Fortunately, Resident Evil 4 will support universal purchase. That means if you buy the game for your iPhone 15 Pro, but you also own an iPad and/or Mac that is equipped with an M1 chip or newer, you can play across all three of those devices without having to double dip.
Obviously that's a stigma Capcom is trying to break through. Most phones/tablets these days are even more powerful than a Switch, yet people pay $60 for games on the Switch but not on phones?
I'm not disagreeing with you by saying this, but I can imagine Apple sweetening the prospect by adding an AppleTV "Pro" to the ecosystem that will play intensive iPhone games like this with controller support. Tack-on MacOS playability as well and 1 purchase could mean you can play your save no matter where you are, across any platform within the ecosystem. Again, not saying this will happen. Just imagining how it could go.
I think that’s definitely what’s going to happen. The gaming market is going to see some huge disruption in the next few years as companies who didn’t want to bother with the console market can start an ecosystem based around platform agnostic stores/ecosytems.
I can't believe how this guy just keeps opening his mouth and telling us how Starfield used to be fun and interesting, but that they removed all that stuff until all that was left was this sterile Far Cry clone that feels more like a chore than a game.
I'm already mad at how unbearably boring the game is, and the more Todd Howard talks about the development, the more angry I get. It's callously just rubbing salt in an open wound.
I mean personally I wouldn’t want to game like that on my phone, as it will almost certainly kill the battery and I need my phone for… well phone things.
But I don’t really see why it being $60 is at all weird. It’s a $60 AAA game everywhere else too. Same game as it is there.
Edit: and it also unlocks the game on m1 or newer iPads and macOS devices… really not seeing why this is so egregious. It’s $60 on steam too
Yeah honestly the idea that a port should cost less because it’s a worse experience is stupid. As long as effort was put in and the game is still playable and as enjoyable an experience as other platforms whoever made it has any right to charge what they see fit for that platform.
Now should people buy it? Probably not and if it doesn’t run as well you can absolutely raise the argument of it was a pointless cash grab anyways but…
Being upset that a developer wants to get paid for a game no matter what platform they put it on… not a big deal
you gotta take into account that the conceptual design phase has been completely eliminated from the process. And lots of the core logic would've been ported over wholesale. one example you can find is searching about the code in the katamari ports, where there's parts of the code left behind that don't do anything, and point to ps2 libraries that don't exist in Unity.
while there's nothing revealed here on how much is just copy/pasted over, I'm sure they'd be motivated to bring over as much as they can when they were initially estimating the work needed for the project, and then test the hell out of it. A majority of the graphics engine would probably have to be remade if they didn't aim to emulate it, and would be one of the major challenges in a mobile port of a higher-end console/pc game, but the assets/resources would be copied over and no work on that beyond ensuring it looks fine on the target resolution and framerate; maybe even with the use of automated AI upscaling/downscaling to reduce that workload even further. I find it safe to assume a straight port doesn't usually require the same or more amount of work as the original
Yup the switch mortal Kombat 1 port likely used a tool to just downgrade and straight port the game over and this it didn’t actually run particularly well and was a stupid and low effort port… but someone still made that game before that was done.
So if they want to shoot themselves in the foot and cripple their own launch and game with bad performance that’s their own issue and one that is a separate conversation to them charging what they think is appropriate for their brand new game.
that's kinda the crux of my spiel though, what they charge communicates what they believe the work is worth, and they're either saying the previous work is worth less now, or this lesser amount of work is worth more
I agree, they have the right to charge what they want, but what they communicate with the price feels like spitting in the face of their playerbase, which, again, they have the right to do
and yeah, MK1 on switch is rough, and feels like they just ported over as much of the graphics engine as they could, and completely turned off all the fancier effects. Then they downscaled all the assets on top of that to make it super oof
Exactly, people have been buying worse switch ports for higher prices than the PS/XB versions for the portability for years now, phones shouldn’t be different if it’s a playable port optimised for them.
I understand your perspective, but the way I see it, it’s like renting a movie at home versus seeing it in a theater. For some people, the extra money to go to a theater is worth it. I’m not paying $20+ to see a movie once at home though, and especially not to see it on my phone. Discounted price for a discounted experience. If they want to charge $20 for the mobile version, and $40 for MacOS, then I’d be way more likely to try a triple-A game on a phone.
But you get it with no compromises on MacOS, so why would they discount the price there? This is buy once, play "anywhere" (anywhere that's good for Apple). You don't pay less for a game you only play on a Steam Deck either.
Sure, then $20 for the mobile app, and $60 for MacOS (which should include a mobile copy). That would work for me too. I don’t have a Steam Deck, but I for sure would not pay full price for a game just to play on the Steam Deck.
I think the Switch and the Steam Deck have shown that portable games are worth every bit as much as non-portable, but in both of these cases, they output easily to the larger experience at home. I think Apple is providing that too. $60 still makes sense to me, since you're always buying the MacOS version which includes a mobile copy, which you said was acceptable.
What if you don’t have a Mac though, the MacOS copy is going to waste. I think Nintendo games are far too expensive as well. I own some, but I’m not happy with the price of the games (my kids love them though).
It's not a Mac OS copy and an iOS copy any more than I have a Steam Deck copy of a game and a desktop copy of a game. From what I can tell, it's the same thing. Obviously this is beneficial for Apple keeping you in their ecosystem, but this serves the same function. Quite frankly, I'm not sure why you'd have an iPhone if you don't have a Mac, but I know plenty of people do.
I’m not sure why you’d have an iPhone if you don’t have a Mac
iPhones outsell MacBooks something like 10:1. The majority of people with iPhones, if they are playing games not on their phone, are using consoles and/or PC’s.
I guess that depends. A lot of flagship phones are reaching $1k+ these days, and I rely on my phone for a TON of things. I need the support, battery life, and I enjoy the Apple ecosystem (not just my MacBook, but the watch and AirPods too). I’ve found it made sense for me. I guess the value of things really depends on the buyer’s perspective.
Wait, so you do have a Macbook. Maybe it's not M1, but if you enjoy that part of the ecosystem, you'll probably upgrade to one at some point. At which point, that gives you a "Mac copy" of the game too.
Oh, yeah. Sorry if I didn’t mention that. I have an M1 Pro. I still wouldn’t play the game on my MacBook. I have an ultra wide screen and there’s no way my Mac would run the game well. I have a gaming desktop that is much more suitable for desktop gaming.
Heh, honestly, this is the problem with Apple's value proposition when it comes to gaming. You'll see elsewhere in this thread that I don't think Apple has shown they know how to really make a solid gaming offering, and this is a large part of why.
Yeah, the confusion by everyone around this pricing is really counterintuitive.
The product is exactly the same as its console / PC counterpart.
How well it runs on Apple products remains to be seen.
I for sure would not opt for it since I have a high end gaming PC.
Also, especially considering how Apple pulls products from their stores w/o refund…
I do hope that this sells somewhat well and opens the door for more developers to release their games on iOS / Mac.
I still think that Apple could build a proper gaming rig / console, but are in the chicken / egg situation still.
Apple is no doubt considering moving more heavily into the gaming space. They’re looking for more revenue streams to keep feeding the corporate fantasy of perpetual growth, and there are only so many sweat shop laborers they can exploit. Wouldn’t surprise me at all for them to buy a publisher like EA and create some steam competitor (or just leverage the Mac app store).
This is what MS are gearing up to fight with their acquisitions and infrastructure. If you can buy a game on iTunes and it works across your Mac, AppleTV, iPhone, etc, then they need to have the same in the Xbox brand across console, PC, cloud, etc. Sony are only now putting games on PC years late and that business model is looking tired already, multi device is the future.
It’s a compelling proposition, and not one Microsoft can compete with. At least not in the mobile/tablet space. Cloud gaming is all well and good, but native hardware will always be superior. Microsoft is crazy not to be considering a 1st party handheld like the steam deck. Or at least a gaming-centric UI for small screen devices. Even just integrating something like the Xbox UI would be an improvement.
I think they’re banking on the handheld PC market picking up for that. Obviously Steamdeck was a non-starter for native as it uses Linux, but they threw their weight behind the ROG Ally and packaged that with several months of Gamepass.
That’s pretty good. Play anywhere across an ecosystem is always the right move. Sony expecting people to double dip on PS5/PC releases is going to look pretty old pretty soon.
If you’re in the eco-system, the idea that you can play a game on your phone, pick it up on the TV at home, then at your deck on the Mac at the weekend is pretty sweet. I can’t see them making a high end console though, those tend to be money syncs and are going to have smaller audiences as mobile & cloud grow acceptable performance for the mass market. This is why MS are making moves they are. They’ll support the home console for a while as they can’t lose the legacy Xbox audience, but I think sometime next decade they may make Gamepass/Xbox store a multiformat service and phase out dedicated hardware.
Can't help but feel like that was a missed opportunity. Exploration being risky could lead the player to make meaningful choices with meaningful consequences. It certainly seemed to have that effect in Dark Souls (yes I just invoked Dark Souls please don't dogpile me).
I have no problem with someone getting paid for their work. In fact, I encourage people to get paid for their work. But if you decide to sabotage your own product for the sake of attacking people who refuse to pay for it, you just make your product worse for everyone who did pay for it and you do nothing to actually solve the piracy issue. In that case, you’re reaping what you sow.
The modder, PureDark is talking about putting in anti-theft mines into their mods. Exactly like the Mad Max game where you can’t win and it makes it impossibly difficult if you’re playing a cracked copy. Below is the quote from the article, emphasis mine.
PureDark also responded to how quickly the Starfield mod was cracked.
"It was expected since it was something I put together within a day or two, but I did get enough patrons so it’s done its job. So from now on I will place hidden mines in all my mods to make it harder for these people.
Wow a day or two of work and you earn probably 200k+ from it, crazy. Guess he is hurting for cash or he see’s the end of the cash train as other people start making equivalent mods. Or maybe he is afraid of bethesda/nividia/amd coming down on him.
It’s a day of work to implement the DRM, not the mod itself, which he did release day 1 for free on Nexus, only the frame gen version is behind the patreon wall, additionally he’s released many such DLSS+FG mods for various games (which all come with the sub) so he has a lot of experience implementing it and has clearly gotten it down pretty well.
Every game has its own challenges but Starfield was particularly easy (according to him) because of how FSR was implemented
That… is not at all specified what kind of “mine” it would be. You’re assuming it’s innocuous, everyone else is assuming it’s malicious. But we’re all making assumptions.
Which has never happened in the history of forever and I’m sure this will go just fine after he spent a whole two days implementing DRM in the first place.
Sorry, I dont mean to laugh, but where have you been?
The bulk of gamers only care about their instant gratification. If they actually were capable of taking a stand then there’d be a lot less awful companies pulling in billion dollar+ game releases.
That’s hilarious. I can’t believe someone would openly admit to putting malware in a paid mod, I’m surprised anyone actually bought it in the first place.
ign.com
Najnowsze