yooo mobile port of Balatro would be dope. I’ve tried mobile version of Slay the Spire and it’s perfect for killing time when I don’t have access to my PC
I can’t wait… these are the sorts of games that are made for portable play… I don’t want to play Zelda and pause the game mid-swing, I want this, backpack battles, etc.
Yeah. Kinda. Sometimes if you press slightly in the wrong place you get the cursor instead, which can easily lead to misclicks. But it’s definitely playable! A mobile port would be really dope though
Also, we’re pleased to share that we are currently testing the ability for PS VR2 players to access additional games on PC to offer even more game variety in addition to the PS VR2 titles available through PS5. We hope to make this support available in 2024, so stay tuned for more updates.
psvr2 on my pc would be awesome, I’ve read the screen and tech is better than what’s being offered on the index
Agreed - having the PSVR1 I have little reason to buy the second gen, but making it work with PC would be much more appealing with its higher resolution and multi platform support. I really hope they can make it work
They can make it work, but will they…they need to get their head out of their asses and realize they aren’t really all that good when they restrict everything to some limited performance console.
The PS Vita side of Sony customer has gotten a deep taste of Sony’s issues of catering everything to a singular console. And same with PSVR2: Of course it must be PS5 exclusive, because everything are adornments towards their shiny console — and went on to not sell a lot of PS5.
They should have done this to start, it was a pretty arrogant product launch. It hit at a good moment for VR gaming but added another walled garden right when people were looking to alternatives to Facebook.
I understand the basic idea of being upset that someone with a large platform isn't using the platform "for good", but this whole article reads like the journalist was foaming at the mouth with vitriol that a popular host wasn't posting about what they wanted him to post about. It makes me... Uncomfortable
The problems also goes beyond just the layoffs, but his overt coziness and preferential treatment of large studios, over even the ones that actually won the award he is presiding over, and are supposed to be celebrated:
So you did no research, gained no understanding, didn’t follow any of the linked resources and instead decided that you feel uncomfortable.
Keighley has a history of standing out in front of larger issues, only a few years he literally castigated Konami at his awards show for how it fired Hideo Kojima and then celebrated the man in his absence.
This article makes clear the nature of his so called convictions- they are for sale. If that doesn’t make you uncomfortable but a cited article written by a respected journalist does then I would say you might want to think more about what makes you uncomfortable and why.
I suppose the idea of someone's convictions being for sale isn't really a new idea, and I don't follow Keighley, I just found the writing style of the article interestingly venomous. I didn't place any value in his opinions as it was, so there's nowhere for my opinion to really go to given the new information, but I'm certainly not saying it doesn't matter.
I understand that given context, and agree that sounds shamefully cynical and a fall from grace for certain.
Keighly has a history of working in games media to publicise games. He was never an investigative reporter publishing things the industry didn’t want talked about. If you read his writing from before starting the game awards, it was like most gaming media, little more than third party advertising for upcoming games.
The thing with Kojima wasn’t some principled stance against injustice. He gave the award he was scheduled despite konami’s decision. That’s showbusiness. The awards are the result of a vote. Had konami allowed Kojima to attend, he wouldn’t have mentioned the firing.
Many asked Keighly to mention the layoffs at his show. Those familiar with his work knew not to expect it. The show is funded by games publishers. Calling out one publisher is fine in some circumstances. Calling out the industry as a whole is a good way to make this show your last.
He didn’t just give Kojima an award in absentia, he very directly and deliberately complained that Konami would not let Kojima attend to receive the award. He makes comments and has strong opinions when it’s safe for him to do so.
You’re not wrong about his press-as-marketing nature but in no way does this mean he shouldn’t be criticised for his actions in this case, in fact I would think these actions bolster the critique.
If you look at this from an entirely cynical lens, backing Kojima is the sensible choice. Kojima wasn’t leaving the industry. He would have a high level, influential job wherever he ended up.
At the same time, Konami was publicly backing out of the games industry. Konami is a multimedia company with many divisions. Their casinos are far more profitable than their games, so they were making major cuts to their gaming division.
Backing the major industry figure against the company that doesn’t want to make games anymore is what anyone running a show like the game awards would optimally do. That’s why you shouldn’t consider it a principled stance.
I don’t consider it a principled stance, quite the opposite. I think Keighley is mercenary. The point is that the article repeats and solidifies those concerns - it accurately calls him out for both his silence when people are suffering and his faux interest when he can push a product (in this case a recruiter) who benefits himself. My point raised about Kojima is that he complains about things when he’s safe to do so and then will even go beyond complaint to grandstanding using the full weight of his awards to make it seem like he has a concerned moral position to share.
Booted it up for the first time today to play local co-op with my husband. Or so I thought. After fighting for 15 minutes to make an account, which already pissed me off, it turned out they removed the local co-op option. Not interested anymore.
Here’s another example where trying to chase the live-service money train has just ended up with a subpar product that people abandon or avoid almost instantly.
Unfortunately I suspect the wrong lessons will be taken away from this as well - e.g. the console/PC gaming market is too fickle, etc.
There’s been more than enough examples of great IPs being ruined by overly aggressive monetization.
The reason why it still happens, and will continue to happen, is because the games that generate the highest return on investment are the ones with aggressive monetization. Clash of Clans made way more money than Baldur’s Gate 3. Investors and shareholders don’t care about rave reviews and game of the year awards. They want money. I just wish they’d keep it to new IPs instead of ruining a great series.
It’s frustrating because like … people could just not spend money on garbage. Like there are exploitive games that make a ton of money, right? How do we get people to stop spending money on them?
We probably can’t because many people are morons who can’t pass the marshmallow test.
I don’t like the blaming the victim mentality here. Sure, the games aren’t super great, but they use skinner box mechanics to get players to feel like they have to pay. Skinner Boxes are literally dopamine machines, meant to program behaviors. To fully lay the blame on the players instead of acknowledging that the games themselves are mostly to blame feels pretty gross.
My post came out more victim blaming than I meant. “how to get people to stop paying for exploitive games” might be regulation or education. I don’t have an answer.
On the other hand, casinos have been around forever so maybe we’re stuck as long as we’re human.
Needs some form of regulation. The new generations are so indoctrinated into skins and battle passes that they talk about how much they should cost instead of if they should even exist in the first place.
No education will change things, they have grown up with these cancerous monetisation methods, countries just need to ban it, like they were starting to do with lootboxes.
It’s one of those games where you gotta ask, who asked for this? It seemed like the second game was doing very well. They should have gone the route of Counterstrike and just done and in place upgrade with the same content, but better.
Payday 2 was good for a while, but then it got buried under a mountain of DLC and people slowly stopped playing because of the aggressive monetization. They came out swinging with the same tactics in Payday 3 with only minor content improvements, so people weren’t as motivated to buy the same game again.
Cities: Skylines 2 appears to be going the same route.
To me, this is actually why I’d want a Team Fortress 3 rather than more updates. The wave of cosmetics in some way turned the previous game a bit unplayable.
I enjoyed playing around with it for a few weeks last year. I liked that they had voice acting and context-sensitive dialogue like Velma saying, "Let's see who's really the world's greatest detective" when Batman was on the enemy team.
It's also just fun to speculate about all the characters that could show up (but probably won't). I'm still rooting for Granddad "Bitches" Freeman to join the roster.
Holy shit if they added The Boondocks characters, I might actually lay this game and try to look past all the bullshit. And I’d stick with it too, and they’d be my mains. I’d honestly love to play as Huey and fuck some shit up with kung fu and the Black Power Fist. Maybe Riley has like a baseball bat and his giant Timbs or something. Grandad would of course use his belt to fight.
Shit, now I’m getting hyped for something that’ll never happen.
ETA: with the death of John Witherspoon, however, I don’t think they would or could do the character justice.
It felt more like a retroactive beta, like taking back a move in chess saying your hand was still on the piece when they realized it wasn't working out.
kotaku.com
Najnowsze