Eh. That’s not a big of a loss as you’re making it out to be. I purposely buy my games, I want to own them. (Asterisk with licensing and all). Point being that I don’t agree with Ubisoft that we need to get used to Games as a Service. I don’t want to rent my games. Even mid tier games, I want to own them.
and if they let me buy it license free I would. However between the options of buying a license to play a game whenever I want vs renting it for 1 month, I’ll take the license.
Apparently the press event also had massive network issues. Iron Pineapple briefly touched on it while giving their take on the game and going over footage. Which immediately explained “weirdness” in Vaati et al’s coverage.
Not overly worried. From are shockingly okay with netcode these days and the big lift is less “get four players into the same session” and more “let players be spread across multiple areas in the same session”.
That said… I was already struggling to put the effort in to figure out if I need PS+ for the network test and… I got a long weekend and an Obsidian CRPG.
It is of course better that Elden Ring Nightreign suffers server issues now than when it launches in May, but players who had earmarked time to try out the game now have expressed their frustration. Hopefully subsequent play sessions will run more smoothly.
This is a little sad. Both SM1 and MM were great on release day for me. Got the right when they came out and they both lead with great reviews out of the box.
Hopefully this is something they can fix pretty quickly. I want to play as a Symbiote, dammit!
at least in the realm of video games AAA only refers to funding, not quality. in fact it’s pretty consistently shit because terrible business practices almost inevitably result in late and premature releases because they have to meet arbitrary deadlines and believe they can always fix things later. to be fair the community is pretty idiotic and they consistently reward this behavior so they have nothing to lose in most cases.
It didn’t refer to funding. It’s marketing only. If you ask 100 what does AAA in video games, you’ll get a wide breadth off answers, because it’s not a real term, but it sounds good and people will make up their own definition or repeat one they heard.
Legend of Zelda and other big name NES titles were $60 USD back in the mid to late 80s. That’s over $170 today. Average NES games were $40 back then, which is still around $115 today. Discounted $20-$25 games are closer to today’s $60-$70 standard edition titles.
Yes, they were cartridges with chips back then, but prices are a lot better now for a game. Today’s $100+ games are for the ultra/deluxe editions.
That said, I usually don’t buy games at launch unless it’s something from like Rockstar.
A direct inflation conversion like that is not invalid, but it lacks a lot of context. Games might have been more expensive back then, but everything else was orders of magnitude cheaper. People were buying homes and starting families as young adults back then. Now many in that bracket live check-to-check and struggle to put food on the table. It stings a lot more.
also to clarify: I was using Canadian dollars. Major releases are around one hundred bucks here when adding tax, give or take a little.
Now do factor in the growth of the market and also the price to produce a physical copy and digital, the market share between physical copy, and also the bonus the CEO get each year.
ign.com
Aktywne