As a transgender person and as just a citizen of the world in general, I hate the "politicizing" of things. The validity of my personhood and whether I deserve basic human rights isn't political. And yet, transgender rights are questioned and removed in the regions where "politicizing" factions have roots, and "transgender porn" is searched far more there too. Hypocrisy in action, but their entire philosophy is about burying their heads in the sand, so of course their own hypocrisy evades their notice.
Neither is Planned Parenthood's mission to give people options for family planning political. Anyone who disagrees with Planned Parenthood can choose not to use their services, but as has been proven time and time again, the places where Planned Parenthood is needed most of all is in the places which try to ban it so vehemently. They don't care about the women who die in back-alley abortions, and they don't care that proper sex education can actually prevent abortions because talking about sex makes them squeamish. They yell and scream "murderer" to the doctors who are actively trying to help them and save their lives because they can't see past the indoctrination.
The people rabid to "politicize" things they disagree with are the biggest of hypocrites and I'm so tired of seeing companies capitulating to these blinded idiots over "political issues" that have no business being labelled "political". I'm a person, I deserve the same human rights as anyone else, and women deserve the right to choose what happens to their bodies. It's obvious and self evident to anyone who isn't burying their head in the sand, or still trying to dictate the lives of others based on ancient fairy tales.
Haven’t had a chance to play this patch yet, but I’ll say I’m impressed at how much they are reworking already. Even going so far as to throw out certain hammers for example.
I attempted Trial of Haste pre-patch and quickly realized I stood no chance, neat to see that being adjusted.
Vow of Forsaking got the nerf treatment. Probably for the best.
Yeah Trial of Haste felt like a nonstarter for certain builds that weren’t minimaxed for DPS. Nearly had it once, being maybe 10s off the mark (which realistically means I could’ve had it) but not mad about the rework at all.
Haven’t had a chance to hit em yet but excited to. Felt okayyyy if you were patient enough to play it slow. My problem in general is being greedy and trying to speed through, which usually does more harm than good.
You are asking if it could be same experience as an MMO-lite without being online. Think about it.
Core gameplay will stay, yes. And sounds like they changed quite a bit. But if you were promissed an MMO-lite and are getting a single player game…
I hope that it is notnthe exact same game but offline, because it will not hold up. There are different expectations from a MMO and single player game.
You are asking if it could be same experience as an MMO-lite without being online. Think about it.
No, I’m asking if it could be the same experience without running it on someone else’s machine. V Rising does not have an online requirement, but you can play it online on a server you control, perhaps even the same machine you use to play yourself, with up to like 60 players. Destiny is an MMO lite, is it not? For the most part, you’re only playing that game 3 players at a time too, just like this one. Is there something that this game was already doing that it won’t be able to do now that it’s peer to peer?
You can play with friends, but not just matmchmake with randos when your friends are not online or not playing the game at all (or not having friends). You miss the organic moments when you are having a fight in open world, you are loosing and suddenly some dude charges in and saves the day. You can’t join guilds (promissed feature) and engage in a community, potentially make new friends to do the aforementioned activities with so you don’t have to play with randos. You miss the feeling of being a part of greater world, when you just see someone else in the game. Or the ability to ask for help in map chat. Also ongoing support and updates.
Funny you should mention V Rising too because while I’d probably play solo, I’m more likely to find a server to play on along side others than just playing on my own server alone or offline (not sure how this works therr tbh).
Simply put, I’d miss those things you experience in MMOs. Wayfinder was fun when populated. Much less so when there was nobody to play with.
I was promissed an MMO lite that would become an MMO through thr development, but getting a single player game instead. I wish the game and the devs all the luck but I can’t help but feel betrayed - much like majority of gamers who expect single player game but get live service one.
Gotcha. As I said in the original blurb, I’d prefer some way to play the game LAN that it seems like they’re not doing. V Rising and most survival games, for all that I can tell, preserve all of those elements of MMOs or MMO lites, and it exposes how unnecessary it is to take away the ability for the player to host their own servers. Even in a best-case scenario where the game is super successful, you can run into things like login queues or server maintenance, so having the ability to play the game no matter what is a must for me. Survival games tend to lean into the use case of people who want to PVP and grief other players, which isn’t for me, and I’d much rather co-op with some friends, but since I control the server, I absolutely have the ability to tune it that way. And since these games account for dozens of players on the same instance (Factorio goes up to 255), you’re capable of replicating all of those random interactions, for as rare as they actually are in a game like Destiny or Warframe, which are my frame of reference for MMO lite games, because they have you spend most of your time in instances for only a few players.
Have you played Wayfinder before to say how much of the game up to this point was built on those larger scale random interactions as opposed to small instances with a few players?
Wayfinder had both. There were these randomly generated dungeons akin to Warframr instanced missions or Destiny strikes, but also had a open world zone with events and such for a more MMO feeling. New bigger zones were of course promised along with mounts. Raids were mentioned, as were guilds and guild housing and other social features.
I get the desire to have a game playable offline, it’s valid. And maybe the game will end up being enjoyable as single player. But that’s not what made me personally interested. But oh well, my bad for buying into early access, I was due to get burned on it I guess. At least I went for the lowest pack (I did try asking for a refund but I played a bit, so not having high hopes)
No, I meant things that people would miss. I guess matchmaking fits that bill, but we’ll have to see what it looks like outside of direct invites once this new version exists. Each platform provides free matchmaking services, so I’d be surprised if it didn’t exist at all.
Not paying much attention to early access titles didn’t pay off here. I was unaware of the game until today, and would like to play it, but the dealbreaker is the price; I would pay what they were charging during early access, but not the current price. Guess I’m waiting for a sale, though that means I’ll very likely just forget it exists again.
Ehh can’t speak the for the parent comment but I don’t like spending more than 15 quid on indies unless it’s something I really like the look of. Like I bought stray and kena full price but I haven’t bought this when I’m not a survival fan so not sure if I’ll enjoy it despite it seeming like a good game.
Appreciate it. I actually found that out earlier today, and I gave it a shot. Tried it for a bit and uninstalled it, but I now know for sure that I would pay $10-15 for it, and no more.
Lol no it’s not, tons of great games are like $25. This game doesn’t have enough to deserve a $35 price tag compared to the rest of the industry and I’m sure sales will reflect that.
It peaked today at just shy of 100k concurrent players following its successful early access period, with about 70k reviews, both of which are indicators that it’s selling extremely well, as well as taking the #4 spot on the top sellers list on Steam.
Fortunately there are enough people who value them more than you, because most games, even moderately budgeted ones, wouldn’t be able to sustain themselves at that price.
“Moderately budgeted” compared to what? Modern AAA game budgets have absolutely exploded and are not sustainable, turning game dev cycles into 5+ year marathons and giving it Hollywood Syndrome where every game needs to be a blockbuster to be considered a success and no risks are able to be taken because of the massive investment each project requires. Do you think that’s sustainable? Or do you think that perhaps things have gone out of control when a $90 price point is being floated, even in conjunction with money printing anti-consumer features like lootboxes?
Let’s say that including benefits, a developer’s salary is about $100k. Maybe a small team of 8 people worked on a game like The Thaumaturge for 3 years. Before you even factor in contract work like voice acting, that would put the development budget at $2.4M. If the game cost $20, they’d have to sell about 120k copies to break even on that investment, which is far from guaranteed. By pricing the game at $35, their break even point is nearly half of that. This is a moderately budgeted game, not a AAA game with microtransactions.
Even an experienced team like Mimimi games, who made smart development choices by iterating on what they built before to keep costs down, releasing critical successes several times in a row, ended up closing down because the money coming in was too tight. Their games ranged from $30-$50 and had every sale, bundle, giveaway, and promotional opportunity you could think of.
8 full time 100k salaried employees is quite a bit more than “small team.” Doom was 6 people. That many people are simply not required to make the games that are being produced; they can choose to size down any time they want. If they want to go “all in” on making a “AAAA” game, then they need to deal with that reality and make a game that is actually worth $60.
Their games ranged from $30-$50 and had every sale, bundle, giveaway, and promotional opportunity you could think of.
Perhaps that’s part of the problem? Maybe they should have priced their works more fairly from the start and not rely on bundles and givaways which surely aren’t going to make them more money.
My point is, the “average” game is absolutely not worth $30. Most games should flop because they’re overproduced trash, and we should return to smaller, more artistic-focused development with a smaller scale, more consumer friendly pricing, and where the (few) devs get more slices of their pie.
I’m sorry that you don’t enjoy video games enough to pay $30 for most of the good ones, but I hope one day you can sit down with a calculator and realize why it must be that way.
I’d gladly pay $30 if they are worth it, most games are simply not worth it. Recently I’ve put over 75 hours into Atom RPG the last two weeks, and it’s $15 full price, and the developers have released a spinoff and announced a new project, so they seem to be doing fine.
Hopefully you can sit down with a calculator and figure out that things can be better.
That’s true, I’m using hours per dollar as a shorthand for value, but on the flip side if video games are going to be a couple hours of one-time fun, they gotta expect to have a price point similar to movie theaters which have a similar experience, which is like $10-$15
Video games are often afraid to be only a couple of hours these days, often to their detriment, but if you multiplied a movie’s runtime by 2-3x for some extra production value in your game, you end up at that $35 price point easily for a game that’s 5-10 hours long. Even for a direct comparison to Atom RPG, I’d rather pay 2-3x as much for a Wasteland game to get what I’m looking for, and Wasteland games aren’t exactly short. Neither is V Rising.
Video games are afraid to be only a couple hours because they are afraid of charging less than $10
If your game is short, doesn’t offer replayability, and doesn’t have any novel gameplay to truly set it apart, then youtube Lets Plays offer real competition of getting basically the whole package.
but if you multiplied a movie’s runtime by 2-3x for some extra production value in your game, you end up at that $35 price point easily for a game that’s 5-10 hours long
That’s making a couple assumptions though, that price point is for large studio releases and non-matinee prices. If I go see a movie on a Tuesday afternoon, it’s only $7, a perfect price for an average small game.
Even for a direct comparison to Atom RPG, I’d rather pay 2-3x as much for a Wasteland game to get what I’m looking for
Atom RPG isn’t exactly a Wasteland game, it leans pretty heavy on classic Fallout, which while inspired by Wasteland, have diverged noticeably in the end product. So if you wanted to get what you’re looking for in this case, Fallout 1 and 2 are $10 each, or you can get a bundle of 1/2 and Brotherhood of Steel for $20 (more like brotherhood of steal amirite).
Video games are afraid to be only a couple hours because they are afraid of charging less than $10
I would love to live in a world where we get FPS campaigns that are about 8 hours long, are fulfilling, and cost $60. That used to be the norm, and we were happy with that. A Let’s Play is not a substitute.
So if you wanted to get what you’re looking for in this case, Fallout 1 and 2 are $10 each, or you can get a bundle of 1/2 and Brotherhood of Steel for $20 (more like brotherhood of steal amirite).
That assumes I don’t care about things like better resolutions and frame rates, voice acting, modern considerations for how people actually interact with games, etc. I’ve also played Fallout 1 already.
Again, “more” is often to the detriment to the value of the game, because adding hours is easy. I’m saying that, on a AAA level, games were worth more to me when they were shorter. We’re currently paying less for more. But at below AAA levels, I’m often served extremely well for $35.
I’m not talking about about adding hours, I’m talking about adding quality.
But at below AAA levels, I’m often served extremely well for $35.
yes, good games exist at that price point, but the average game is not good, and is not worth that.
You mention things like better resolutions, better frame rates, better voice acting, more modern, more better, etc, but none of those things are what makes games good or worth more money. AAA games with cutting edge graphics and star-studded voice acting are not automatically good games, and in fact it frequently has an inverse effect where focusing so much time and money on stuff other than the game leaves a shitty game that will be forgotten about in months; that would absolutely not be worth $30, despite having all your superfluous qualities
No, they don’t automatically make a game better, but if I’m choosing between two games that are similar in themes or mechanics, I’m leaning toward the one with voice acting and better presentation. That’s worth extra money to me. It’s far easier to retain story elements when they’re acted out. Production value is still value. Not only did I get a killer RPG for $60 in Baldur’s Gate 3, but I also got some killer performances to help sell it. That extra production value is worth extra money. I could play the previous two Baldur’s Gates for pennies on the dollar, and I did, but I would certainly say I got more value out of the game that costs more. In V Rising’s case, I know of no other action RPG/loot games that have been combined with survival games in this way, playing with independent movement and aiming instead of mouse pointers, so that’s worth the money to see. I think we’re done here, but your sense of value is just very strange.
The average movie isnt worth ticket price either IMO, and length certainly doesn’t equal quality.
And I’d certainly say “most games” are absolutely not worth it, as the majority of games are simply lacking in terms of inspiration, innovation, compelling gameplay or story, or anything else to set it apart and give me a reason to play.
The worth of a thing is determined by what people will pay for it.
length certainly doesn’t equal quality.
For any single product that’s true, statistically it makes the two classes (games and movies) comparable.
I don’t think you’ll earnestly want to argue that 1 hour of movie entertainment is in general worth multiple hours of gaming entertainment. There are good and bad movies and games, but if you compare those of similar quality, the fact stands that the game will give you more for your money. Whether you want more of course depends on you - I gather that gaming doesn’t seem to really entertain you for the most part.
The worth of a thing is determined by what people will pay for it.
No, that’s how price is determined, not worth.
I don’t think you’ll earnestly want to argue that 1 hour of movie entertainment is in general worth multiple hours of gaming entertainment
Depends on the movie and depends on the game. Some games with lots of content are good (if they’re well made), others are filled with trash content that is a waste of time to go through. Same with movies, there are some fantastic 75 minute cinematic experiences, and there are some that drag on for 3+ hours and do not successfully utilize their resources into a good movie. And vice versa.
but if you compare those of similar quality, the fact stands that the game will give you more for your money
If it’s a good game, sure, but we’re talking averages here and the average game is not good, so needing to play even more tedious uninspired levels doesn’t add any value, it in fact just makes it a bigger waste of time.
I gather that gaming doesn’t seem to really entertain you for the most part.
I actually love gaming, and I wish more consumers would have higher standards to not enable the terrible practices of the industry.
I have not, no. I don’t typically open the store page unless I have a specific goal in mind, in which case I do my business directly, and then leave the page.
Really, it’s more about how cutscenes and dialogue keep playing if you pause. Not a huge deal, but sometimes things come up. If the game auto-saved periodically, this would be less of one.
Can’t wait until they add the v rising battle royale as and additional game you need to buy and drop all future improvements for v rising just like they did for Battlerite.
I remember spending my last free summer playing this. Was 2016 and joined a server and even became mod. It’s been 7 years now, finally leaving the EA lol
Personally, I don’t think 7DTD is ready for a 1.0, there are stability and performance issues still plaguing this game. It’s possible the Fun Pimps could fix those glaring issues before 1.0 in June, but stability and performance have been a recurring issue in every version of their Alpha releases. Sure, the game at least has enough content to mostly qualify for a 1.0. They could always add new things via updates (if they don’t abandon the title post-1.0).
Not sure why it’s getting so much hate. Sure it’s been in early access forever, but if you look at the progress they’ve made since conception its come a long way. Also they didnt just abandon it likes countless other games when they could’ve easily made it a cashgrab.
Vanilla is kinda ass still I will admit. The only real way to play it is with overhaul mods which take the game to a new level, and adds so much qol, replayability and general balancing. I’d highly recommend darkness falls, or undead legacy overhauls through 7dtd modlauncher. There are plenty of other overhauls but those are the highest quality imo
steamcommunity.com
Gorące