Right now I’m mainly playing Starfield, have started Alan Wake remastered and only quickly tested Forza Motorsport.
Before Starfield came out I played through some of the Game Pass Library: AC Origins, A short Hike, Bramble, Quake II, Lego Starwars, Lego City Undercover, Planet of Lana, Tunic, lots of Witcher 3, A Plague Tale Requiem, High on Life, Starwars Jedi Fallen Order and many more.
So basically a both xbox games (Starfield & Forza) and a bunch of old, multiplat and indie games.
Not really a good reason to get an xbox over a PS5 which has a string of amazing exclusives. Let alone the fact that there is no VR support on xbox (why even bother releasing a racing game without VR in 2023?).
Ben Starr deserved his Best Lead Performer win. His performance as Clive Rosfield in FFXVI is one of the best I’ve ever heard. The game also won Best Audio, which is also well-deserved in my opinion. Game of the Year was obivous, but I don’t think Resi 4 Remake should have gotten the PS GOTY. Starfield as Xbox GOTY seems controversial, but I’m fine with it.
The game released on the 19th September, Nominated games had to be released before the 29th September. Golden Joysticks voting was from the 3rd to the 20th October, and the premium DLC that made everyone angry was confirmed on the 24th and then released on the 27th. The timing could absolutely not have fallen more perfectly for MK1.
I’ve been a die hard fan of both Bond and Hitman for a very long time. This game has had my attention since its announcement. I platinumed Hitman 3 in like 2 weeks. Look forward to doing the same as Bond.
The hitman series is fantastic, but I will buy a PC and pirate a cracked version of this if they make online necessary.
I lost a lot of progress when I moved house and bought Hitman 3, couple of weeks waiting for connection and then when I get it it constantly drops the server connection.
This game is likely to be incredible but do not IO do that shite again.
The CEO stated, “We were completely caught off guard by the game’s success, and we did not anticipate the success in the sense that it was never meant to be such a long-term commitment.”
This entire article is just bullshit. Even the title is wrong. It weren’t the devs…it was the ceo.
The CEO represents the company that developed the game. And in this context, dev = the company that developed the game. So yeah, it’s the dev [company] talking about stuff.
Colossal Order was a company of 13 people when Cities Skylines was released. It's not like there is an out of touch CEO somewhere above 7 levels of management who has no clue what's going on with the people actually developing the game.
As rikudou said, in the context of "The dev of X never anticipated this success and it being a long-term project even after release", the dev is the company. And for the company, the CEO is the one who has to have a plan about the success of their projects and the future commitment to old products.
And as I said, in such a small company the CEO is not someone crunching numbers, restructuring departments and having meetings with partners all over the world all day. They are pretty much one of the dev team.
It’s already kinda annoying not to have all the old content but I can see the reasons behind that. But a new game starting from scratch of a genre they are experienced with should have much better performance now that there aren’t all those additional mechanics. Failing at both of these is just an utter disregard to their customers.
Well the game is out and luckily the rumors weren’t true.
With a medium-density city, I get about 40 FPS @ 4K in the sequel. With the same-sized city, I used to get 20 FPS in the original, so twice the FPS is a massive improvement IMO. But people are still salty cause we live in a world where anything less than 60 FPS @ 1440p is unacceptable. Which is stupid as fuck cause you don’t need 240+ FPS in a city-building game with next to no action in it that would require such a high framerate.
Is it that surprising? I feel like nobody else was doing well made, high-profile city management games around that time. SimCity 2013's failure left a time-tested genre without any real big name contenders. Unless they really didn't try, it was a success waiting to happen.
This is the classic problem with all paradox games that I don’t really have a solution for. Like as players we want them to support the game for a long time and keep updating it, but unless that’s through dlcs then they can’t really do that without getting paid somehow. The other alternatives are just not doing any updates and releasing a full new game every couple years which would probably have less features added compared to doing dlcs. Or having a subscription that you pay to get new updates which while I’m personally fine with I know a lot of people aren’t. So that just leaves the current strategy of constantly doing dlcs and every once in a while releasing a new game and bringing over as many dlc features as they can to the new one while not making the development time unreasonable.
They could make games outside newer versions of the same game. Game studios used to (and many still do) make a game, put it out, then get started making a whole different game. Even with the modern ability to update games,
Put game out
Update game to deal with unforeseen bugs found once the masses have access
But they point the comment above is making is that the years of support add a bunch of features that wouldn’t exist otherwise. Sure, they could just not. Why would they do that though if they have a team who knows how to work on a thing and people willing to pay for it.
For example, BG3 exists because the studio continued to make games in the same style in the same engine for a very long time. They became absolute experts in it, and continuously improved their tools and techniques. You don’t get that by constantly making new different games.
To be honest, I’d prefer for them to keep expanding a game I like. That’s what kept me playing SC1 for the past 65 years (or however long it has been since the game has been released).
That’s the FIFA, Madden model… release a game, fix a couple things, improve a thing here and there, pull a new roster in and voilà! This year’s new sports game.
Yeah people don’t seem to be understanding that this is a technical and pragmatic issue, not a business decision.
It’s the “new and improved” problem. If it’s new, it’s not improved. And if it’s improved, it’s not new.
If you want a new, cutting edge game, you aren’t just improving the old game. So the old stuff likely won’t be compatible.
If you want an improvement/extension of the old game, you won’t be getting a shiny new game.
They made the choice to make a shiny new game but they need to try to prevent the inevitable backlash from people being upset that they’re favorite X/Y/Z is missing.
Yeah it’s very different these days. In the past DLC was just content (like extra levels) and people don’t expect that in the new game (maybe more levels than when the first game came out), but now DLC usually adds features as well as levels and people want all the features in the new game too.
You’re saying remake all the DLCs and not have people pay for it I assume. How the hell are they going to afford that? That’s not mentioning they might not want to make identical DLCs, and many of the features from them are included in vanilla now.
When did I say that? I just let you know Paradox aren’t the developers like you seem to think. They still need to keep the lights on though. Honestly, tiny indie devs can afford to do crazy things because there are a lot fewer people on the line who need to get paid. The larger the studio, the more careful they have to be. An indie game can run on passion alone.
I like Paradox DLC policies. Most of them are actually good and add a lot to the game. It also lets them service the game for a long period of time and push free updates along with DLCs.
I really dislike Paradox DLC policies. Most of them are actually really bad and add nothing to the game. It also lets them procrastinate bigger updates and bugfixes for a long period of time and push free updates along with breaking 50% of the mods.
The base game gets updated over a period of what, 10 years? Core gameplay mechanics which don’t work well or at least don’t make the developers happy are tweaked or revamped all the time. I only really play Stellaris, but the changes to the game throughout the years have kept things interesting.
The alternative is… not updating things which they don’t like? Perhaps that means mods never break, but then we’re shifting the onus of fixing the game to a third party, who can decide to quit whenever they want and let their (closed source) code deprecate. I’ve seen that kind of thing in Civ and I wasn’t a fan.
I guess with a studio that has demonstrated a pattern of long-term support for their games, this is what we get.
gamesradar.com
Aktywne