It’s completely asinine for a game to cost this much, especially since it is going to be chock full of equally asinine microtransactions and costly DLC.
The “patient games” methodology is the best way to approach all gaming these days because, odds are, the game won’t be worth the $20-30 later price point anyway.
In my opinion game studios should not sell out to investors and/or have any stocks as it will lead to profit making the calls eventually. It is tempting to get a bunch of investment, I know it would make my game studio easier to run right now, but then you are constantly reminded how it all ends up. Don’t like the system, stop playing in it and build your company slowly and organically instead and retain full control.
Same goes for many businesses outside of gaming. Imagine if there was no such thing as the stock market / investors and all companies had to grow on their own merits.
In my virtual studio everyone is their own sole proprietorship contributing to the project off and on and getting compensated fairly for their contributions. They also have their own projects too and may even pay me to help them sometimes. This way everyone assumes their own risk and reaps their own benefits. If any one person on the virtual team has a hit with their project, they retain full control and owe no money back to some shareholders who did nothing but lend money to make money. It does mean I am way slower than if I could just hire everyone full time as employees, but knowing where having investors will ultimately take me, I accept. Plus going slower means more time to sit on things and polish and not feel time pressure to appease shareholders.
Shareholders are a little like getting a loan and depending on how successful you are, you have to pay back more than you borrowed and giving them control on your art. No thanks.
The CEOs of these investor funded companies have forgotten that investors are not their customers, gamers are. This will hurt them in the long run because they are pissing off their customer base, people who really given them money to appease their shareholders. It never ends well for the companies.
The investors are the ones forgetting that. CEOs work for the investors not for the customers.
Now, a good CEO will be able to manage upwards and throw around things like reputational damage and consumer trust to convince to keep the investors focused on the long term in order to protect the company (and the investors uhh… investment). The problem in the gaming industry is that time and time again gamers show that there’s no such thing as reputational damage with games since there are enough people building their personality around a gaming franchise that even studios with a reputation for consistently putting out mediocre unoriginal crap can count on a mountain of pre-orders.
Exactly. The last year of news full of mistreating game developers caused my to retune my news feeds and Steam wishlist to completely exclude all triple A titles.
There’s years and years worth of great gameplay I haven’t experienced yet in the Indie game market.
Well, procedural when applied to generation of scenery/galaxies etc means to create the exact same thing using random values that are the same random for everyone. It just saves on storage.
But, I cannot tell you how this would apply to recoil. It would only make sense if there were an absolutely huge number of possible weapons.
I am legally allowed to make backups of my hardcopies. I can very legally buy TOTK and dump a ROM for Yuzu. In fact, that is precisely what I did to get my copy for Yuzu.
Thats a weird way of saying you don’t want to work wirh Kojima. Its fine but, a lot of this made up stuff can made up vibe together. Bayonetta was dope in Smash Bros.
Increasing complexity, tighter deadlines, demand for highwr profit margins, decrease in education quality. Theres a lot of reasons and not all of them are necessarily bad. Its good that we can simulate what we can. I think the profit motive is just starting to show its ruinous powers as shareholders demand more and more.
If there’s an ownership dispute between the creator of the thing and the people who sell it, I’m always gonna side with the person who created the thing. Publishers are a cancer.
Kind of mixed on this one for me. On one hand it’s a win against microtransactions, since a big name like Marvel isn’t enough for people to buy it, so much that it has to be delisted. I think that’s a huge win and I think it’s worth mentioning.
On the other, preservation is a thing and I’m wondering if this game could somehow still be played if it’s taken off the store. Granted I’m not familiar with this game so I don’t know if physical copies work, or if they’re just codes with a plastic shell. Or even if this game would be playable once the servers go down. I know it’s not the best game to keep around, but history deserves preservation, etc
I disagree. I think games are definitely worth preserving, even if they aren’t that fun. Regardless, this game has historical significance and should at the very least be playable after it’s delisted.
What is and isn’t worth preserving is not something that can be known at the time of preserving. The point of preservation is so things can be accessed later if and when they’re needed. Even shitty games like Avengers may be relevant in many ways in the future, even if just to reference as ‘a shitty game’.
I recently saw this video about the British Library. They collect everything that’s published in the UK (books, magazines, papers, leaflets, flyers, …). One of the librarians makes a pretty good case about the use of collecting and preserving everything. Even (or especially) the things you don’t think are worth preserving.
“Good” is not the metric for preserving things. “Important” is. Marvel’s Avengers is important to preserve because this failure is a major historical milestone.
Like, imagine if somehow every copy of ET for the Atari 2600 vanished. Would anything fun be lost? Of course not. But would we lose some critical context in an important historical event? Yes. Very much so.
Fortunately, Atari games aren’t the kind of ephemeral media where we have to worry about that like cloud-service games or pre-code cellulite films.
Is preservation of GaaS actually important though? We’re not talking about niche shovelware that somebody is nostalgic for, we’re talking about preserving a thing that wasn’t meant to ever be preserved, that hurt the gaming industry and represented gaming’s modern backsliding into corporate greed.
I just started last night, but that was immediately the vibe I was getting. Not a bad thing so far, but I never did finish Skyrim, so I guess I'll see if this goes the same way...
Bethesda didn’t evolve over the past 10 years. They just added some ambient occlusion and increased the resolution of their textures. The game engine was OK when when Skyrim came out, but it’s really kind of embarrassing that the exact same issues still remain in 2023.
I’ve only finished eg. Skyrim or Fallout 4 both once, but I’ve got gods know how many zillions of hours in them, especially after installing Sim Settlers 2 for FO4. I like the worlds, I just don’t care much about the story and the games don’t make me care about the story
pcgamer.com
Ważne