As far as the ethics of it, whatever, there are games where you can do worse. I just think it’s annoying that the devs went this far out of their way to cynically controversy-bait up attention for themselves. There was no need for this - it adds nothing to the gameplay beyond shock value.
Doesn't come out of nowhere to my knowledge. It is quite anticipated game by many, as it was shown with trailers before on big shows. Everyone was wondering what kind of game this will be and everyone just knew it as "Pokemon with guns" where you can catch and slave other Pokemon like creatures. I'm actually surprised that so many didn't heard of the game before.
When your console is highly compatible between generations, such as x86/amd64 … maybe should just sale ‘the game’ and give users access to the older console version, and the version with any enhanced features only accessible on the newer console.
The last Pokemon game I played was Y. It was largely the same game as Blue and Gold. This expands on the concept in fun, crazy ways, and it's got me intrigued.
The creature designs are similar to Pokémon but that's where it begins and ends. Palworld is a survival sandbox with creature collecting, it doesn't even have turn-based battles. It's far more similar to Ark or Rust than Pokémon.
If anyone wanted a game that "is but isn't Pokémon" they should look into TemTem or Cassette Beasts.
Different degrees of shaking up the formula. This is Pokemon-but-survival, and I've got another game in my backlog already that's Pokemon-but-metroidvania.
Yeah, but I would say that already makes it more markedly different, even compared to, say, Monster Hunter Stories. Sure, there's cutesy creatures which gives it some similar aesthetics but the gameplay experience is not even remotely similar.
Compared to Lies of P which looks and plays like Bloodborne, it's not really that close.
Heh, maybe I'm splitting hairs, but if you want a game "like Pokemon", they've been making exactly that game for 30 years, but there's only a handful of games in the ballpark of Bloodborne. If you want the fantasy of roaming a world, catching creatures, and battling with them, there are lots of ways to skin that cat that GameFreak and Nintendo haven't been doing that aren't at odds with preserving those core pieces. Likewise, I don't enjoy Monster Hunter, but some of its core pieces are present in the likes of Horizon and Mercenary Kings, and I love those games for taking the high level parts of Monster Hunter that do work for me.
I get it, but part of my point is that there are games that are very much like Pokémon for someone who wants 90% of that with a little bit of a different twist. Meanwhile I'm seeing some people looking into Palworld and going "Wait is this Minecraft? I wanted Pokémon with guns."
To be fair, those were so simple that they were barely a challenge when I was 9 years old. When I played Y as an adult, they probably wouldn't have even felt like puzzles.
Maybe treating these console generations as though they're somehow super different is more trouble than it's worth. Meanwhile, PC games I bought 20 years ago can easily be run on new hardware at higher frame rates and resolutions than when I bought them.
It’s 100% moral to pirate Ubisoft games. I exclusively play Anno, since 2070 I DON’T pirate them.
I love the series, but I’d be happy if Ubisoft went belly-up tomorrow and never saw another game in the series. It’s a fair exchange to see a bloated, rotting corpse of a monster finally die.
Ubisoft Exec Says Gamers Need to Get ‘Comfortable’ Not Owning Their Games for Subscriptions to Take Off
I’m already comfortable not owning any Ubisoft games.
Seriously, I will be quite happy missing a game or franchise if there’s a lack of physical media in their lineup of releases. I know it doesn’t make sense for every game, but if it’s to push me towards a subscription service, then I’m just not going to be a customer.
I don’t know why everyone is so angry at this comment. The question was about what will it take for subscriptions to increase and become dominant in industry, the guy answered that. The interview was with the guy about Ubisoft’s subscription service, what else people expected?
If anyone talks to the guy in-charge of Gamepass, and they ask them how will gamepass increase, they wont’ say, well, if everyone keeps buying physical, that will be great for us.
I think the Ubisoft guy is pushing for subscriptions when a lot of people are not keen. See any of the recent articles about NatGeo pulling videos from Sony, etc etc.
As gamers grow comfortable in that aspect… you don’t lose your progress. If you resume your game at another time, your progress file is still there. That’s not been deleted. You don’t lose what you’ve built in the game or your engagement with the game. So it’s about feeling comfortable with not owning your game.
First of all, not here to defend Ubisoft, I completely agree about not trusting them to do what’s good for gamers.
So, my point was, everything said in this interview, is pretty much same thing you will hear from any “head of subscription” of any company. I think MS is currently the most aggressive one, with their Gamepass. Keep in mind this interview is specifically about their subscription service, and the changes they made it isn’t about anything else. Sony is currently (or well last I read about it) most defensive with subscription, often talking about how it’s bad for the industry, but if you ask whoever is incharge of PS+, and ask them, what needs to happen before subscription will really take off, he would probably say the same thing.
As for closing down of online servers, it’s always sad when that happens. That’s a valid reason to blame a company, but pretty much all companies do that. As a patient gamer, I don’t even remember how many times I have come across a game where I would find out you can’t get all trophies because online servers have shut down. So, all companies should be blamed for this.
Once again Ubisoft is desperate to make money and tries to push a narrative that won’t fulfill. At least no thanks to their effort or innovation. Remember when their leadership claimed that Steam was not a sustainable platform to sell games on because they wanted players to use their garbage UPlay launcher? Well, now Ubisoft games are available on Steam once again because no one cares about UPlay.
I tried to pick up Rayman Legends when it was I’d cheap over Christmas. I ran the game from Steam was greeted with the UPlay launcher asking me to make an account to access my game, and immediately closed and refunded the title.
That’s not exactly what he said. Also, he’s being a little bitch bc Ubisoft+ is a dumpster fire compared to game pass. Finally, the way you say a thing is important. It reveals, character, motivation, etc of the person saying it.
ign.com
Najnowsze