What if you only bought the expansions that speak to you though? I don't need the content creator pack or the K pop radio station, but I did want Green Cities and Mass Transit, for instance.
I'd rather that basics be part of the game from the start. Mass transit should have been there to begin with. Looking at a lot of these dlc it seems like they should've been there by default.
So then what if you waited until it had all of the features that you consider necessary and then buy those on a sale? You're a far cry from $2k spent in either case.
I shouldn't have to spend anything extra for basics. It should be there already. So I'll just not pay anything and pirate it if their monetization scheme is going to be this fucked.
Who determines what's a basic and what's expanded content then? You know what's in it when it comes out, and you can buy it at that price or not. If they do extra work, it makes sense to sell it as an add-on. If you were happy with it before they added night clubs or weather features, were they really that essential to be included in the base package? If you weren't happy with it before they added those things, wait until they add those things. They sell a good product at a fair price, and they're forthcoming about what's in it. They don't try to keep you hooked with weird psychological tricks or gambling mechanics. Nothing about this is fucked.
I used to be perfectly happy with Paradox's "slew of DLC" business model... until they raised their prices.
Before that, I would buy everything as soon as it dropped. No biggie. Now I only buy DLC when it eventually gets those deep discount sales. I'm open to their experimental "subscription" & "seasonal bundle" models, though... so long as they include everything and they don't get cute with exclusions.
Just because the DLC exists doesn’t mean you need it. I bought the original Cities Skylines, haven’t bought any DLC, but still had a great time. It looks like this time around they’ll also include more features from DLC into the base game. Evaluate the game based on what it is. Is it worth the money? Then buy it. Is it not worth the money, then don’t.
But the real-life problems aren't unsolved because there are not solutions. It's just that the meaningful player base is wildly toxic and spends the entire time griefing rather than trying to build or progress.
Yeah, the lack of transparency in the Pay-to-win game mechanics is annoying as heck. It’s frustrating to be lectured on F2P deck building strategies by someone who is P2P and pretending to be F2P (And that’s ignoring the contradictory advice of “Break out of the meta and do something new” and “Don’t spend your resources frivolously and don’t do anything too outlandish, stick with the established strategies”).
The P2P playerbase are functionally playing an entirely different game, and whilst I am fairly sure that game is still grindy and difficult in its own ways (I’ve noticed that P2P players are often so OP that they only engage with the co-op mechanics superficially, if at all. That makes me sad because the only reason I’ve stuck playing this game is how incredible the co-op multiplayer is and as salty as I am about P2P advantages being OP, I want everyone to experience the parts of this game that I have truly loved).
This is why solving the real life problems stalls so much, because “progress” literally means something different across different chunks of players. It’s why griefers sometimes say “I don’t know why you’re getting angry, I’m literally just playing the game”. That used to make me rage, but I’ve realised they’re not lying, they’re just playing a different game. Now I’m just sad that I have to spend so much energy trying to keep them out of my game if I want to make any progress
That's a big reason a could never get into City Skylines, I have 0 interest in managing roadways, and I feel like that's 90% of what that game is. Now they're going to throw even more micromanaging on top of that, I don't think I'll be looking to get this one.
And many people feel the precise opposite, the whole point of the game is to micromanage
To me this new game makes the first one feel like a prototype, i’m so much more interested now that there’s actual sensible simulation of things and people don’t pull a car out of their ass or merrily walk 30km to work
For me, CS1 shows how difficult it is to build effective roads. I solved traffic on my map with an extensive, fast and direct public transit network, and well-connected bike paths along the same alignment for those who don’t want to pay. For roads specifically, timed&sensor traffic lights (TMPE mod) and one way systems in built up areas work well too from what I’ve seen.
I am a little scared of the extra management they’ve popped in to CS2 but I’m hopeful they’ll get the balance right
Come on, it's a hand held, have they manged to squeeze a gpu the size of a ps5 into a Switch? And how do they cool it? Bullshit.
Also, Nintendo hardware has always been, by choice or not, at least a generation behind Sony and Microsoft, I really don't see them changing that any time soon.
I'm hoping (more than likely in vain) that we can have the opportunity to do some of the wackier stuff seen in SimCity: Societies. By that, I mean I would love to craft an authoritarian police state, a beautiful pagoda-filled village or a Disney-esque paradise town.
SimCity: Societies was very bad in a lot of aspects (game froze all the time, roads were awful and it was massively unbalanced) but I'd be lying if I said I didn't miss it at all when it comes to city building. I just wanna make clown schools and have a bunch of free-roaming clowns, damnit.
I don’t really understand this. It’s like streaming PS5 games but exclusively from a PS5? If you’re internet is good enough for streaming, why wouldn’t you just download? Seems like such a niche thing. Always better to have the option than not, just seems like a strange addition.
It’s running Android and they don’t have a streaming app for Android. I guess they could make an exclusive app for it, but seems like a lot of work for a super tiny audience.
I guess it enables quick game demos? If a mildly interesting game is 80 GB, or the devs want to let people try it before they buy it but don’t want to code a demo, there’s a few options there.
Still, you’re right, not a big use case. Xbox has an advantage due to controller simplicity. I’m pretty sure you can play Game Pass games using a DualShock, even on a web browser.
Never never really was the best in graphical quality. But if the DLSS 3.5 part is real. It can definitely be way better than the Switch is now and more likely on par with Series S
gamerkick.com
Ważne