Multiversus was one of the most mismanaged projects I’ve seen. Released in open beta for months, shut down for a year, re-released as literally the same game but worse and with more microtransactions, then quickly died.
I think the mismanagement comes from thinking that any fighting game can keep up with the cadence and business model of League of Legends. You’ll see this again with 2XKO, even if they’ve got a year’s worth of character releases already done ahead of time to give them a head start.
It really sucked because Smash Bros is basically the only other big platform fighter on the market. Multiversus was set up to actually be a viable alternative to smash, it was massively popular at first, and they had such an amazing library of characters to pull from. The game had everything going for it. And they just blew it. So badly.
The beta was fun, although the monetization was bad even back then.
But the official release made all the wrong decisions to amplify the worst parts of gameplay and dial up the monetization. It was like they got all the player feedback backwards.
The Nickelodeon fighter game is still available I believe, but you’re still right in that there’s still basically nothing to hold a candle to Smash Bros.
I bought the first Nickelodeon game a couple months after it released, and the online was already dead, I literally couldn’t find a match. Just went ahead and got a refund on it.
It absolutely needs backwards compatibility. Throwing away the whole Nintendo Switch library would be a waste, and there are some games that would even benefit from improved performance.
If it’s on a new console who says the performance or world would be bad? With hardware that isn’t 10 years old they could actually have a full world without the game chugging at 15FPS.
Also are you seriously gonna pretend like having the game be 3D is no different from Fire Red or Leaf Green? Lol
Yeah, the hardest thing is really going to be GTA6. The reason I bought a PS4 was GTA5. Needing to wait 2 years to play GTA6 on PC will be a tough thing to swing.
And this coming release will be the first time I’m not going to bother about a new Nintendo console going back to the original. For context, I even like the Virtual Boy. Nintendo has done everything possible to make themselves unlikable.
This headline would imply that PS4 users are upgrading to PS5 at almost the same rate that they upgraded or moved to the PS4.
Honestly, it’s pretty surprising considering the PS4 is still kind of a current console. I’d think a lot of people would be satisfied staying with the PS4 and still getting most of the games that are coming out.
If you already have a PC, no matter how old and shoddy, you will be able to run games on it and become a PC gamer. There was no investment hurdle in 2020, while you need a console to become a console gamer, so you need to buy one first. Most people do have a PC for non gaming uses anyways.
This is also why mobile gaming is so widespread now. People have a phone anyways, so might as well install a game or two on it.
You missed the link I posted, it’s PC sales. Why do you insist on your gut feeling when the data suggests otherwise?
Consoles have stagnated, PC sales has increased year over year and also PC gamers have increased year over year. If it would be because of covid, I would expect a Stagnation afterwards.
I've seen no evidence of this. People are clamoring for the switch 2 and talking about all they want to buy. Fuck Nintendo, but people keep giving them money so they're going to keep doing anti-consumer shit with no sign of any government stopping them. The government isn't going to attack one of the most beloved companies in Japan whose mascot they used at their olympics. A lot of Japanese are event against things like free, labour-of-love randomizers made for old games. People need to stop buying their shit globally if they want anything to happen.
that was the same issues with swsh all the way to arceus, people were repeatadly warned how half-assed the games were, and then complain later on the subs. they still bought it.
That has happened my whole life, I’m 44. Nintendo supposedly does low first batch numbers so the can get in the news that they sold out. Then scalpers sell the machines for $1500.
Sure but I don’t see any evidence of Nintendo’s decline. The truth is that gamers are incredibly spineless and will continue to bootlick corporate boot unless they put “something woke in the game” at which point they’ll leave a review somewhere and still clock in 300 hours if entertained enough.
I definitely wish there was more negotiation with tech library companies about this. It makes sense for movies - it’s a one-time experience, you only see the supporting studios’ logos one time, and it’s just building anticipation for the opening moments of the movie. But games are things people play twenty times a week. Someone might see the logos more if they play in shorter sessions, and maybe even avoid playing for a night because they’re familiar with the two minutes of setup to get to “actually playing”.
I even wish there was more effort to put gaming menus before the launch. A long time ago, Steam standardized a server picker for their own games, so you could skip “launching the game, hitting Server Browser”, instead just open the server list, double click one, and then that’s your “launching” task taking you to the thing you want to play. Even consoles could do this, even for games using matchmaking. I remember this being something the PS5 promoted in its menus but, not having a PS5, I’m curious if many games followed though.
“Quadruple-A” lmao
Just the other day there was an article with the previous creative director saying that they had to axe the Single-player campaign because they just didn’t have the team to do it
It’s more due to AI and/or the expectation of automation being able to reduce the workforce before that actually gets set up functionally. Also that tech companies are doing it to try and kick back against people demanding their wages increase with cost of living, so game devs are piling onboard with layoffs for the same reason.
It's the same thing that happened in tech. People got used to the near-decade of essentially free money. Interest rates were low for a long time, so easy loans, and demands to endlessly/rapidly grow. Now the free money's gone and none of them know how to exercise discretion, so they "trim the fat" of their rapid growth.
It’s not only that. Companies are getting richer and richer and they could easily afford LOTS of employees. Microsoft reached the trillion-dollar market cap and a few days later fired 1900 people
Right, but they’re doing it because they believe they can make up the lost manpower through automation that won’t be integrated enough to do so for another couple years. So they’re going to overload their current employees even further than they likely already are and the product/s will continue to suffer and fall off.
This isn’t happening in a vacuum, it’s happening currently because they believe AI is far enough along to pick up the slack.
Do you enjoy having every good, innovative US or EU product die immediately due to China/India making a 1:1 copy and flooding the markets with it?
Enjoy innovative products that startups create? How about not having any of that because as soon as a startup makes something, a big corp comes in with their money, steals the idea, and floods the market?
EDIT: no arguments, just downvotes? Damn, I thought this place was supposed to be better than Reddit…
Chinese companies famously ignore patent law and do make copies and try to flood the western market with them.
Most startups don’t have the time and/or money to patent their ideas and big corps do squash them/steal their ideas routinely once they become noticeable.
If anything, startups can’t develop their ideas because some company will hold a generic patent like “clicking a button does something” (or “glide with a pet”) from 30 years ago.
Chinese companies famously ignore patent law and do make copies and try to flood the western market with them.
But western companies at least have a tool to fight back or limit the flood.
Most startups don’t have the time and/or money to patent their ideas and big corps do squash them/steal their ideas routinely once they become noticeable.
Ah, the usual “if the solution is not absolutely 100% perfect, let’s throw out the solution”. Come on…
If anything, startups can’t develop their ideas because some company will hold a generic patent like “clicking a button does something” (or “glide with a pet”) from 30 years ago.
Yeah, this happens all of once every billion times. Clearly the system is stupid and needs to be killed so that nobody who isn’t extremely rich can actually develop anything new without being immediately put out to pasture.
I just wanna know which amazing video game innovations We are protecting here in America. Are we talking about the failing franchises that have been milking their customers for 15 years? Have we done anything really innovative recently? Remakes delayed games and flops.
I just wanna know which amazing video game innovations We are protecting here in America
First, I’m not talking specifically about America. Second, I’m not talking about “amazing innovations”. Copyright is also for trademarks, very characteristic gameplay mechanics, etc. For example, Playrix made “Fishdom” which was copy-paste Worms. Team17 won the case and protected their IP.
Are we talking about the failing franchises that have been milking their customers for 15 years?
Umm… No? What does that have to do with copyright or IP protection…?
Have we done anything really innovative recently?
Have you tried looking at titles from other publishers than Ubisoft, EA or Activition?
Eh it’s all just stolen and borrowed code. Whens the next Dawn of war or command and conquer coming out? Oh never. locked behind IP laws and timid corpos.
Yes, US companies have a lot of IP conflicts with China and we do tend to hear about them through media. But that paints a skewed picture of what’s actually happening.
If you were to research it more carefully, you would find out that the vast majority of these claims (>90%) are not pursued by US companies. As a deliberate, strategic decision. They don’t want to.
I don’t care where the company making the claim is from, as long as it acquired the IP legally and has a valid claim for protecting it.
The way the patent system works is bad in many, many, MANY ways, but saying “copyright and patent laws need to die” is just idiotic. As it is, we at least have a semblance of rules. Without it, it’s just “whoever can reproduce and mass produce a promising product faster”. And that means: China because they already make everything.
I’m talking about 70$ games man. Im talking about IP being locked away for decades. Genres of games dying off to push profitability of bigger projects. Strangling out smaller studios any way possible. I’m talking about Gamers. They came for GAMERS.
You’re talking nonsense, is what you’re talking about.
What does a genre drying up have to do with IP or copyright? Like, are you even reading your own words?
Strangling out smaller studios any way possible
Supergiant Games, CDPR, Larian, Sandfall Interactive and every single indie creator out there clearly haven’t been informed of how horrible their situation is. Maybe you should contact them and let them know that the 10/10 games they’ve been making are impossible to make due to copyright and IP protection laws?
Also was loosly talking about my increased business costs associated with china tariffs. Let the chinese steal shit and make it cheap for me thats what im talking abou.
That’s the US law system, not the IP system in general.
There are examples of smaller companies managing to protect their IP (Finjan vs Symantec, Unwired Planet vs. Huawei, Neo Wireless vs. Sony, etc., etc - that’s just from a quick search).
I’m not saying that the copyright system in place is perfect, but saying “copyright and patent laws need to die” is just delusional.
Patents have an expiry for a reason and the expiry date is pretty generous IMO. It’s thought as “Startup x can invent and make money off it but after it the market should take over so further improvements can be made.” Imagine if they patented CRISPR Cas9 or the first DNA sequencing method. It would limit science for the entire time of the expiry but not after.
Claiming invention patent for the pokeballs more than 20 years after the game came out is absurd. They can keep the brand, trademark and IP for their weirdly long time but innovations should become public so the market can continue innovating.
I don’t think patents and copyright “need to die”, but they are currently both overly broad and last far too long. Copyright protection especially has no justifiable reason to be even 1/4 as long as it is.
every good, innovative US or EU product die immediately due to China/India making a 1:1 copy and flooding the markets with it?
If it’s a perfect 1:1 copy why does it matter? Can you explain how this isn’t just a stance rooted in xenophobia?
Enjoy innovative products that startups create? How about not having any of that because as soon as a startup makes something, a big corp comes in with their money, steals the idea, and floods the market?
You just described the dream of most startups. The goal of the vast majority is to be acquired by a big corp so that their idea/product can continue growing, because without acquisition growth is severely limited.
If it’s a perfect 1:1 copy why does it matter? Can you explain how this isn’t just a stance rooted in xenophobia?
First of all: very often it’s literally a 1:1 copy.
Secondly: imagine you make an innovative product. I don’t know, automatic fence painter, whatever. It sells well, but you don’t have the money to start a large-scale production, you’re doing OK with sales and are looking for investors, but things are fairly slow. In comes a Chinese dude, buys one auto-painter from you, brings it home, dismantles the thing, copies everything (potentially making some changes), and starts a massive-scale production in his factory. Due to the mass-production, worse materials, and lower labour costs, he sells the product at 20% the price of yours. The market is saturated with his knock-off, you’re left with zero money.
Is this xenophobia to you? Or someone stealing your product and killing your business?
The goal of the vast majority is to be acquired
Yeah, I’m not talking about them being acquired. What gave you that idea? I specifically used the words “steals their idea”.
imagine you make an innovative product. I don’t know, automatic fence painter
Do you know why there doesn’t exist automated fencepost painters? As bad as this sort of stuff is in software world it’s soooo much worse in hardware world. The licensing fees for every single little piece of IP that go into it would nickel and dime even large businesses out of building anything like that. Sure there’s also technical difficulties with building one, but those are surmountable. However, a business model that could survive the constant threats of litigation, licensing fees and turn even a mild profit does not exist.
Is this xenophobia to you?
Yes, because you just described what businesses throughout the Western world do to your mythical small business and projected it onto some mythical far east.
someone stealing your product and killing your business?
You do realize that is the point of IP right? To allow legalized theft in this exact manner? In the exact article this comment chain is discussing palworld did their due diligence to verify they weren’t violating any of Nintendo’s IP and then Nintendo modified their patent filing so that they were with the express goal of stealing their product.
Do you know why there doesn’t exist automated fencepost painters?
I’m just impressed that you managed to miss the point by so much.
Yes, because you just described what businesses throughout the Western world do to your mythical small business and projected it onto some mythical far east.
Correct. Which is precisely why copyright law was established in the first place and why companies like Facebook, Google or Amazon were able to become what they were without Microsoft or Apple just copy-pasting what they did.
The copyright laws are not perfect, far from it. But they give smaller companies SOME form of defence against the corps.
You do realize that is the point of IP right? To allow legalized theft in this exact manner?
Do you also believe that OSHA was created to control the poor employee into submission by their great corporate overlord?
In the exact article this comment chain is discussing palworld did their due diligence to verify they weren’t violating any of Nintendo’s IP and then Nintendo modified their patent filing so that they were with the express goal of stealing their product.
Yes, like I said: the copyright laws are not perfect. But saying that it would better WITHOUT ANY COPYRIGHT LAWS is insanity.
Microsoft did copy and paste though: Yammer, Bing and Azure respectively. Apple tried with Ping/eWorld, Safari/Spotlight but didn’t really get into the web host space. Also worth mentioning the duopoly nature of those 2 specifically.
they give smaller companies SOME form of defence against the corps.
Rather telling that all your examples are Fortune 500 companies?
Do you also believe that OSHA was created to control the poor employee into submission by their great corporate overlord?
That’s a rather impressive hay golem you’ve built there.
WITHOUT ANY COPYRIGHT LAWS
We’re not talking copyright laws, we’re talking patent laws and you have yet to explain why it would be insane without changing scope or inventing fanciful scenarios.
Microsoft did copy and paste though: Yammer, Bing and Azure respectively
So, you fully and honestly believe that Microsoft has stolen Google’s and Amazon’s code? As in: you’re 100% certain that’s the case here?
Also worth mentioning the duopoly nature of those 2 specifically.
No. It’s not worth mentioning in a topic that has nothing to do with that fact…
Rather telling that all your examples are Fortune 500 companies?
It amazes me how you see a company NOW being a Fortune 500, and going “waagh, IP protection only serves the massive corpos!!!” without realising how many of those companies became Fortune 500 thanks to those protections.
It equally amazes me how you see the law being used by said companies most of the time (because, you know, they’re larger) and go “we can do without these laws” without blinking an eye, or a single neuron firing towards the thought that… these laws ALSO serve the smaller companies.
We’re not talking copyright laws, we’re talking patent laws
So, you fully and honestly believe that Microsoft has stolen Google’s and Amazon’s code?
Does a patent protect the concept or the specific code? You seemed pretty adamant that reverse engineering was theft previously, and assuming you haven’t changed your definition of theft then yes, according to your definition of theft I’m 100% certain that’s the case.
became Fortune 500 thanks to those protections
Thanks to those, or in spite of? You are focusing on outliers and expecting that to be a convincing argument to describe the typical.
these laws ALSO serve the smaller companies.
Just because they can, doesn’t mean it’s something to expect. There are orders of magnitude between how often they protect, and how often the destroy. You a big lottery fan or something?
This is what my reply was to
Fair, I was attempting to limit scope with only discussing patents and not getting into the rest of the weeds and didn’t properly communicate that. I had assumed there would be more than a single neuron between the two of us, but that was clearly presumptive of me.
Does a patent protect the concept or the specific code?
Depends on the patent.
according to your definition of theft I’m 100% certain that’s the case
It’s not “my definition of theft”, it’s “theft”. If you’re 100% certain, hit Amazon lawyers up, I’m sure they’ll love to talk to you about it - it’s literally free money for them and maybe a big payout for you, right?
Thanks to those, or in spite of? You are focusing on outliers and expecting that to be a convincing argument to describe the typical.
The hilarious thing is that you’re like so many other “revolutionaries” who come in and go: “oh no, the X rules are stifling the market/competition/free exchange of information/whatever” while being completely ignorant on how these rules came to be.
It’s like these capitalists of today saying that OSHA needs to go because they’re losing profits to it, completely oblivious to the fact that it was the capitalists of the XIX century who created them to increase profits (because having to replace skilled labourers became a high cost factor).
You strike me as someone who thinks that copyright and other IP protection laws are something that was set up in XX (maybe XIX) century as a means to protect the wealthy. Am I wrong?
Fair, I was attempting to limit scope with only discussing patents
Right. So when I refused to change the scope, you decided to call me an idiot. How very gentlemanly of you.
videogameschronicle.com
Ważne