They are the reason WotC canceled all those in-development d&d games a year and a half ago. All WOTC published games were canceled because their CEO passed away and they scrambled to find a new one. This new CEO saw all these in-development games and canceled them in an attempt to save money, and with the Dark Alliance game released the year before, they felt there was no recouping development costs.
Overall a huge bummer. I would have liked to play an immersive sim d&d game.
I'd like to live in the world where multiple devs are making D&D games in Larian's engine the way there were a handful of Infinity Engine games 20 years ago. Replaying BG3 is great, but it would be nice to have new areas, characters, and calls to action while still having the freedom to just "verb a noun" the way you can in BG3.
Larian isn’t sharing it’s engine and I feel like even if it did, a lot of studios want the creativity of building their own thing. Not just another D&D crpg top-down isometric game. A lot of the D&D games in the works were unique and took interesting risks that might have paid off.
I doubt they would sell the engine but it would be nice if we had good modding tools and map editors like in NWN for example, custom maps and campaigns could keep bg3 alive for a long time - especially considering that they have no plans for expansions afaik
I think they were implying they like their instance but wish they could downvote sometimes. My instance doesn’t allow it either, and coming from more than a decade on Reddit, it can be frustrating at times. Still, I wouldn’t leave Blahaj because my interests align with those of the instance’s owners.
I didn’t even notice this comment until now. Looking at the comment I wrote late one night, there are tons more issues than that. Hell, I spelled ‘canceled’ with 2 Ls. I appreciate it though, reminded me to run my grammar checker.
I am just an annoying grammar stickler, friend. I assume most mistakes are from typing on a mobile device or being a non-native English speaker, many times both.
My most severe gripes are the misuse and/or overuse of words like “like”, “literally”, “aggravate” and “jealousy”, or when I see “would of” instead of “would’ve”.
In a couple hundred years, the precision in English usage I pompously strain to uphold will be antiquated to the point of incomprehensibility. I admit that dying on this hill is a fool’s errand.
This, the OGL, the Pinkerton incident, the continued decline in quality products. Talk about squandering the opportunity of a lifetime with the renaissance of D&D.
MS is in the subscription selling business now. Their entire gaming future hinges on GamePass, and while I like the idea of games on tap (I’ve basically bought BG3 for my PS5 and nothing else in the year since I bought it, enough on PS+ to keep me going and I can barely catch up let alone keep up), I suspect the big devs that spend hundreds of millions on making AAA games are less than enthralled with the idea and if GamePass and day one “free” games win, the outcome will be more games that I’m not really interested in.
PS+ is not as good a product as GamePass, but I believe it’s healthier overall for the gaming industry.
When you say PS Plus, do you mean the Essentials tier which is (was) equivalent to Gold or the other tiers?
For the record, I think PS Plus Premium and Extra are great (until the price hike). The vast majority of time when I want to play a game day-1, it’s not something that’s even on GamePass. So their day-1 stuff means nothing to me.
But also, Essentials has given me enough to play I could just never run out of games.
The higher tiers. Not sure about the top one (Premium) any more. I got it because I thought I might want to play the older games, but it turns out there’s plenty of PS4 and PS5 games to keep me going, and frankly not enough choice of PS1 and 2 games to tempt me. A more complete library would have made sense, but I’ve literally got more on my shelf than they’ve got on PS Plus Premium.
And my internet is too rubbish for me to want to stream the handful of PS3 games either. It hasn’t even got MGS4 which would be the one interesting thing that hasn’t been anywhere else.
The reason it’s not working out is because they had no exclusives, now they do and the people on the platform that always had exclusives are suddenly upset.
It's outselling is what caused Microsoft to not deny it. It originally denied it because they had a rule that games needed feature parity with both Series X and S. BG3 split screen couldn't be done on S. The massive success is what led them to relax the rule. And virtually no one saw this level of success coming from within the gaming industry, including the developers themselves.
Edit: I just realized this is being upset about Starfield.
That is totally the fault of gamers. The biggest reason given for buying a PS5 over Xbox was exclusives. What the fuck did you think was going to happen? Sony started the exclusives battle and continually came out ahead. Obviously MS is going to fight. Making exclusives such an important decision in console purchases drove exclusives to be important overall. There's no sense in being upset that the industrynis literally responded to gamer's actions and stated motivations.
Microsoft would develop their existing first party studios and improve the quality of their first party titles, invest in third parties that they already had exclusive relationships with, or invest in up and coming studios?
Had Bethesda published a Microsoft exclusive since Morrowind?
You don't expect that from Sony so why expect it elsewhere? Sony started this game, gamers lauded them and rewarded them for doing it. Microsoft tried to not do that, and got beat down further than they had when they tried playing that game against Sony. Gamers wanted exclusives. Microsoft is providing that. You voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party and now are surprised leopards are eating your face.
This was a forgone conclusion for awhile now. Folks are just upset because Microsoft has an exclusive that Sony gamers want to play. Boo fucking hoo. I'm pissed it came to this, but gamers did this. I'm angry about it, but I don't feel sorry for gamers as a whole about it.
Did they, though? I think exclusives predate Sony and even the PS1. They’ve been a part of the console space since basically the inception of the medium. Xbox itself launched with an exclusive “killer app” in Halo. Timed third party exclusivity and exclusive Map Packs were very popular with the 360 when it was on top in the seventh generation as well.
I don’t think Sony has ever made an acquisition of the same scope as Zenimax either in price or in how much of the market was fenced off from a studio they previously had access to. That’s not even going into the Activision deal.
Maybe we can now point to Bungie, but that was still half the price. Most of Sony’s acquisitions over its time were studios that were already de facto developing exclusively for their consoles. Even Insomniac. If you look at their history, Sunset Overdrive is a lone anomaly.
Exclusives suck, but I don’t see them going away as long as consoles and capitalism exist. You’re basically throwing shade at Sony for daring to fund the development of critically and commercially acclaimed games that gave them the reputation of having a quality first party library. Starfield on the other hand was developed as cross platform title until Microsoft paid 7.5 billion to acquire a major publisher. Wasn’t this confirmed this week by the document leaks?
Few complain when Halo is released exclusively because no one is being surprised that those games are now exclusive titles. That isn’t the case with the new Bethesda deal.
Sony and Microsoft used to pay for exclusives without buying the studios. So there's no real meat to the argument that "oh, the games were always exclusive because first party" or whatever. The consoles didn't really buy that many game studios until relatively recently in gaming history. They would pay a studio to not release on other platforms. This whole buying studios thing was just cheaper in the long run. So there's no real argument to be made about Sony just making better first party games. That's what they do now given that they own the studios. Both companies are guilty of buying out studios.
Exclusives pre-dating the PS1 was more out of lack of technology. No cross platform tech really existed. There wasn't a lot of crossover. Many platforms didn't last more than a generation or two. There wasn't even much cross over in the kind of games. If you liked fighting games, you bought a Sega over Nintendo for example. With the PlayStation, they competed against Sega first, Nintendo as more an afterthought. Xbox came in later to compete against PlayStation 2. The Nintendo 64 was just a different class, and even later, the GameCube. With Xbox and PlayStation, they had similar amounts of power and restraints (an N64 cartridge could not compete from a technical perspective against the storage of discs, plus multi-disc games could exist, not really feasible with cartridges) plus abstraction technology was more advanced and one could more easily write cross platform code. Now, you either had to pay for an exclusive or simply hope they only had the intent to target one platform (whether through preference or resource limitations). So the console wars really started to heat up after the death of Dreamcast and mainly between Sony and MS. Exclusivity wasn't via first party existed, but not to s great extent beyond their flagship games.
So, tldr, exclusivity has always been acquired via money and buying them. It's easy to say it's about developing better first party once those studios were bought outright to begin with. That's how most first party titles exist now.
No, but Oblivion came to PS3 later and Skyrim was outright broken on PS3, then Sony scuppered their console mod plans by not allowing deep enough system access. Safe to say they probably didn’t have the best relationship.
Sony doesn’t buy IP and deny it to other platforms. Their IP starts on Sony. If Microsoft never wanted to release Halo to Sony, it’s their decision to do so, but buying something that don’t had access to, then denying it is a shit move.
Gaming isn’t bedroom coders knocking out games in basic for microcomputers any more, it’s a huge entertainment industry and that’s how those industries work.
This is no different from Disney pulling Fox properties of other steaming platforms to put them on Disney+ since they brought them out.
Yes they do. They used to buy exclusive rights back during PS2 days but eventually both MS and Sony realized it's cheaper to just buy the studios. Sony has only a small number fewer acquisitions than Microsoft. Both companies have always bought exclusivity.
My reason for buying a PS5 is my Xbone bit the dust, and my Xbox 360 also had issues when I traded it in. My ps2 and ps1 still work. There was also the fact that the only available options were PS5 or Series S. I didn’t buy the console for exclusives, I bought it because it was the better available console and my previous one was dead.
No I didn’t. The announcement of their intentions to fully absorb Bethesda didn’t even come out until around the PS5’s release, and wasn’t completed until like 6 months after. Not everyone pays close attention to gaming news. And if you bought the console early on, there is a chance you never would have even heard about it, let alone completely understood the implications of the purchase.
Ok? But your experience doesn't change what the number one reason given is though? Sure, I don't get Pixel phone anymore either because two in a row failed on me, but I don't go around telling everyone "no one buys pixel phones because they die easily"
Yeah, but MS games aren’t console exclusive. They come out on PC day one two which is a bigger audience than both consoles combined. Given the player numbers Starfield really hasn’t suffered due to not being on PS. In some countries it’s doing exactly what a console exclusive should and getting people to pick up an Xbox.
If you don’t think a company as big as MS did a cost/benefit analysis before they made the decision I don’t know what to tell you. Of course any product available to more people sells better, but MS are playing a longer game. If previous Bethesda games are anything to go on, people will be talking about, modding, posting clips, etc of this game for a while and that’s tons of free advertising for XB and Gamepass.
ROFL… if you don’t think a company as big as Microsoft can’t make mistakes, I don’t know what to tell you.
And talking about a game isn’t selling copies. Nor is modding. People are pirating it and for good reason. It’s not worth the cash spent to donate to a company that thrives based on free labor to fix the bug ladened disasters they release.
How do you think marketing works? Someone posts a cool thing they’ve done in Starfield, and someone else gets some FOMO and decides to buy the game, sub to Gamepass, get an Xbox to play it, etc.
No not everyone is pirating the game, a lot of people on Lemmy may be as this is an echo chamber of techie types, but the general audience don’t even know how to, and if they prefer to play on console, can’t.
Clearly you have beef with Bethesda, and are letting it cloud your judgement here, but the fact of the matter is lots of people are playing and enjoying the game as is, out the box before any mods are officially available.
Over one game? I thought Fallout 4 was a disappointing step back from New Vegas and 76 was a misjudged project that turned up messy and broken and I’ve never even looked at playing. The last game of theirs I truly enjoyed pre Starfield was Skyrim, over a decade ago. I’m not white knighting them, you clearly have an irrational hatred of them and are unable to admit when they do something positive, a common issue today when people turn hating something into their identity and are unable to ever move from the stance. Like most Devs, they’ve had their ups and downs and the ups should be praised and the downs criticised.
Well there’s the fact that you omitted Sony and Nintendo from your criticism entirly, despite the fact that both companies have bought numerous studios and paid other studios to make games exclusively for their respective platforms for decades, thereby reducing their potential revenue for some benefit that’s clearly obvious to those companies.
And yet, when Microsoft does it…they are just limiting their potential market for no reason and it’s obviously a stupid business move. Sure. Seems a little sus, is all.
Either the entire fucking industry is guilty of this “bad business practice” or maybe there’s a calculated reason for it. Pick one.
You don’t see me complaining about Halo, do you? Do you wonder why? It’s because Microsoft did it with an IP that was already widely popular across all platforms, and then pulled it. And if I remember correctly, told everyone they wouldn’t pull it.
Sony hasn’t don’t that. Again, as I’ve said, they begin with their own IP. And that IP from creation is Sony exclusives.
Um…Sony was in talks to pay for Starfield to be a PS exclusive - which would have taken it from PC for a year and from xbox permenantly - until MS bought Beth.
Also, Starfield is a new IP, not an “already existing and widely popular” one…
I’ll also mention that Phil Spencer publically admonished and fought against exclusivity agreements for years. He has said in interviews both private and public that he prefers a world where there are no exclusives. Until the market spoke and declared “exclusives” to be the measuring stick of a platform’s health, thus forcing his hand. And now here we are.
And here we finally have the primary motivation for this comment.
Well we won’t know for sure on those for a few years. All we have are old FTC docs and no public statements. Regardless, existing games aren’t going anywhere. But even if it happens for future games, well, Sony’s been sowing this harvest for some time.
Yeah, they still haven’t fixed the slow ass scrolling performance in the client and have barely introduced any platform features to their store. It’s so bad.
I don’t disagree. But the inciting incident was when an official Street Fighter tournament went awry when the person hosting left on a nude Chun Li mod. I imagine they’re specifically trying to prevent that from happening ever again.
Outer Wilds is so good. A perfect game for Switch. And the DLC included too, which was also superb.
Pity they can’t release a way to erase the game from my memory so I can play it afresh. Half the point of the game (and DLC) is just figuring out what the game is. Because I already know what to do I’d just complete it in about 10 minutes so it’s sadly not worth me picking it up again.
But anyone who hasn’t played it, please give it a go. It’s just wonderful.
I played about 3 hours of it and didn’t like it. Everyone talks about how great it is and how it’s a once in a lifetime game, but it just wasn’t that enjoyable to me. I might revisit it one day, but we’ll see.
It's not like many (any?) other games, not in the mainstream sphere anyway.
I made the mistake of trying to play with mouse and keyboard but once I got flying with a controller I was set.
I still played with mouse and keyboard just fine. I wish they had finer thrust control for that one part, but it just made more sense to me as a first-person and space sim game.
It’s not for everyone. You have to actually learn what the game is telling you from text, little physics interactions, and more. Nothing is completely spelled out for you, and everything you accomplish is a result of diligent understanding on your part.
Oh my god, I don’t have a headset anymore, but there was a VR mod for it that I absolutely fucking loved. It was one of the things that the Index was made for. I spent so much time crashing into planets in VR.
I’ve been hesitant to play it because I heard it’s existentially depressing and I don’t think my mental state is in a good place to deal with that. Otherwise I’d probably give it a go. I loved Return of the Obra Dinn and many people who love one of those games seem to also love the other.
I don’t know, slight spoilers for the general mood, but, outer wilds is that, but it’s more like… wistful, or melancholic, or bittersweet. It’s sad, but it’s a good sad. It’s emotional, and emotions feel good.
I feel like, if I were in a bad place when playing that, I don’t think it would have made it worse. It might have made it more meaningful, and be kinda… nice, in a sense. But I also feel like art like that help me a lot when I am in bad places. It’s kinda like seeing beauty in sadness, right?
It’s hard because it depends on the type of melancholy. I get what you mean about wistful melancholy and “good sad” if the stories are on the smaller scale. Human tragedy, personal failure, doomed relationships, lost love, that sort of stuff.
I have a harder time dealing with elaborations on an existential level: the ultimate end of all things, the futility of existence, the meaninglessness of life etc. I’m hesitant because I’ve gotten the impression this is the sphere Outer Wilds operates in.
It’s a kind of hopeful nihilism, a sort of sense that no matter how far apart you are in space or time, everyone and everything is ultimately connected, and looking up at the same stars.
You should try the talos principle 2. They’re not apples to apples, but I’d guess that most who loved outer wilds would like it. The first talos principle is also good, but far less refined than the second.
The outerwilds dlc does add a fair bit of content. Although, I really don’t like jump scares so the dlc was not my favorite.
Massively overrated game. I thought it’d be an adventure game, but it turned out to be a timed puzzle game where you end up just rushing back to the same spot over and over again because the game kills you when times up. and you don’t even know if what you’re doing is correct. By the time you figure out this isn’t an adventure game it’s too late to return it for a refund.
That’s not really a problem with the game, but with your expectations. If I watch the film Alien expecting a comedy but it’s actually a horror I wouldn’t complain the film is overrated and not funny.
Pity they can’t release a way to erase the game from my memory so I can play it afresh.
That’s why people watch playthroughs to see somebody else go through the game for the first time. There’s an “Interloper” Discord server for people who are looking for VODs or live playthroughs.
While I haven’t played Outer Wilds, I with I could erase Witcher 3 from my mind. Going back for a second play through is a bit more tedious as I already know the storyline. Only completing secondary quests is somewhat fulfilling, but they end quickly. And after a point you’ve leveled up so much pretty much all combat becomes a bore.
It really is a bloodbath in the tech sector. I don’t understand where these thousands of people are even going to go considering major companies are on hiring freeze
My pipe dream is a bunch of new indie studios forming out of all these layoffs and kicking publisher‘s asses on sales with new competent and passionate games.
…But I guess they‘d then probably sell to those publishers again and repeat…
The largest factor is lack of capital, which is something everyone is enduring due to the SVB collapse. This is a giant recession of the entire sector and I don’t see how it corrects any time soon.
While breathing is cool, I have some hope that it will start correcting this year or next.
The big thing is that the raised interest rates have helped to prevent a real recession. So the real question is when can they come back down. I hope it starts this year even though it’ll likely take years to go back to what they were pre-pandemic, if the go that low again.
Tbf, a lot of people misjudged it, including Larian. I don't think a lot of people really believed the "choices and decisions matter" would work as well as it did. Prior to release, I read an article that talked about how it was gonna be neat that the in-game news would update based on your actions. Like, that was the noteworthy function to discuss about the game. "NPCs might talk about your actions in passing to each other".
Did Microsoft underestimate it more than others? Sure. But pretending like every corporation, including Larian, didn't underestimate it a whole lot is a bit crazy.
Edit: and isn't the game Divinity: Original Sin II? Did it have other names in other international markets?
Edit: this was submitted as a response to https://lemmy.world/comment/3615435 but Kbin didn't seem to actually tie them together. It shows me that it was written as a reply on Kbin, but seems to have lost connection to the comment hierarchy.
The degree of success couldn’t be predicted, sure. But larian is not a new studio, BG is a big ip, DOS2 was a big success, the witcher 3 was a tremendous success, and the game was in early access for 3 years so you could very easily gauge how it was going.
If a decider can’t see that coming at least as a significant possibility, they’re all clowns who don’t deserve more than the lowest wages.
Except virtually everyone got it wrong still. Even the head of Larian thought it'd top out at 100k max. That's currently it's average now with it's max being more than 800% higher.
BG is a big IP, but it's never had this level of success. Look at Diablo III's release (similar IP with a long break between games). It had better advertising campaign and still kind of became noise fairly quickly. Game news sites barely covered BG3 until it hit it big.
Microsoft definitely undershot, but it was likely basing it on a lot of the aggregated news as well. It had barely any coverage prior to its official release. This is usually a sign that the game will be mediocre.
Larian is a big studio but its last expected game from its really only known IP was cancelled after being put on hold for four years (granted BG3 was also being developed during this time). It's biggest games prior to this got at least partially funded on Kickstarter (not a knock against KS, but it's not generally seen as the sign of a strong studio to exec-types).
I don't blame an executive for not seeing this coming.
Executives obviously didn't see this coming. But neither did game journalists or even gamers.
Its a mistake in hindsight, but with what everyone generally knew at the time, it was the expectation of most.
There is a difference between misjudging the success and betting on the failure.
Did you read the paper? BG3 was assessed far below just dance or let’s sing ABBA! It was at the very bottom of the list!
I bought the game blind a year before release. Not to test it but because I knew were I was going. Of course I had big fears about it because many games pretended to be BG successors and I didn’t want to get my expectations too high. But I didn’t know anything about it because I didn’t want to spoil the surprise.
The information was there. I don’t know why journalists to whatever didn’t saw it coming but I was prepared for it being a big thing for me. It is litteraly their job to assess whether a game will work or not. They bet on failure. They couldn’t be more wrong, and I don’t think there was any sign of failure.
It was expected to be a second release after being a Stadia exclusive. This isn't judging quality, just impact.
Edit: and let's not pretend by adding "far below" when it was in the same group. And the ranking isn't even totally based on expected sales. The asking prices and the levels aren't in order. You're misinterpreting one quote entirely incorrectly and trying assuming too much from a chart.
I think it’s just an interesting story since we have actual internal emails from Microsoft that we wouldn’t have if it weren’t for the justice department’s lawsuit to stop the Activision buyout.
I'm well aware of that. That's why I named it. They said "Divinity of Sin 2". I was asking if they meant Divinity: Original Sin 2 and if it went by a different name in other markets. I thought that was clear. I'm not sure how you got to think I was asking what it is.
I honestly don't know how that interpretation was possible in the given context. It was mentioned in direct response to someone saying "Divinity of sin 2" and I corrected it.
Humans using past work to improve, iterate, and further contribute themselves is not the same as a program throwing any and all art into the machine learning blender to regurgitate “art” whenever its button is pushed. Not only does it not add anything to the progress of art, it erases the identity of the past it consumed, all for the blind pursuit of profit.
Me not knowing everything doesn’t mean it isn’t known or knowable. Also, there’s a difference between things naturally falling into obscurity over time and context being removed forcefully.
And then there’s when its too difficult to upkeep them, exactly like how you can’t know everything.
We probably ain’t gonna stop innovation, so we mine as well roll with it (especially when its doing a great job redistributing previously expensive assets)
If it’s “too difficult” to manage, that may be a sign it shouldn’t just be let loose without critique. Also, innovation is not inherently good and “rolling with it” is just negligent.
Where did the AI companies get their code from? Is scraped from the likes of stack overflow and GitHub.
They don’t have the proprietary code that is used to run companies because it’s proprietary and it’s never been on a public forum available for download.
Stable Diffusion uses a dataset from Common Crawl, which pulled art from public websites that allowed them to do so. DeviantArt and ArtStation allowed this, without exception, until recently.
Devil's advocate. It means that only large companies will have AI, as they would be the only ones capable of paying such a large number of people. AI is going to come anyway except now the playing field is even more unfair since you've removed the ability for an individual to use the technology.
Instituting these laws would just be the equivalent of companies pulling the ladder up behind them after taking the average artist's work to use as training data.
How would you even go about determining what percentage belongs to the AI vs the training data? You could argue all of the royalties should go to the creators of the training data, meaning no one could afford to do it.
How would you identify text or images generated by AI after they have been edited by a human? Even after that, how would you know what was used as the source for training data? People would simply avoid revealing any information and even if you did pass a law and solved all of those issues, it would still only affect the country in question.
Literally the definition of greed. They dont deserve royalties for being an inspiration and moving a weight a fraction of a percentage in one direction…
If AI art is stolen data, then every artists on earth are thieves too.
Do you think artists just spontaneously conjure up art? No. Through their entire life of looking at other people’s works, they learned how to do stuff, they emulate and they improve. That’s how human artists come to be. Do you think artists go around asking permission from millions of past artists if they can learn from their art? Do artists track down whoever made the fediverse logo if I want to make a similar shaped art with it? Hell no. Consent in general is impossible too because whole lot of them are likely too dead to give consent be honest. Its the exact same way AI is made.
Your argument holds no consistent logic.
Furthermore, you likely have a misunderstanding of how AI is trained and works. AI models do not store nor copy art that it’s trained on. It studies shapes, concepts, styles, etc. It puts these concepts into matrix of vectors. Billions of images and words are turned into mere 2 gigabytes in something like SD fp16. 2GB is virtually nothing. There’s no compression capable of anywhere near that. So unless you actually took very few images and made a 2GB model, it has no capability to store or copy another person’s art. It has no knowledge of any existing copyrighted work anymore. It only knows the concepts and these concepts like a circle, square, etc. are not copyrightable.
If you think I’m just being pro-AI for the sake of it. Well, it doesn’t matter. Because copyright offices all over the world have started releasing their views on AI art. And it’s unanimously in agreement that it’s not stolen. Furthermore, resulting AI artworks can be copyrighted (lot more complexity there, but that’s for another day).
It’s a tool that can be used to replicate other art except it doesn’t replicate art does it.
It creates works based on other works which is exactly what humans do whether or not it’s sapient is irrelevant. My work isn’t valuable because it’s copyrightable. On a sociopath things like that
What gives a human right to learn off of another person without credit? There is no such inherent right.
Even if such a right existed, I as a person who can make AI training, would then have the right to create a tool to assist me in learning, because I’m a person with same rights as anyone else. If it’s just a tool, which it is, then it is not the AI which has the right to learn, I have the right to learn, which I used to make the tool.
I can use photoshop to replicate art a lot more easily than with AI. None of us are going around saying Photoshop is wrong. (Though we did say that before) The AI won’t know any specific art unless it’s an extremely repeated pattern like “mona lisa”. It literally do not have the capacity to contain other people’s art, and therefore it cannot replicate others art. I have already proven that mathematically.
TF2 was great before they increased the player limit (I think that was before it became free to play?). It was a hero shooter with strategy and synergy. It became a spammy farm fest with too many items and too many players for what the maps were designed for.
No company “only realizes” anything when it comes to their financials. They had forecasts for the entire year, and accountants keeping track of that shit on daily basis. Every CEO gets together with their CFO on the regular. They know exactly where the company is headed financially, and they prepare what they are going to say to their shareholders quarterly.
Layoffs like this are always planned. The fact that they aren’t capitalizing on the Unity fuck-up to make up the difference shows their ineptitude.
It’s how copros talk now, they saw “Leaks” are spicier than “Reveals”
It’s just what they do, they co-opt our langauge and misuse it. Plenty of restaurants around here claiming their cheap menu items are “Hunger Hacks”
When no they aren’t, as a hack would be a manipulation of loopholes to get a result not intended by the person who made the rules, a cheap item menu clearly listed is not a hack.
Instead of having to pay for the game’s premium battle pass or unlock that new hero through dozens of hours of gameplay, Blizzard will make Venture and all future heroes available to free for all players when they launch.
Wow, Blizzard actually taking a factually negative change back. No further modifications, no further rework, just a straight rollback of something that was a bad idea to begin with. That’s really a sign of the times changing, that always felt like something that is strictly forbidden at Blizzard! 😮
The new hero Venture is so/so though, IMO. Yeah their movement ability is awesome, but that weapon is so boring. And they hype it up so much, but it is just Sigma’s primary fire, including the ability to fire around corners and all. Unavoidable with so many heroes and not nearly enough niches for all of them that things will get doubled and tripled up, but it’s still disappointing to see something copied&pasted so directly.
I played the hell out of OW1. They turned off OW1 servers and required my actual real phone number to continue to play on OW2. Wouldn’t even let me use a VIP number. There is no time in this universe where I will want Blizzard/Activision or its advertising partners to have my real phone number. No interest in OW2.
It's a good change for sure, but the cynic in me can't help but think they're doing this solely because they believe it'll make them more money this way.
The actual reason is to hide the fact they’re probably not gonna have much if any pve content soonish. That’s the whole ‘reason’ behind ow2. They just layed off a bunch of staff too.
I don't see the correlation between those and making new heroes free. Maybe as a way to douse the community flames.
I think it's simply because people want to play the new content. While some cave and buy the battlepass, it doesn't offset the losses of the grind and paywall that stops people from coming back and investing to begin with.
The actual reason is to hide the fact they’re probably not gonna have much if any pve content soonish
They literally out right said multiple times that PvE content is mostly shelved and to not expect anything. This isn’t some sort of secret they are keeping
polygon.com
Ważne