there, give that guy a massive bulge and a 18 pack, who fucking cares it’s a video game.
I think where this can get confusing is that, by and large, women aren’t quite seeking the same overtly excessive appearances in games as men. If you want some examples, search on Steam for what “Otome” games look like, and picture your male leads in a superhero game looking like that - complete with open button shirts and pensive, slightly-girly attitudes. Uncomfortable? Yeah - that shows what you said, about how not everything will appeal to everyone.
We’re lucky in that women generally are not sorely offended by women in games having breasts (Le Gasp!) but there’s neat ways of making them attractive for all players that don’t instantly produce an “ICK” from a sizable number of players.
The real silver bullet I’ve seen is customization, which is often a win-win. I often point to Stellar Blade as a good example; the default outfit for Eve fits the sci-fi fantasy very well. Then, you unlock a LOT of extremely sexualized, even objectifying, outfits, as well as other “cute, functional” outfits. I don’t mind saying I dived into the former, while many people less interested in sexualization enjoyed the latter. Generally, all parties involved appreciate Eve’s attractive figure and long hair.
gamedeveloper.com
Ważne