To me it was a disaster because I expected it to be way more next gen after all these years. And it was very expensive compared to the quality I got.
Meanwhile my friend was all like “Eh, it’s fine. Pretty much what I expected.”
So I think people had very different expectations.
What I absolutely cannot comprehend is those who say “10/10, game of the century!”
Come on… No way. If you really think that, you have really low standards or haven’t played a new game in 8 years.
I had completely forgotten about this. Such an interesting idea, especially considering Fallout is so “American”, I wonder if it’ll work out and still feel like Fallout or just a derivative.
The few glimpses at technology (future bike for example) and ads gives me hope for a neat spin on the classic elements of the setting. That’s all we can do for now, I guess.
Meh. They are their own worst enemy. If you’re going to make a console, you have to give people reasons to buy it. Their lack of console selling games isn’t the steam deck’s fault.
I thought the ps3 might kill Sony’s console dreams but they buckled down and delivered with the ps4.
M$ can salvage this, if they genuinely reflect and start delivering.
The video content isn’t talking about the current market or the past, but how Steam Deck is the biggest threat to Xbox in the future. Xbox has a lot of potential. The leadership changed (which is addressed in this video too). When Microsoft was at its worse, Steve Ballmer was the boss of Microsoft and Don Mattrick was ruining Xbox in the ground with XBox One. Now we have Satya Nadella and have Spencer, who did bring back the Xbox brand and seem to understand their stuff better.
Sony also built up momentum during the second half of the PS3’s lifespan by focusing on what’s most important for a games console: games. And they made the PS3 more affordable and therefore accessible with a great, focused PS3 redesign in form of the PS3 Slim, saving costs while only cutting features that weren’t really important to most potential customers (PS2 backwards compatibility).
They took that momentum, watched Microsoft fail and made a home run with the PS4 based on the perfect storm that was created.
The PS5 was simply a continuation of their good form, and Microsoft has just been going along with their Xbox brand and consoles, seemingly not knowing where to go, buying studios left and right which then proceed to release mediocre titles. They also tried something with their subscription service, but it turns out most people just buy the games they want to play instead of picking from a selection of games of which they wouldn’t have chosen most of them if they weren’t included in a subscription.
After being away from consoles for a long time now, they really have little appeal beyond their easy setup and cheaper hardware. The exclusives on any console are not worth buying a whole new console to play. There's so much more value in PC gaming, the intial barrier of entry and possible technical problems just put people off.
I really think Steam Machines could make a major comeback now, the deck has proved the software side, SteamOS is much more mature.
I couldn’t agree more. Back during the initial pitches of the Steam Machines, I was a supporter of the concept and was looking forward to the release. In my market, they took a long time to release and ended up being stupidly expensive. To give an idea, in my market an i3-powered unit was expensive as an i7-powered one in the US despite not having that problem with PC components or even prebuilts. Eventually I spent the money on a parts to build my own rig that was significantly more capable than what the Steam Machine of equal cost would have been. I found little ways to make being a couch PC gamer viable without breaking the bank on horribly expensive niche products like lapboards and it’s enabled me to become a PC gamer despite having been a console boy for so long. It’s a shame because I think Steam Machines would make PC gaming so much more approachable to the average consumer (which I was at the time) and I hope they still manage to in the future.
Oh I agree with that and I’m a PC gamer 99 % of the time (well, like 95 % desktop PC, 4.5 % Steam Deck, 0.5 % consoles). I mainly use my PS5 for playing BluRay nowadays. I don’t fancy paying more for games, a subscription for online gaming and getting a worse experience (in terms of graphics/performance and things like modding but also voice chat options etc.).
Metacritic user ratings have literally never mattered and never been an indicator for anything. I’m pretty sure every relatively popular game on it gets “review bombed”, because anyone who actually wanted to review it wouldn’t review it there. This is non-news.
Doesn’t metacritic aggregate reviews from other sources on their review scores as well? I havent really considered any of the big name review places a reasonable source for a long time anyway…
Everyone expects the next big game every game. How often can a studio really live up to the hype people create?
If you’re unaware of the recent history of this project, the big Fallout 4 update that came out a few months ago broke this project. GOG worked with them to build an installer that would downgrade Fallout 4 to the required version to run this (hence the GOG logo at the start). Good guy GOG to the rescue.
Any reason to think this would be a probable takedown? Mods on Bethesda games have historically been a thriving community unless they directly infringe on another company’s copyright.
It was mentioned in one of their previous interviews as reason to parner with gog. I’ve unfortunately not bookmarked it, though, and I’m too lazy to search for it, sry.
edit: found it: “At the very least, GOG is sure that its support for Fallout: London won’t upset Bethesda,“They’re also our partners so we wouldn’t want to do anything to harm our relationship.””
“It’s not uncommon for larger game companies like Bethesda to have mixed reactions to fan-made projects of this scale, we saw this with things such as Fallout: The Frontier,” says Carter, referencing the game-sized mod for Fallout: New Vegas that launched in 2021. “They often tolerate projects’ like ours’ existence as long as they don’t infringe on their intellectual property or negatively impact their brand.”
That said, I agree with you. The Frontier had issues because they put problematic shit in their mod. Bethesda has explicitly given shoutouts to Sim Settlements (I’m pretty sure there’s others) in the recent past.
It’s a shame the writers and directors of The Frontier were so shit. The programmers did stellar job within the confines of that crappy engine and I’m still salty Xilandros fantastic vehicle implementation isn’t made available as a standalone (officially).
The ending had me rolling. I didn’t realize what was going on until just right before the reveal. Great game to check out because you can beat it in a couple hours
It would still be a fun little puzzler, but it’s very much a single-note satire, and a lot of it would come off as “lol random” rather than taking the piss out of The Witness. Which is also brilliant, love them both.
I’m also interested in checking out Stride tomorrow. Hopefully I can find a good alternative to Mirror for multiplayer networking and the FinalIk package I had in Unity.
Well shit, wish they’d posted it before black Friday. It was only an AIO.
Edit: Cancelled. It was the wrong size, anyway. Sad I’m not gonna have a small LCD on the right one, though. NZXT was by far the cheapest in that respect.
If you live somewhere with consumer rights, by law you can return it no questions asked within 14 days of receipt (actual length of time may vary, UK is 14 days)
So is Australia, and these contracts will end them in court here real quick with potentially two Government departments: ACCC and ASIC. Feel sorry for Americans.
The irony is, something like this probably would have been a lot less expensive to make, while also appealing more to fans. It’s funny how so many people in the movie business are not very good at, you know, the movie business.
It’s just your typical meme-movie that nobody really asked for, they gather a bunch of classic game tropes and shove it into a movie and then max out on publicity like “Haha look, so funny and recognizable Minecraft stuff. Are we right, fellow kids? We totally get you!”.
They probably could’ve gotten away with it if they just used 3D characters like the Mario movie too and it would’ve worked fine for younger audiences. It probably still will work fine for younger audiences but it feels so terribly forced.
I think they’ll get away with it because they’re deliberately marketing it the way so many similar movies are managed: formulaically for kids, but with some actors and writing meant to give ‘the adults’ something to watch too. Unfortunately, ‘the adults’ are almost always assumed to have only a passing familiarity with the subject material, and I have a feeling they’re going to write the ‘for the adults in the room’ jokes with that assumption in mind.
It feels like it’s being written on an outdated manual, ignoring the fact that there’s a very sizable core audience of 20 and 30-somethings they could tap into. My guess is that everything they tried only tested well with children in focus groups, since apparently they were dead-set on a live-action format from the very beginning. I hate to be so cynical, but it’s possible they decided to go all-in on kids because they can hit the appeal without worrying as much on the production standards.
since apparently they were dead-set on a live-action format from the very beginning.
The live-action fairy has these Hollywood execs in a trance.
To this day I don’t understand what made Disney swap all their lovable animated characters for photorealistic-lion.fbx and make a Lion King “”“live-action”“”
Ross is right, if you don't propose an alternative and don't actually try to do anything to bring that alternative to the public, why don't you just fuck off?
Wtf are you talking about? He specifically says that he wants to have a conversation with people that will give constructive criticism, not someone that’s just complaining and not giving any solutions or alternatives to solve the problem.
Alternatives would be boycotts directed at the worst offenders and a law that ensures service games are clearly labeled so consumers can make an informed choice instead of banned outright. I’m going to get downvoted and told to fuck off because I’m wrong regardless of what I say unless it’s “I 100% support this”.
Boycotts are fickle things, sometimes gathering a following big enough to make a corporation cave, but many other times, not getting any steam at all.
And even if a boycott is successful against one company, it doesn’t mean they won’t try the same thing again, or try their usual ‘do something extreme, then walk it back to where you originally wanted it’ two-step, which is generally very effective at getting what they want. They know how to manipulate the public to their desires, they have whole divisions dedicated to that (though sometimes even they get caught unawares). If we went this route, the issue is that this tactic is done frequently enough that people would likely get boycott fatigue. “Ugh, another campaign? Another publisher screwing us? I just can’t anymore.”
At least against corporations, actual consumer protection law is a much more reliable long-term solution to an enemy that will try every tactic to avoid real, effective change in favor of the consumer.
First off, thanks for a response that isn’t filled with hate! It’s been rare when I’ve made posts about this topic. I appreciate it!
If we went this route, the issue is that this tactic is done frequently enough that people would likely get boycott fatigue. “Ugh, another campaign? Another publisher screwing us? I just can’t anymore.”
Are there really that many companies screwing over consumers? I’d appreciate if Stop Killing Games actually kept a running list of which companies and which games are anti-consumer. They’ve got The Crew but what other games? If it’s really just The Crew then the issue is with Ubisoft, not the gaming industry. A big list would make it clear this is an industry wide issue that needs to be addressed.
I’m also not sold on the idea that a ban is the only way to protect consumers. Cigarettes literally kill consumers, but total bans on them are rare. Instead, consumers are given a very clear message when buying cigarettes. It’s up to the consumer to decide if they’re alright with it. Are service games worse than cigarettes?
Now a practice doesn’t need to kill people before a law bans it. Recently there have been laws enacted so that if a company sells a subscription online they must allow for cancellation of that subscription online. Frequently, companies would require people to call a customer service line to cancel a subscription, but that could be a huge hassle to do! It’s clear that companies do this only to try and screw over customers and there’s no reason it should exist as a practice, so banning it makes sense. Are live service games the same? They definitely could be, but I also think there are legitimate reasons to sell games as a service. Instead of banning it completely, why not just ensure service games come with a clear label like cigarettes. A note that access to the game is not permanent and the company can revoke it in the future. If someone doesn’t like that, they don’t need to play it.
Ive seen two arguments against “why not just let consumers decide for themselves?” The idea that consumers don’t have a choice. All companies will eventually sell their games in this way and consumers won’t be able to avoid it even if they wanted to. I would agree if the gaming industry was a monopoly and gamers really didn’t have any choice, but that’s not the case at all. Gaming is probably one of the most competitive industries in the modern world thanks to how easy it is for anyone to make a game and sell it worldwide. Gamers have enough choice that I don’t see the “monopoly” argument as persuasive as it is in something like the right to repair movement.
The other argument seems to be “games are art and must be protected” but that leaves the realm of consumer protection and enters philosophy. There aren’t laws mandating the protection of other forms of art so I’m doubtful any government would enact such a law. Also, personally have to disagree. I’m in favour of the Buddhist idea of impermanence. Everything is temporary and trying to make a game exist forever is as silly as trying to live forever. Focus on enjoying your life, as temporary as it is, instead of being down that it is temporary. I think games can be enjoyed in the same way. Of course, if a company is purposefully making it temporary to try and make a few extra bucks, that’s shitty and should be called out, but we’ve gone back to consumer protection instead of philosophy.
But the problem is usually much larger where a game requires you to login to play even the single player component but is unable to do so with entire services going down, such as gamespy or others, more on that here:
There’s quite a few others, but I do agree with the point that there should be an aggregate for all of these, that could be presented as a universal list that hopefully stops growing in the coming years.
There’s also the problem of “going digital”. Previously you’d have at least the physical disks/mediums of the game in your possession but with the ever growing digital only culture, the moment a game gets delisted and you can no longer download it, that is it. Cult classic or not.
P.S - Nintendo seems to have liked your Buddhist idea of impermanence and has done that to Super Mario 35, existed for a total of 6 months. Personally, I would’ve liked to at least try it seeing how it hasn’t been all that long ago.
Thanks for the lists! Delistedgames seems to focus more on games that aren’t sold anymore rather than shutdown. For example, they list Grand Theft Auto IV as a delisted game because they only sell Grand Theft Auto IV: Complete Edition now.
Weird that TVTropes seems to have a better list of games that not only aren’t sold anymore but don’t work even if you bought them. It’s an interesting list. I feel bad for all the people who played Family Guy Online for the 8 months it existed in 2012!
The Kotaku list is nice too but they do note that some of the games are still playable single player. It’s only the online multiplayer that’s not going to work since the servers are shutting down. I’m not sure how I feel about that one. Is it still killing a game if single player modes still work?
Are there really that many companies screwing over consumers? I’d appreciate if Stop Killing Games actually kept a running list of which companies and which games are anti-consumer.
Before Ross started this campaign, he’d been steadily creating a video series dedicated to cataloging games that are killed for the past 8 years, called Dead Game News. Here’s a link to a playlist of the series, and you can see the titles of the games that have been killed in the title of the episodes. The Crew is certainly not alone, it was chosen to be a centerpiece of the campaign because it had so many people who owned it, having a fairly high profile shutdown, and being a super clear-cut example of a publisher actively disabling a game that clearly didn’t need to be.
I’m also not sold on the idea that a ban is the only way to protect consumers.
Instead of banning it completely,
I want to point out that outright banning live service games has never been suggested or wanted in this campaign. The proposed solution is to make it a legal requirement to have an end-of-life plan for live service games that are not subscription based. This would effectively mean the publisher/developer would need to account for the need to make the game playable after they decide to end support from the beginning of development, and make choices that would make that possible (choosing software and licenses that won’t conflict with an End-of-Life). Alternatively, they could either make it not require a central server at all, or make it subscription based.
While the game is supported, they would still be able to run it however they please, their profit model would not be banned, the only thing that changes is what happens when the game is no longer profitable enough to support.
I’m in favour of the Buddhist idea of impermanence. Everything is temporary and trying to make a game exist forever is as silly as trying to live forever.
There’s nothing wrong with that, but many people have the philosophy of preserving our history, so as to learn from it, and for future generations to experience. I personally am very grateful that I can read the thoughts of someone who lived a thousand years before me in a book, thanks to fanatical archivists who preserved it. It’s the closest any of us can come to experiencing a time machine, the very concept can fill one with awe. Nothing will last forever, but I and many others derive meaning and value from keeping history alive for future generations to learn from, to enjoy, to ponder. Us preserving things in our corner does not disturb someone else from living with impermanence, it is only there for those who wish to partake.
Unfortunately, boycotts and labels are not enough. I wish we didn’t have to involve the government in this, believe me. There are dozens of different dark patterns and malicious compliance that companies apply to trick customers into buying things. You might be someone informed enough that would not fall for those tricks, but there a lot of people that would benefit from a law that prevents companies from doing that in the first place (children, people with mental disorders like gambling addiction, etc).
I think the most realistic alternative is to just have an ‘earliest end-of-life date’ plainly visible at the time of purchase. Keeping these games online forever isn’t feasible, but shutting down something people paid for with the expectation of continuous service isn’t good either. Just make it clear how long the developers WILL support the game for, at the very minimum, and let people make their decision based on that. And mandate refunds for any live service game that doesn’t last as long as promised.
The “buy” button (or any similar verbiage) needs to go away (unless the provider intends for it to be available forever) and replaced with “rent for x years”.
The people that matter have gotten paid anyway, unless of course the publisher steal from them too, which happens from time to time, see Bethesda and Mick Gordon.
Thankfully the talent still exists, so they might move on to other places, do their own thing, or leave game dev altogether.
Gamedev is an extremely toxic career, and it has been for a very long time. I’m glad people are finally starting to at least somewhat care, if only for the studios themselves.
youtu.be
Ważne