I’d love to see the process they used when they decided to throw away backward compatibility with PSVR1 software. Surely at least one person on the team said it was a bad idea.
I thought out of all the VR hardware manufactures out there… Sony would be the one who had the best chance to get it right. They’ve got a static SKU of hardware for all software devs to target. They’ve got multiple organizations in every known type of electronic device. Yet here we are on round two of them flubbing the potential.
Sony building walls around its ecosystem is going to be its downfall. If they dropped exclusives and went full on PC it could save them, but anything short of that is going to be bad for them.
Last gen about half of my friends didn’t get the new playstation after owning the PS4.
Typically we have all had consoles and PC’s, but they have finally decided to drop the sony ecosystem. Some of them even bought series-s box with gamepass for their kids… I mean even Microsoft allows crossplay as much as possible, which Sony is reluctant to do.
The other half of my friends with playstation 5’s have said that they are not going forward with the PS6.
Sony is on a death spiral as far as the playstation brand goes. As players switch away, it’s going to speed up the decline as the people left will leave the platform to play with others.
Open up PSVR, make a commitment to crossplay, and stop the exclusives and PlayStation can thrive again and grow, not decline.
I agree that the headset needs to work on pc. That’s what has kept me from buying one and sticking with the rift s currently. But the ps5 game wise is so much better than the Xbox. There’s no reason to buy an Xbox if you have a pc. Sony has quite a few excellent exclusives. They’re starting to come to pc as well which is nice, but they’re still on console first and not everything makes the jump to pc.
Well there are still a decent amount of games that comes out as closed beta before going public so there’s definitely a market for it but reading irdeta anywhere always stings a little
I don’t follow. Some games do come out as irreparable buggy garbage, get terrible reviews, and nobody of sound mind buys them. Other games come out with a genuinely fun product, and as a result of player engagement, the developer decides to add more - and nobody of sound mind is then claiming they “released it half finished”. Meanwhile, early leaks are always buggy because the bugfixing and polish phases come late in development.
So what does any of that have to do with justifying leaking?
The titular arguments about game leaks: that would crush our sales as it shows the version of our product not on par with our quality standards and our vision. When we see how games from Ubi\EA\Beth\etc got released this raw and untested, this argument gets rekt. Digital releases and updates, forever-beta products, raw indies and many other things enabled AAA studios to do the same and get no repercussions, but they’d still bitch if their game is leaked earlier even if they ship undercooked product.
It’s rational to assume if you play leaked pre-release, you have a deficient product on your own terms. Like Diablo 2 remaster that still has LAN play before this P2P solution was killed. It’s on gamers to be that stupid to review-bomb games based on alpha, beta versions. It’s fair if it’s a contemporary comment, but not a final judgement with a youtube title GAMENAME FUCKING FLOPS - MY FIRST UGLY MOMENTS WITH THE GAMENAME. Clickbaity, unfair and tastes like piss.
You expand this conversation to games-as-a-service mode, that is a very different beast. I like seasons and regular updates to a polished games. I dislike games who defacto employed first players as beta-testers who paid money for that.
And I like leaks, not for me being a pirate, but for seeing what’s under the hood and how things changed for my favorite titles like Stalker, the game that has a very weird development cycle and had many traces of feautures devs either couldn’t realise or didn’t have time to do right.
I’m tired of every game being spoiled if you happen to engage with any amount of social media because of leakers. I’m okay with that not happening anymore. You can wait a week.
Yes and no: they were bought by Bayer 5 years ago, so they don’t exist under that name anymore, but I don’t know how much of their worst bullshit they’re still doing under the new name.
For example, I was unable to confirm or rule out whether they’re still doing the suicide crops and food DRM bullshit as Bayer or not…
As a farmer Monsanto has done a lot of sketchy stuff, but I’d like to point out that “terminator crops” actually have a legitimate usage case. There’s few worse weeds than volunteer herbicide-resistant canola, and if it just didn’t come up next year it would be great.
Almost all modern crops are hybrids anyways which don’t breed true. Nobody is saving seed except in very specific cases and even small farmers aren’t even planting bin-run wheat as modern genetics outperform it so greatly.
If you want to save seed there are plenty of open-pollinated varieties out there but unfortunately most of them perform poorly compared to their modern hybrid counterparts, from field crops to garden vegetables.
Being limited by the DnD system makes sense. DOS2 had a lot of cool mechanics not present in BG3. I do hope we see another DnD game from them eventually.
Yeah the DnD mevhanics are weird for me coming from DOS2..
I really miss elements mixing and having to focus on elements in general. And those weird 'Long Rest' things.. kinda annoying for me.
Yeah I felt like DOS2 had really improved on the already good formula that was DOS, and BG3 using the DnD system felt like a big step back. It’s still a great game, but I feel like it is in spite of the DND systems (not the setting), not because of it. DND doesn’t feel suited for the computer, it really fits better on the tabletop.
As someone who’s played their fair share of assorted DnD systems, 5E has a number of issues that really hold it back. For instance, you’re not really supposed to long rest between every fight, but how do you tell players that without a proper DM? It’s a very weak mechanic that’s apparently too iconic to have just axed.
Don’t get me wrong, 5E works better at what it’s supposed to - easily accessible and relatively low math tabletop roleplay. But a computer can do so much more.
Lots of RPGs allow rest cheesing. Even if you don’t let players rest in random locations like BG3 does, the players can always hoof it back to town to rest. Attempts to prevent this kind of cheesing often end up feeling unduly punishing and un-fun. It’s not a tabletop vs computer issue.
D&D 5e is kind of bad system. It’s “good” in that it’s hard to make a bad character, and it’s popular, but that’s most of what it has going for it. It’s missing a lot of rules you’d want for a general purpose RPG. Centering it on rests only works in rather specific kinds of games. The magic system is very bespoke and thus clunky. The dice math if 1d20+stuff gives you a flat probability, which is often unsatisfying.
Pathfinder 2e is widely considered better than 5e in every way, unless you actually specifically want the simple+shallowness of 5e. Which is a fine thing to want, but that is a pretty big trade off. If you were just playing with friends, you’d probably be better off with Fate or maybe a PbtA game if you want simple narrative stuff, or Gloomhaven if you just want a board game.
I find Pathfinder 2e (and D&D 3e before it) way clunkier. Maintaining a level-appropriate power level requires stacking buffs like the Overlord meme, and if you decline to do so, you’re just crippling your character. It’s bad enough that auto-buffing mods are considered mandatory for the Pathfinder CRPGs.
I don’t like of the dices but BG3 sucked my way more in than DOS2 so I how they really manage to combine the best of both in their next game. Let’s hope the expectations don’t get too high.
I think making something on par with BG3 will be incredibly tough. Wouldn’t mind seeing them branch out and try something new again. Larian has done a bunch of different stuff before. A modern take on Ego Draconis would be really cool.
I won’t fight you over that, I think they were good too. I’d love a modern third-person ARPG in the Divinity universe. The “build your own ghoul” mechanic was really fun, and obviously turning into a fucking dragon was epic too.
DOS2 fights felt much more like a slog than BG3. Especially in higher difficulties, every battlefield ended up a nightmarish soup of elemental surfaces, which got old after awhile. I also found whittling down enemy toughness bars un-fun.
Personally, I liked both the BG3 and DOS1 systems better than DOS2.
Well yeah, but the surfaces were DOS2 “thing”. They are present in BG3 too, just not as important to the overall gameplay. It doesn’t reflect badly on any future Divinity games, since they have proven they can use surfaces and have it not be overwhelming.
I actually want them to step away from 5e/DnD in general. I loved DOS2, but I agree with another commenter that the vast swaths of elements made things challenging in a frustrating way at times. Not that that shouldn’t be a tactic to be used, but it definitely was egregious in DOS2.
5E is just… A fuckin mess when it comes to balancing the game - said as a long time DM and player. There are so many things that just irritate the heck out of me with the system that can’t necessarily be balanced with a video game slapped overtop of it. (Not to say Larian didn’t do a good job with what they were given, but still)
That being said, I am a total fanboy of Pathfinder 2e and the way things are balanced there, and I would love love love to see a CRPG under those rules. Especially if it was Larian-levels.
Cancellation like this aren’t always bad. Especially given BG3 as a whole, sometimes it’s good to just ship a complete product, and move onto newer things. They earned a break
Yeah I don’t think so – Sequels are the thing you’re supposed to have I think. Everyone drooling over having subscriptions since MMOs sucks and it really looks like the whole culture of the industry is pretty shitty in a lot of ways
E: I guess expansions can be good so you don’t have to be an EA sports franchise if you’re not changing the engine a bunch. Other than EUIV though, whose expansions are a money grab way to make the game cost 150 bucks, I haven’t ever played DLC I can think of.
Unless the sequel is using way better tech and requires a new engine or massive engine tweaks, a sequel that comes shortly after the original release could be done better, faster and cheaper as an expansion pack.
Other than EUIV though, whose expansions are a money grab way to make the game cost 150 bucks, I haven’t ever played DLC I can think of.
Well there ya go. Paradox DLC is just bullshit. Most of them just add like 1-2 units or characters or factions which mostly boil down to an aesthetic change. Most big games get real additions via DLC that can add up to 50% more game.
The non cosmetic Paradox DLCs fundamentally change the games so if you want to actually play the latest version of the game with all the mechanics you have to get them all. You can get them on steam sale usually for like 50 bucks a couple times a year.
I’m not defending it – It is what colors me most against DLCs.
I still just don’t like the idea of it – Why not do a DLC for movies and paintings and books? It feels wrong to fork a work of art or say “Oh sorry I didn’t actually make it all here’s the other 20%”
Come to think of it – Movie sequels are kind of like that these days where it’s just one story broken up instead of multiple separate stories. I wish we just did 4 hour movies with intermission but I’m sure I’m alone there.
Just a few dlc/expansion packs that were totally worth their money
All Rimworld expansions. Diablo 3 reaper of souls/ D2 lord of destruction The witcher Ballad of gay tony Star craft ones Red alert yuris revenge Horizon zero dawn frozen wilds
Etc… There are good expansions that are totally worth their money and add to the overall game.
That being said, I’m not a huge dlc fan and rarely spend money on them if they don’t really add to the game. More partial to spend on dlc for smaller studio games rather than large ones.
I didn’t even buy the Rimworld DLCs and I have 500+ hours! I did look at them but didn’t buy. Now that DF is graphical I mostly just play that now tbh.
DF is a great example – 15+ years updates no DLCs unless you count the steam release.
In what world is paying 40usd for a game and 3x 30usd for 500h of entertainment not a good deal? (not particularly aimed at you, but at dlc haters in general)
I am glad when they release a dlc. I get more great content. They get some more financial support.
I am 100% against cheap cash grabs. I am 100% pro multiple well made extentions for a game that allow me to support the studio.
They didn’t add all that many units, two per race. But they did have a great impact on the game (mostly).
Also, new campaigns for each race was awesome. The level editor not only brought many fun custom maps (I still think about that weird 300 map I played when I was 16), but ensured longevity of the game until this day by enabling new maps to be played in regular games.
I miss getting all this stuff with a game or expansion too.
Larian is somehow an independent enough to tell Hasbro to go fuck themselves but not independent enough that Hasbro told them to layoff people, and they said ‘okay’.
Larian worked with Hasbro to make BG3. Hasbro lays off people who helped them (from Hasbro). Larian doesn’t have much say about it other than “it sucks dude”.
Nobody at Larion got laid off. Larion worked closely with some people at Wizards of the Coast to make Baldurs Gate 3, and those people got laid off.
Larion could make a game entirely on their own with no involvement with Hasbro or WotC (and they have), but they can’t make anything related to Dungeons and Dragons or the Forgotten Realms without Hasbro and WotC’s cooperation.
I haven’t played in years. Hopped on again when they brought wow classic in just to try it bcz I started around the time of the cataclysm expansion. But once they banned that Hong Kong player from a tournament back in 2019 over the protest crap, I haven’t been back.
I can’t believe the game is still going. The expansions just got worse as time went on. How they’re still churning out content people want to play is beyond me.
It’s definitely still chugging along, although I will point out that the sub numbers now include not only modern WoW players but also Classic players. If the 7 million number is accurate, that’s 7 million across all WoW versions, not just modern WoW.
I have a number of friends and former guildies who went back to play the classic game. I can't say that I wasn't a little tempted because I loved it back then, but I really wish that they would just stop beating this dead horse.
I joined back up for TBC classic. WotLK was my fucking jam so I wanted to prep a little bit. I chose the wrong server. So I was on a server of thousands that could barely manage double digit concurrent horde population. Obviously this is not tenable. Talk of realm transfers and multiple low population servers kept me hanging around a bit. Then came two incompetent decisions. They opened up free realm transfers from low pop servers. Unfortunately mine was only low horde. Overall it was classified as medium pop and therefore not included. Then they revealed once WotLK dropped they would not implement dungeon finder (saying nothing of cross realm dungeon finder). Within days I’d canceled my account. I now have a few 80s on a private server that scratches every itch I need. I haven’t given the private server a dime. I need to give them a little money for their effort.
There seems to have been a major righting of the ship with Dragonflight. The live retail game is in a very strong place right now, and players are now actually anticipating an upcoming expansion rather than dreading it. Season of Discovery was also an especially inspired idea, injecting a lot of new life into vanilla. Assuming there isn’t too large a shake-up with the team after the Microsoft acquisition, this might be a new golden era for World of Warcraft.
ign.com
Najstarsze