I didn’t even buy Borderlands 3 for $60 and there’s no way in hell I’d pay $80 for something similar. I spent the full price of Baldur’s Gate 3 for myself and two of my friends for a total of $180. Make the game worth it and you have my money. If the development cost of games has gone up then prove it and make better games.
It and it’s DLC sold just fine because BL3 is miles above BL2 in gameplay (though yes it’s story and voice acting are painful, 2 hasn’t aged as well as many of us might remember it did in that regard, either)
Tbh I expect the same thing for this one: better gameplay, worse writing
Having seen the tonal shift in the gameplay preview I’d actually expect better writing, or at least more bearable writing. Gameplay looked more fine tuned but mostly the same as 3.
the thing while yes, inflation will make things more expensive, the more expensive things become the less folks will just spend on random entertainment. they will have to use their money more deliberately and frugally.
and the problem with games are that there are many free and cheaper alternatives. if you wanna game you can just spend less and still game and have fun.
if you wanna go to the cinema it pretty much costs what it costs so you might go less often or buy less popcorn but you won’t skip one movie because it’s more expensive than another.
you can just skip full price AAA games. buy them on sales, play games you already have, play free to play games, emulate retro games, play indie games.
I have a PSN account. Have been playing almost exclusively console for years up until recently. On PC now and I’d honestly rather to never have to use that damn account again. I don’t trust them. They screwed me over so many times with my PS+ stuff, charging it or not charging it whenever the hell they wanted. Nevermind the leaks Sony. Pass. The argument of multiplayer games I can kinda sorta see when everyone and their mother has an account but not when it’s a single player game.
Speaking of, if anyone wants to buy a Playstation account with 267 games for like $200 then I’d be more than happy to hand it over. I like food, my cat likes food, and don’t I give a shit about Sony
Anything that emulates something else is an emulator. That something else could be hardware, or runtime behavior, or services, or a combination thereof. (It could even be a turtle, although we’re talking about computers in this case.)
Wine is an interesting example despite that silly backronym that was abandoned years ago, or perhaps because of it. It not only translates system and API calls, but also provides Windows work-alike services and copies Windows runtime behavior, including undocumented behavior. If it were just an API wrapper or “translation layer”, a lot of its functionality wouldn’t work.
The shape of a business envelope might not be an equilateral rectangle, but it is still a rectangle.
But go ahead and believe what you want. I’m not looking for an argument.
You worded it incorrectly. It should be any single player game that requires online to start to game should be fined. They can have multiplayer option. But single player should be able to be played even offline.
As much as I like C:S, the thought of getting a relatively barebones game with $200 in DLC over the next 5-7 years to make the city feel complete makes me feel depressed.
That was the bummer in the original game. Only two ways to deal with trash, unless you bought $30 of DLC. I’ll be waiting to see if the game is good or not, or if they totally gimped certain parts of the game like bridges, ports and transit to resell back as a la carte DLC.
I don’t understand this attitude that the new game needs to include the DLC of the old one that’s never been a thing in games. New versions of an old game never previously included the DLC for the old game apart from anything else because it wouldn’t make sense because they’ve changed so many systems.
I think the difference now is that DLC adds features, and so people are upset when the new game is missing features from the old DLC. Where in the past, say with Oblivion or Skyrim, it was just more story, maybe some new skills, in one case there was a new feature (house building) and their newer games do include that feature. But people don’t expect the story line from the DLC in the new game.
Features in DLC feel different these days. In the past DLC had a more limited scope, and you looked forward to the new game for new features. But now if the new game comes out with less features it can be a bummer for people used to the old game. There isn’t really a great solution because I don’t think it always makes sense to add all the DLC features in the new game.
Skyrim’s launch was less impressive than it’s eternal longevity. Released on 11.11.11 and ported to everything but a Texas Instrument’s calculator. (Wouldn’t be surprised if that’s been done too, mods included)
I’m still holding to it, but I agree, it’s getting harder and harder to find stuff on sale for less than $5. Especially if you’ve been on Steam for a long time and have a large library already.
You don’t need to get just new games. Do what a ton of people do: wait till they’re on sale. There is literally no hurry, wait till any game reaches the price point you think its worth. And then you get the best possible version of the game, both in terms of patches, most of the time with DLC included and the modding community has had time to make stuff (if that’s relevant).
gta2 is still my favourite of the series. the first game was so damn janky that i could barely play it but the second one is smooth as butter, and with the artstyle they chose it looks really unique.
You know a game is good when you log many hours playing the demo.
I found a crack online that removed the two minute time -limit and just explored the map. GTA2’s demo has zero mission, it’s just the entire first map with a number of things missing or changed. Still a lot of fun to just cruise around and blow stuff up.
gamesradar.com
Ważne