I think it’s interesting to note here that he was the Director of the first two Katamaris, Director/Designer of Noby Noby Boy, but from there on out is just a designer. I think it shows that not only does he want to work with other people but that he doesn’t necessarily want full creative control as much as he values the input from others in creative ideas.
Which also makes it a little frustrating that all the games are still marketed as “From the Creator of Katamari Damacy!” while it seems like he’s just another designer on a team and he’s happy with that. More like the businesses use him as a marketing gimmick, maybe?
That list is crazy, so many niche platforms and limited availability:
Glitch was a failed Flash based MMO, that launched as a production release, was pulled back into beta 2 months later and then closed in late 2012. During this second beta they seemed to host a virtual death cult. Its messaging framework was later rebranded as Slack
Tenya Wanya Teens was designed to tour as an art piece last exhibited in 2014
Alphabet was bundled with Experimental Game Pack 01, a promo for LA Game Space a failed incubator/exhibition space the broke up in 2018
Woorld was a mixed reality game developed for Google Tango, a tech that hasn’t seen support on a new device since 2017
Crankin’s Time Travel Adventure was developed for the Playdate and was featured in Season 1. This is still available, in fact it is a pack-in title with the Playdate.
I’ve just wish listed Wattam, its his only still available non-Katamari title that runs on a mainstream platform.
Normally, id agree. But with pc parts prices being what they are… Its still a “bargin”. I hate to use the word bargin here, because the pricing of both pc and consoles is insane
You’re not wrong. A 4070ti or a new 5000 series Nvidia costs twice as much as a PS5 pro alone. And not many PCs can have Ray tracing at 60fps on 4k for under $500
I understand that not everyone has the expertise, but for 800$ you can put together a very capable system that will beat the PS5 easily. It will probably include some used parts. You don’t need a 4070 in there, not even remotely close.
But yes, obviously the prices have gone up quite a bit over the last years.
Not really. To have games in 4k and 30fps in modern games you need a gpu that is more than half the budget. And you dont even have a cpu, ram, mobo or even case.
Dont get me wrong btw, i will always pick pc because i do way way more than just gaming, but recommending pc for gaming is becoming really hard
Unless I misunderstood something, the PS5 isn’t “true 4k”, but uses upscaling just like any semi-modern GPU can do as well (DLSS and FSR I think is the AMD version). That changes that equation quite a bit.
I would argue that reocmmending a PC over a (new) console has gotten easier, especially for someone on a budget. Because you can actually get an incredibly competent machine these days (used of course). Even if you decide to pay more to get a better PC, you then have access to the vast PC library with all the bundles, frequent and often deep sales, giveaways, … The cost of the console isn’t just the console, but also what you can play on it and what it costs, and this aspect has improved massively on PC in recent years (and was already pretty good before then).
Of course, if you’re interested in exlusives or first-party titles (like nintendo), or you generally play mostly AAA games, the console might just be the better or only option, but you better bring the wallet for the whole journey.
Huh, i thought ps5 (pro) was 4k native, but looks like its via some hardware upscaler. Good to know hehe. That changes some things, but lets see. The ps5 pro gpu is equivalent to a rx 7700 xt, which is a 400 msrp card. In reality its way more, but lets work with msrp prices to give this the best chance of success.
Ps5 pro is 700$ msrp, so thats 300$ you have left for cpu, ram, ssd, case, and psu. I dont think you can do that, but lets look at the next part: cpu
Cpu is equivalent to a ryzen 7 3700x, which is an old cpu so is cheap atm, 120$.
Ok, 180$ left in the budget, next: motherboard.
I found a board on amazon for 65$, which was the ASRock A520M-HDV. 120$ left.
Ok so, ssd. Ps5 pro comes with a 2TB ssd. I found some sketchy, offbrand, m.2 ssd’s from brands i never even heard off for 94$. There is probably cheaper, but amazon’s website was being an arse and lets face it, how trustworthy or slow are those. 36$ left in budget.
Thats 36 for ram, case and psu… As much as i hate to admit it, as a pc person, you cant make a pc with equal strength as ps5 pro and it sucks arse.
Second hand might give us more leeway but i dont think its a lot.
I will agree that yes, with pc you have a lot more options and its easier to put in a bit more into the budget to build a way better pc than a ps5 pro.
But from a pure budget standpoint, no pc isnt worth it.
As soon as you add other arguments, the choice changes
You kinda missed most of my points. Because a core advantage of building a PC from individual parts is that you can buy some parts used, or adjust them to what you actually need. You can’t buy the PS5 used cause it just came out, but the components are actually relatively old.
A case can be had for cheap (often with fans). Also a used GPU might allow you to get a bit more performance for the same money (or the same perf for less money). Keep in mind that the hardware specs of the PS5 aren’t exactly cutting edge top tier performance. You can also find a complete used PC with roughly the right specs, and a quick check showed an eBay listing for case+PSU+mobo+3700x+16gb and 512gb nvme + 2tb HDD for 309€. And that was the first hit, with “buy it now”, after 30s on the site.
You can also tailor what exactly you buy to your needs. Maybe 1TB nvme is enough for you, or you can even start out with 500gb. It’s a PC, just buy another m.2 when you really need it, takes 5 minutes to install.
But all that is kinda not the point either. Mainly the advantage is that it’s a PC. It’s not just a gaming thing (though it can be). That is what makes it worth it, also obviously depending on the individual needs. And that’s the point. The PC does what you need, and can be made to change to whatever that is.
When you said “from a pure budget standpoint, no PC isn’t worth it” you also one again COMPLETELY IGNORE that you need to buy games to play. Those are so much more expensive (and have a much more limited selection) on console. And over the lifetime of the console, game costs will have been much more than the device. That’s the point, and why they are relatively affordable, they are subsidized by the manufacturer who makes money on every game bought for it. When a console comes out, they typically loose money on it.
Finally, once a few years have gone by, you can actually upgrade PC parts individually where needed. You don’t have to buy the next generation new one, like with consoles. Again, much cheaper. For people who are on tight budget, this is or should be a huge consideration. Once you got a PC, the next upgrade is so much cheaper than a new console, yet it’ll be equivalent to that new console.
Consoles are cheaper the day you buy them (and not by a lot). Even just weeks or months later the PC is cheaper. Years later it’s cheaper by a lot.
So far, it’s a pretty looking game. The trouble is finding things to do in it.
That was the end of the quest. All setup, no punchline.
There was no one to thank me. All I had was a little more loot. Where’s my impact on the world?
If these quotes ring true in the final game, that’s a hard pass. I want RPGs, action-oriented or not, to allow me to play a role. A million games can make fantasy look pretty, Obsidian needs to make it interesting.
that’s what i’m saying! I hope the quests are more dense with writing in the final release. Well-designed quests with clever writing are the entire appeal of an Obsidian RPG!
After playing part of their game Outer Worlds, I’m not surprised. I thought the writing was alright, but the game felt lacking and empty. I was surprised because I’ve only ever heard good things about New Vegas. I haven’t played New Vegas yet but I’m assuming it’s a much better time
You’d be right in my opinion. New Vegas is incredible. But something felt missing from the outer worlds, and I was hoping they would find it in avowed.
it’s interesting to think about the logistics here. How much money should Rockstar have allocated for the soundtrack, to offer a better deal to artists? The article mentions that they licensed over 240 songs for GTA5. At $7500 a song (who knows what they actually paid), that’s $1.8 million. The total budget for GTA5 was around $265 million, so that $1.8 million is less than 1% of the total budget. Some songs surely cost more than $7500 to license, so let’s assume it added up to 1% of the budget by the end. Evidently GTA6 is looking like a $2 billion budget game atm (absolutely bonkers), and I don’t think it’s unreasonable for them to allocate at least the same percentage to the music licenses, given how central the soundtrack is to the GTA experience.
If they allocated 1% of $2 billion to the soundtrack, that would give them $20,000,000 to play with, or average $83k per song if they are going for about the same size of soundtrack. Now, this is all just my quick napkin math based on the assumption that Rockstar paid about $7500 per song for GTA5, but I think this indicates that either A) they are massively underballing Heaven 17 here, or B) Rockstar senior management has not allocated a music licensing budget that matches the size of the game they are making.
What do y’all think? Is $83k per song a reasonable rate for the kind of license Rockstar is asking for? Or is even that too low?
I’ve never heard of Heaven 17. On GTA V, there are a lot of bands than I had never heard of too. Rockstar introduced me to those bands, their other work, solos from those members, and other artists in those genres.
Frankly, if I was a musician that wasn’t already a huge star, I’d do it for FREE because of the massive GUARANTEED exposure.
artists die from “exposure”, because it doesn’t pay the bills. I think you are right that the exposure has value, but it definitely doesn’t have $83k worth of value, because musicians simply do not make money from album sales anymore. Most artists barely break even from doing concert tours.
Artists die from not getting exposure. This isn’t one of those “play my wedding for exposure” things. It’s being a regular song playing in one of the world’s most popular game franchises.
They should get paid, sure, but telling them to fuck off because the rate wasn’t what they want is dumb.
It takes upward of 200 streams of a track on Spotify to earn a single penny. 20,000 streams to earn a dollar.
(For me and my personal expenses, this would mean I would need 40,000,000 streams per month to pay rent/pay bills/eat. I’m dirt poor and live a dirt poor budget. 40,000,000 streams to pay $1400 in rent is INSANE.)
That “exposure” can still add up to “not paying the bills.”
Also, if he gains no new listeners? He would have made a huge mistake not angling for more money.
This guy is being smart, and the rich just want people to THINK that exposure is worth it. Even Oprah pays in exposure and its bullshit. The company has got the fucking money to pay it they just don’t want to.
You, as an individual, buy enough of their stuff to support them month-to-month? How generous of you.
Now that the snark is out of the way: Clearly an individual doesn’t make enough money to do that, and if you’re the only new fan they gain that’s still nowhere near enough to make a living.
You could have responded without being an asshole. If we had discussed this politely we probably could have reached an acceptable middle ground and both learned something from the other person’s experiences and ideas.
You’re coming out here arguing in favor of a megacorporation keeping even more money for itself instead of artists getting paid for their work. I feel like you should have expected to have upset people.
It’s the internet. Calm down. Not everything has to be a fight. Use that energy to yell about something more important, like genocide or climate change. Goodbye
To be fair, they were smart enough to get some exposure even without accepting the deal. This is not the first place I see this discussion and some people are definitely going to check their stuff now out of curiosity.
But this exposure is short-lived with an incredibly limited audience Who may or may not listen to it. I did not look them up. I don’t have the time right this moment and I will definitely forget.
I just think that in this particular video game franchise, even if they did not receive the amount of money they wanted upfront for royalties, They could not pay for this kind of Marketing opportunity.
Sometimes, when I play a AAA game and something expensive is visible on screen (e.g. half of New York getting destroyed during that long quick-time event in Spider-Man), I like to shout “Production value!” at nobody, like that director self-insert kid in “Super 8” (2011).
I get a feeling I would ruin my voice doing this every time in GTA 6.
To answer your question, I think we would have to look at what music licenses usually cost. Some quick googling tells me that $7500 is hardly an outrageously low sum for a song from a middle of the road '80s band. They aren’t exactly Depeche Mode. I think they would have benefited far more from the inclusion of their song in this game financially (since it would cast them into the limelight again, providing streaming revenue and perhaps gain them new fans) than the little and likely very temporary publicity they gained from rejecting the offer.
But your assumption is that every artist gets the same deal. Some maybe more valuable and expensive than others. Then the question is, if this group was valued very low and that is whats upsetting. But come on, 7500 for lifetime rights is really bad payment. I wonder what the deals with prior games and songs was.
Sony is also encountering similar issues in terms of the cost of games being unsustainable and Moore’s Law kicking in. The difference is that they’re making games that move consoles and Microsoft just aren’t.
At this point, I don’t know what strategy Microsoft has at this point. If you say “Xbox everywhere”, what does Xbox even mean any more for the enthusiast? I don’t think Xbox is done, but if they were looking to be HBO before, they are now going for the Netflix approach - high quantity content, mediocre product - and possibly alienate the existing audience they have.
I say this as an Xbox Series S owner, I’m happy with my purchase, but as a consumer I don’t think I’ll be upgrading my console to anything Microsoft ship any time soon.
“I may have stolen your wallet, but it’s okay - I gave it back. Surely it wasn’t because several police officers were walking over with curious expressions.”
If their game was that good, we would read about it up and down the net. The fact that I read about it here for the first time tells a different story.
Completed both 100% and they’re such great fun games.
Hogwarts was awesome to walk through the wizardry world. Battling wizards, poachers, spiders, etc. Finding all the secrets and going through the story. Finished the game in a week, I just couldn’t put the controller down.
That was my reaction as well. I wonder if they’re just trying to reassure people since they announced today they’re discontinuing online services for Wii U and 3DS.
About time. The PSP and Vita were beautiful devices that gave a great playing experience. Sony obviously knew how to make a good portable, and throwing that away was a big mistake.
Vita was a little too ahead of it’s time - trying to use psn without consistent network traffic was awful.
You shouldn’t need to reconnect just to see if you have messages. Hopefully they don’t require propriety memory or abandon the unit months after release either
Imo the biggest failure of the bits was the egregiously priced proprietary memory cards. Outrageously expensive for very little space. Made the value proposition compared to the post price drop 3ds (which used micro SDS) a no brainer unfortunately
Honestly the biggest failure IMO, was because like usual, they didnt actually support it after release. I’ve fallen for this one too many times with Sony, but no more. Whenever Sony releases something other than their mainstream products, they immediately stop developing for it and basically rely on a bunch of third parties. Who usually give up shortly thereafter when they notice the dwindling support.
My vita is collecting dust with my PSVR, my PS proprietary headphones, and all the other useless shit Sony has released over the years.
They didn’t support either VR’s. Most of the titles for PSVR were third party, there was very little AAA support after the first few months around it’s release. Two years later it was dust and echos, just like PSVR2 (Blood & Truth arguably an exception, but I also believe it was still released within that two year window).
I recently dug up my vita and installed CFW out of boredom. With the built-in PSP and PSX emulation, decent retroarch support and a fair few source ports, it’s quite a respectable retro handheld these days. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend sourcing one over say, an anbernic unit, but if you already have it, it’s a fairly easy jailbreak and worth the effort IMO.
videogameschronicle.com
Ważne