What’s wrong with what I wrote? A football simulation that’s trying to accurately reflect players’ skills for men, gives an unrealistically boosted skills to women players. Why?
Because what does it even matter? We should be encouraging women’s football to continue to grow, part of that is making sure it’s fun to play in games as well as competitive on the pitch.
It’s come so far in recent years, and when we’re talking about a game which is designed primarily for fun, being unhappy that women’s stats aren’t an apples and apples comparison to the men’s stats is just silly.
It says that you have an issue with the women’s game being treated in the same way as the men’s game. Video games are designed for fun, not for simulation, and there are plenty of good reasons to have women be comparable with men in a computer game.
You’d have been upset when Tony hawk games had women skaters that could ollie as high as the men too huh? Or got upset when Chun Li won in street fighter games?
You’re stating your subjective opinions about topics unrelated to the game and comparing a simulation game to some unrelated arcade games.
It says that you have an issue with the women’s game being treated in the same way as the men’s game.
This is the exact opposite of what I’m saying. Men’s stats have been reflected with due diligence while women’s stats have been artificially upscaled - how is that being treated the same way?
If a core system of the game “doesn’t matter” to you then why do you even play the game?
I don’t think he’s wrong. AAA game prices have been basically the same for 20+ years, while the cost of making games has only gone up. I think this is why a lot of publishers push for progressively more aggressive microtransactions, which can often hide the actual price of the game’s content. And greed but that’s kind of their job.
The idea that BG3 and Overwatch 2 released at the same price point is actually ludicrous. With AAA games, the price is standard and if you don’t like the game, oh well fuck you. And I would absolutely pay extra for games from developers which invested more, and had a higher standard of quality. Larian could charge $100 for their next CRPG and I’d be all in. Similarly, I don’t think minimally viable cash grab titles or smaller, maybe more experimental titles should release for more than like $30.
I think the indie scene does this pretty well but it’s a challenge for AAA, and consumers are somewhat to blame. I think people would balk more at an $80 standard price than a $60 half-complete game with $4k of microtransactions. So of course, studios are going to go with the latter strategy, even though plenty of people hate it.
AAA wouldn't remove macrotransactions to counter the higher price, they would just charge more for the game and keep everything the same. The current generation has been conditioned by mtx, it's no longer a whale problem. it's a norm that the average consumer accepts and buys into, which has fucked the industry.
Overwatch was priced at $40 on launch, it was just multiplayer after all. They priced it brilliantly and the mtx they had were pointless and non-invasive, a far cry to what that game has devolved into these days. Overwatch '2' was a forced patch which turned the game free-to-play and added all the aforementioned cancer mtx.
BG3 is $60, without any mtx. So I don't really understand the point you are making at all, it is just false that they were priced the same, BG3 didn't need to cost more, if it's cheaper it's more accessible to more people and the volume of sales makes up for the lower price, don't forget (like they want you to) there are a LOT more people playing and buying games now than 5, 10, 20 years ago.
Games are half-baked because people's standards have dropped and they will just buy half-baked shit, people still pre-order digital games... or they buy special editions to let them play the game 3 days early or whatever, the situation we are in is the fault of mindless consumption, not the fact game prices haven't significantly increased.
Until AAA games can remove the predatory monetisation, and gain our trust back, we should not be agreeing to be charged more. These companies aren't struggling, they are turning over record profits. Support indie developers, fuck AAA.
What this CEO and you conveniently forget is the fact, that there are more Games sold every year. Since those are digital goods and copy costs are near zero, those companies are making more money each year already. They also pretty much killed the ability to sell used Games, except for Console Games with a physical medium.
Also: why should the consumers have to pay for the ballooning Overhead that those companies have? Don’t tell me you need a hundred million dollars in your marketing department to sell a GOOD/GREAT game. That is Bullshit.
Paying customers are footing the bill for that anti-theft
The guy is making over $500k off someone else’s product with a couple days’ work. I’m no Tankie, but you don’t have to be a high schooler or a pothead to have a problem with capitalism’s more toxic extremes. People have been conditioned to forget this, but piracy is a counter-leverage to prevent product pricing from going out of control. Just look at the average prices of Switch games vs PC games. The harder it is to pirate a product, the further the price of that product is from a value consensus.
These types of anti-thefts tend to false-fire for the paying customers (who footed the bill). This is especially true because he builds his mods against a closed-source product that behaves in ways he cannot always predict. Published modding interfaces are never perfect.
The real value of the “product” was done by (m/b)illion dollar investments by Nvidia and game companies facilitating support for FSR or alternate upscalers. His “product” takes a few days to implement and others are able to offer the same “product” for free.
He is making a ridiculous amount of money considering the amount of work required and feels like an insult to modders who actually spend hundreds of hours tinkering and publishing their work for free. He already makes more than he deserves on patreon, why is he so sensitive about others pirating it.
Let’s say I’ve got a friend who bought a PS5 back in March, and this friend decided that she wanted to take part in this giveaway.
What are the pros and cons of this friend purchasing a new PS5, getting her free game (possibly Ghosts of Tsushima), and then returning the PS5 afterward? Because this sounds like a savings of $70 or so once it’s all done…for my friend.
Super disappointed, I held off on buying S&V because of the technical issues but had assumed they’d be ironed out later. Doesn’t look like I’ll be getting it anytime soon
Good job cdpr, I was planning on finally actually buying this game. Now you’ve told me it’s still the same mess it’s always been, and to continue holding off. Maybe in a few more years, when I can get the full game with dlcs for less than $30.
I don’t get it when they rush to update a game that’s already looking very good. But they leave old games that could really benefit from an update by the side.
Member since 24 July 2004 here. Doesn’t feel like 20 years, but it’s also hard to imagine having ~5Tb of installed games across multiple launchers just… available. Plus emulators and other resources. Steam was a pain in the arse at first, but they made it work, and they saw beyond the limitations of dialup tech. I was all for it at the time because I had one of the few Coax connections (NTL at the time, later taken over by Virgin Media) which at that point I believe was 10Mbit… Of course, nowadays we have Gigabit FTTP rolling out throughout the UK, so this seems really quaint, but it’s pleasing to see how far we’ve come.
The US coverage still sucks. Sort your shit out guys, you’re 20 years behind the UK, and we’re a good 10 behind Norway, Hong Kong and others thanks to Twatcher.
I’m always shocked at how behind the US is in some areas of tech despite having so many of the big tech companies located there. Like you say their internet coverage and terms of packages, like still having data limits in 2023. Also the fact that they still sign for card payments in shops, when we’ve been though both chip and pin and contactless since that method was common.
Yeah - I don’t even cary cards with me any more, it’s all on my phone. Including many store cards (Coop, Texaco, Shell, McDonalds…) which automatically pick up without me doing much - I scan, it works.
The only thing I can think is that the US is such a fractured environment with Federal, State and Local government, each with different jurisdictions, rules and taxation, that trying to get it to work would be beurocratically difficult. But at the same time, it’s so ruled by corporations that surely they’d want to push the easiest way - flip your phone out and wave it to pay, easy and secure, so make it happen :D
ign.com
Ważne