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.
First I’ve heard of that term, and after looking it up, I like the term Game-as-a-Service way better.
Seems like a perpetual fee if you want to keep playing. I guess I’m missing something, but I think I’d rather pay a monthly fee of I dunno $10/month to play, if there is a $0 cost to install the game.
So to be clear, none of this $60 game purchase and a $10/month subscription, it’s one or the other. For most games that are decent, I get into binge playing and beat the game within a month anyway and then never play it again. I win in this scenario, since I’m not coughing up ton of cash.
For exceptional games, I generally reinstall maybe 1-2 times a year and do another playthrough, which means after 3-6 years then I’m in the hole. The other huge case where I’d lose out: Playing more than one game in a given month. I typically have 2-3 games installed at a time to mix things up in a given month, which would mean being out in the hole way quicker. There’s also the being a “patient gamer” and buying shit on extreme sale, which I’d be fucked by GaaS too.
So I suppose I’d rather than buy my games outright, and say fuck that rent bullshit.
I like the idea for AAA games that I know I like. I play sf6 daily and have played sf5 for years. However, id probably stop of ot was that cost monthly as it would seem poor value, knowing my habits. Saying that, I pay for ps+ monthly for online play. I’m considering getting a steam deck on the future to cancel that subscription.
The great thing about buying a game vs a service is that pricing tends to stay the same, subscriptions start out as compelling deals but can soon skyrocket, beyond that subscription tend to be with the publisher apposed to a single product so you’ll mostly pay more to access more, then we are left with the Netflix, Prime, Disney plus issue of multiple subscriptions at inflated prices for products we aren’t interested in using.
Things like DRM is also an issue, want to play your subscription games without networking? I doubt it’ll be possible.
Personally I am focused on avoiding the subscription hell scape that has been pushed so hard recently.
I’m quite comfortable not owning Ubisoft games, and have been for years. It helps that other than one Switch game that I have physically, they haven’t released anything really worth purchasing.
I've got a friend who waits for a sale and then buys games like this for White Elephant parties at the end of the year. Often times he buys them for himself because he just has a burning curiosity for bad games.
Haha that’s at least an understandable behavior. What blows my mind are people who buy these games expecting them NOT to be anything but micro transaction live service infested dogshit.
Or people who LIKE micro transaction live service infested dogshit.
I don’t understand the fascination. From what my son once told me, everyone has the same advantage, you’re just paying for looks and individuality. I see that as a waste of money. Paying out for licensed characters is just a way to keep that going.
The only part I found interesting was when it shut down for a few days to have that major upgrade. All that was left was the black hole. That was quite fun watching everyone react.
I think you’re being disingenuous, you perfectly understand this phenomenon but it doesn’t appeal to you. Paying for pixels will always be dumb anyway.
At the end of the day it’s the same as something like FunkoPop, you are paying for a digital or physical piece of nostalgia. Neither are for me, but it is what it is
Do you wear jewelry? Do you have a nice watch that tells time just as well as a casio? Does your car feature upgraded wheels or upcharged paint? Have you paid more for fancy curtains when basic ones do the same job? Have you repainted a room just because you wanted a different color? Art, collectibles, novelties? Video game cosmetics are valuable to anyone who wants to express themselves the same as any other real life cosmetic. It can be especially important to young people who don’t have other avenues.
That being said, fortnite is predatory as fuck and is one of the worst offenders for addictive design, FOMO engineering, and maximizing DLC purchases. It’s what the annual sports games wish they could do. It’s what CoD started to do. It’s fueled by social media and by glimpses of random players in each match with the latest skins.
I’ve seen this article 15 fucken times today. They’re children who have never known a world without microtransactions. They also get these games for free, its not like they’re choosing subs over a game. They are choosing a sub for a game. Much like I did with WoW when it was the thing back in the day.
And where was this shit with flash games? “Kids would rather load a webpage than buy games”
I wouldn’t really use this as an indicator. Read your terms of agreements in most games. You do not own any of those virtual items. My D Scimmy is property of Jagex, not Sanctus. Subscription games have existed for as long as there has been dial-up. Phantasy Star Online Episode 1 & 2 made you buy a “Hunter’s License” to play online. Neopets has a term in the TAS that states you do not own anything belonging to your Neopets account.
The minute it gets alarming is when the normal goes from “buying your first home/car” to renting, which we already have one foot through the door on that front. Physical commodities are a much better indicator of our dystopian qualities. Once people stop expecting to own a home, and are just excited to return to their corner of the habblock then we have a problem.
Games as a Service on the other hand, are mostly symptoms of our unregulated technology markets. Its much more profitable to release the license to play your game for free and pack it with predatory microtransactions than it is to release an actual piece work for a game. So we will continue to see more of the shitpacked experiences as they continue to be profitable.
If you want to own digital things, consider finding games on Itch.io whwre you can buy them directly from the creator.
Honestly, all this might show is that there's enough hype behind a big marquis Bethesda release that it can power through Game Pass availability. Most games would love to sell in a lifetime what Skyrim sold in a single month 10 years after its initial release.
They can always charge 999999999999999999999999,- € for games. Keep the following rules in mind:
Demand always exceeds supply to an absurd degree.
Price elasticity doesn’t exist.
The average willingness to pay for games is way above the 8,40 €, approaching infinity, contrary to the European displacement study on page 170 paragraph 4.
100 % of game pirates will buy games if they can’t pirate games, therefore DRM good.
Here’s the thing: I’ve been an iPhone user since the 3GS (over 14 years) and I’m highly skeptical that this price will sell. KotOR retails at $10 on the App Store as does San Andreas, and both go on sale down to $5 and lower very often. I believe the whole bundle for Final Fantasy 1-6 is like $65 and then FF7 is $15 or $16. Who is the audience for a $60 iOS game??
I recall when BioShock was originally available on the App Store. For one, it cost like maybe $15 at the most, but then it got pulled from the store and then the App Store made the change to 64-bit apps, meaning that even if you’d bought BioShock previously, it would no longer run on newer devices.
Over this last decade, I’ve watched fun, old school games get released for iOS and then pulled and then re-released as crappier MTX versions, if they got re-released at all, countless times. How is RE4 going to be any different?
Not sure if it’s an Apple issue or a developer issue, but for a $60 price tag, there’s got to be at least some sort of guarantee that an iOS update or App Store change won’t render the game suddenly unplayable on my device. iPhone 15 might be ready for AAA games but the App Store and iOS in general are not.
Indeed, when I spot an apparently good mobile port I’m often hesitant to purchase it because an OS update may break compatibility at any point, and most developers don’t give a damn about updating their games so they stay compatible.
Until they fix this major structural issue, I don’t see premium smartphone gaming taking off. People will only invest their money if they have the confidence they’ll be able to play their game for the foreseeable future.
If iOS/MacOS becomes a legitimate gaming platform then that problem solves itself. But the challenge is getting users and retaining them and having them make enough purchases to keep the platform viable meanwhile users want to wait for the platform to be proven to make investments in it, thereby the whole process is a vicious circle of fail.
It would probably take a killer app, and short of buying Nintendo I don’t see how Apple ever breaks that barrier
Yeah, we will see how it goes. Apparently one purchase gives you access on all devices running iOS/TVOS/iPadOS/MacOS but even Mac had a bunch of games that used to be available on the Mac App Store that were delisted when MacBooks transitioned to Apple silicon and are no longer available for purchase
The game being available on both iOS and iPadOS should be a given. TVOS also feels like it should be a standard because of the way Apple’s ecosystem works. A MacOS addition is a nice change, but I’m still left wondering about the target audience for this.
If you’re a gamer, your “main” device isn’t usually within Apple’s ecosystem. Most of the Mac people I know who are gamers use consoles, so for them, it would make more sense to buy this for Xbox or PS5 and use either’s virtual play option to play on iPhone if desired. If you’re a PC gamer, the PC Xbox GamePass option is even better. Gaming on MacOS has always been something that you can do if you really want to make it work, but there have usually been better options available.
I’d like to see true mobile gaming take off, but until there is a sense of stability within the mobile space, I just can’t see it. Phones and tablets are different from consoles. I’m not going to carry around my old iPad 2 just to play my 32-bit mobile games, but I still have my original PS1, PS2, and Xbox 360 hooked up to TVs and can jump onto them anytime I’m home. I still play PC games I bought in 2002 on the PC I purchased in 2022. There’s usually some options available to make games designed for Windows XP run well on Windows 10 or 11.
With Apple in particular, there’s never going to be an option to jury-rig an iPhone to play mobile BioShock again, not without jailbreaking which sort of defeats the purpose of having an iPhone in the first place. That sort of thing is acceptable for maybe $10-15, but for the price of a full game, it feels like throwing a bundle of cash back and forth over an open fire and wondering when it will all get singed.
The mobile market has to make a different approach to “proper” gaming because the space itself is far different from console or PC gaming, and the first place to start is the price point.
kotaku.com
Ważne