They already fucked me on this years ago. One day I logged into Uplay and Battlefield 3 and my 2 other games were just fucking gone. Haven’t touched them with a 10 foot pole since.
I’m pretty confident it’s following closely in the shoes of The Avengers game that came out not long ago, and not in the shoes of any popular co-op game.
I would LOVE to be proven wrong. Rocksteady has (had?) a lot of talent that shouldn’t go to waste.
I remember when Gotham Knights(game, not the show) and Suicide Squad (game, not the movie) were announced almost back to back. I was more excited about the setting of Gotham Knights, then immediately irked when they made it clear it did not line up with the Arkham story, then immediately completely turned off when they announced it would include a leveling system for the player and enemies since it clearly would not have the feeling of the Arkham series’ combat and was likely to have leveled weapons that have artificially weak feeling impact. Suicide Squad seemed more exciting at the time simply because it sounded more narrative-driven like the Arkham games even though the jump from playing as Batman against the more grounded Batman rogues gallery to literally “Kill the Justice League” sounded extremely jarring and made it seem like the games could not possibly feel like they were from the same development team or storyline. Here we are, years later and I feel very proven right. Neither game so far has sounded even remotely interesting. EXCEPT for the co-op. If Arkham Knight had co-op baked into the game that would have been incredible. That’s all that I wanted from either Suicide Squad or Gotham Knights. Sadly, that’s not what we get.
Good old fee-2-play. Not sure how much microtransactiin crap is going to be shoehorned in but they’ve already announced a season pass scheme. They’ve tried to cash in on the Arkham brand history and are promoting it on Steam. The comments are less than happy, let’s just say
Yeah, I also paid for Destiny 2 on launch, and then like a year later they went f2p and archived all the original content I paid for. Really, really shitty.
Yes. When Destiny 1 came out, it was famously… an acquired taste. It took many updates to get it to a point where it lived up to its potential. And by the time Destiny 2 was near, Destiny 1 had grown into one of the best games I’d ever played. Then Destiny 2 came out and it was like they completely threw out everything they learned fixing and growing Destiny 1. It was a HUGE step back in almost every respect. A massive waste of money.
And then just to rub it in, they went F2P pretty quickly because that’s what you do when you charge for a live service game and nobody wants to pay for it because it’s crap.
I went back to it a few years later to see how it was because it had seemed to find a following eventually. They completely reworked the beginning off the game to make it almost exactly the same as the beginning of Destiny 1. That’s how they fixed it. They changed it back to what worked in the first place. Pathetic. Insulting. Infuriating.
Destiny 2 killed one of the best games I’d ever played. Then replaced it with a poor imitation whose main advantage was that it was optimized for predatory MTX. Fuck Bungie.
And by the time Destiny 2 was near, Destiny 1 had grown into one of the best games I’d ever played. Then Destiny 2 came out and it was like they completely threw out everything they learned fixing and growing Destiny 1.
Thanks for the reply! I remember reading some stuff from D1 players who were bemoaning the power creep and ridiculous level cap increases with each new installment. They talked about how it felt like a real achievement to max out a character in D1, whereas in D2, you could get to max level in a week.
I never played D1, but I gave D2 a try a few times, and it just never felt like a full game to me. It felt like a demo for a game engine, and I spent a good part of the time going, “Why am I doing this? This doesn’t feel like it matters.” I was never enticed to spend $30+ for the DLCs, so they even failed to create a free experience that drew me in.
Yeah, the biggest issue I had with D2 when it first came out was how disconnected it felt. It never felt like a full world, it felt like you warped into a map and killed some things with no larger goal, just some “kill x things” or “pickup x drops” mini quests. Then you warped back to base and then picked a new zone to warp to for no particular reason.
D1 at least had a story that propelled you forward, including tons of lore (admittedly poorly implemented lore, but it was there!) and secrets and easter eggs. The story and voice acting was one of the big criticisms at the start so it’s one of the things they worked hard on fixing over the life of the game. So it was REALLY off-putting when D2 went back to no story and lore. (And as I said, they decided to fix it by just putting in the story from D1.)
Thinking on it now, Avengers had that same disconnected feel as D2 once you got thru the campaign. I quite enjoyed the campaign but the game stopped being fun after that. Coincidentally right when it started being like D2.
Pay to play no longer guarantees no microtransactions. There are plenty of modern games that charge 60+ and still contain ingame stores, battle passes, lootboxes, etc
Thing is, there's plenty of Premium games exactly as you describe - it's all I play on mobile or tablet - but they all cost on average between £5-10. Many are ports, some are free to install to play the first couple of levels and then you unlock the game with a one off purchase. The only thing I own good enough to play games on is my tablet and phone so I know this the hard way, but quality is out there, it's just hidden away.
Anyway, £60 is a big step up from the usual £10. I think the Final Fantasy/Ace Attorney ports are about £20. Usually the cheaper price to my mind is that you're playing on a smaller screen and with a touch control system that doesn't always suit the game you're playing (although it can improve certain games - Cultist Simulator, Kingdom Two Crowns and Bad North all feel like they work better with touch controls for me but that's more a genre thing)
Yea, but here, that 60 bucks also gets you the full macOS version of that game.
For sure, it is pretty steep by itself if you only game on mobile, but if you look at it as including a version for your handheld when you buy it for PC… it’s pretty much what Steam already does with the Steamdeck, which makes sense to me.
Now the price itself, yea, I find it a bit expensive, even on PC/Steam and I’ll probably wait to grab it on sale one day.
Yeah, I guess if you own an iPhone and a Mac there's more appeal. I see the prices for things on my son's Switch and he's not old enough to want the really expensive stuff yet, and you don't even get a desktop version there.
I think my original point stands though - that having "you buy it and then you play it" games on mobile is not a new concept.
Everyone showing up late to go ‘well I don’t see why they removed it!’ –
You are why.
Trolls escalate. They keep pushing until they get smacked down, then cry and scream and pretend they’ve been proven right. Being ignored doesn’t just embolden them, it bores them, and tells them they need to get worse to get attention. No matter what happens - no matter what anyone says to them - they get to use it in their stupid little word game.
The nature of bad faith is that there is no right answer.
You have to simply get rid of it, and the sooner, the better.
I understand your point that the behavior surrounding certain mods can escalate and create a toxic environment. In that sense, it’s not just the mod in question but the kind of interactions it may foster. However, that leads us into a very slippery slope. If we start removing mods based on what they might encourage rather than what they actually do, where do we draw the line?
Note that mods can be used for multiple reasons, not all of which are nefarious. Some people may genuinely appreciate the option to customize their experience in a way that the mod allows, without any intention of engaging in toxic behavior.
Your argument seems to be based on the idea of acting pre-emptively to negate potential harm, which is a valid point. But this can also set a concerning precedent that may affect the open nature of modding communities, by limiting what can and cannot be customized.
So the question then becomes, how do we balance preventing potential harm with preserving the user’s freedom to customize their experience? It’s a complicated issue, but one that deserves open dialogue rather than summary judgment.
Traditional, pre-2006, beta tests were bug hunts in feature complete software. Then public beta tests became a thing that rapidly evolved into marketing for a finished game. Most public betas don’t see any bugs fixed on launch.
Generally, devs have felt very pressured when given multiple release date goals. By that I mean getting out a playable E3 demo, a “beta”, a demo, an early access for preorders…
It means if, say, the character has always had a clipping issue with their holster but it’s not a priority, the team can focus on important work/bugs first and their QA just kind of acknowledges the weird holster. But anytime they’re releasing, every detail like that has to be trimmed up for however many levels are coming out.
So yeah, I’m in favor of them avoiding any marketing betas if it helps them.
It’s not just the fact they are paid but also they removed part of a quest, paywalled it for a lot and you still need to buy the rest of the quest not out yet!
kotaku.com
Ważne