The subscription hike is something, but U.S./U.K. inflation from 2008 to 2022 is about 40%, and that’s not accounting for any changes in corporate taxes. Its… well, it’s kinda mad that WoW hasn’t increased the subscription price that whole time, if that’s true, but that’s partially because they sell expansions, right? And those probably creep up with inflation.
The problem is the choices they’ve made with that money, aka shoving more aggressive monetization into the game instead of keeping it simple, which was so central to its appeal long ago. Of taking short term profits instead of investing in R&D, new game development, and deeper development for Runescape. This is the real corporate greed. Making money is fine, but just taking it as pure profit at the expense of long-term health is destructive, greedy, unfair to the employees and wrong.
Also, I played Runescape ages ago, and well… I just got tired of the game. I feel like thats why many people left, and I also think it’s kinda mad expecting most players to play the same game forever.
Well, I mean wow was already at $15 a month back in the day. When it came out in 2004, It was like paying $25 per month today. It was damn pricey back then. At this point I think they’re getting all the money out of it that the market will bear. Yeah the expansions help but I suspect they’re running leaner now than they were.
I doubt anyone knows how much of the playerbase it makes up, but the WoW subscription effectively went up to $20 a month for anyone that’s using in-game gold to fund it.
And it was something people were hoping would save the game. But, it’s unfortunately more confirmation that Bethesda can no longer produce quality games.
he’s saying “they” haven’t improved since 76 came out. i don’t know what else he could possibly mean by that, especially since 76 itself has improved immensely since coming out
So Bethesda is good because Starfield might be worth playing 10 years after it was released? You’re obviously not understanding the point here.
It doesn’t matter that they improved '76 after the fact. It matters that they keep releasing top dollar garbage that needs years of work after the fact to even be playable.
Like imagine if you bought a brand new car that broke down immediately after you drove it off the lot. You take it back to them and they tell you “We understand you’re disappointed, so if we get time we’ll fix it for you and should have it back to you in a year or two.” Are you going to be satisfied with no car and no money for that long? Does it really make it better if they do actually fix it at some undetermined point in the future?
Is that my “line of thinking” when I never said anything of the sort? I don’t think so.
I’ve never played Cyberpunk 2077 nor No Man’s Sky and have zero opinion on them, but you bringing them up out of nowhere as some sort of ‘gotcha’ screams “my argument is based on emotion and not fact.”
what is factually wrong about 76 being improved after release? that’s the entire thing, i’m not the one convienently ignoring those facts because it doesnt support my argument 😂
For the fourteenth time, it’s completely irrelevant to the discussion.
You talk about conveniently ignoring things while you’re ignoring the whole topic so you can keep talking about some updates to Fallout '76 as if that has any bearing on Bethesda trending toward doing worse and worse with each new release. You’re making a completely separate argument to the rest of us.
actually its only the 6th time, not 14th. how can i trust your word now?
and 76 has gotten new releases pretty frequently. they are called content updates or dlc, which are free on that game. i think bethesdas only released 2 other games since 76, redfall, which was done by a different studio, and starfield
This is a puzzle-driven metroidvania with a simple retro-inspired aesthetic that aims to teach you how to interact with it wordlessly, and it usually succeeds at it. I’m honestly not sure how to fill out the rest of this blurb without ruining the intended experience, but while I wasn’t this game’s biggest fan and wasn’t interested in digging into its secrets post-credits, I did enjoy my time with it.
I’m really happy with my few hours in it. I was afraid it’d be another Rain World situation where I can tell I like it and admire the craft but don’t actually feel the need to play it much, but I do find it enticing still.
This game got me good. The atmosphere and way it drips out puzzle after puzzle is so rewarding. I drew maps. I wrote down a litany of notes on my iPad to keep track of. I tried to solve everything I could on my own until I just couldn’t any more. It felt like playing games as a kid where you had to have paper handy and wrote down passcodes.
Pouring over every inch of the map was so fun, and while I do think there will be copy cats to this game pop up in the next year, I don’t think anyone will be able to capture the magic of this again. It’s like its own singular entity that no one else has ever done. Not in this way.
For that, it’s my game of the year. Astro Bot is my second, since it’s a technically near perfect game. But it’s also simply peak platformer. Animal Well is novel. It’s just built different.
I wanted to love it, but I just liked it. I was hoping it’d be more similar to TUNIC, where I can do 99% of the game solo. Idk if this is controversial, but I hate the community-based puzzles with a passion.
There’s nothing fun about the game, and you see people streaming it, it’s just building. That’s all they are ever doing. Just building crap.
To be fair, that’s always been a reasonable description of games like Sims, Minecraft, and most other simulation style games, depending on personal preference. Maybe the fact that you’re choosing to use it now means you aren’t as interested in that style of game, or even video games in general, as you used to be. Maybe not, but I think it’s worth considering at least.
That’s how I’ve felt about The Sims since the first one. It was so boring making my Sim go to work, come home, eat, go to bed, shower, etc. I bounced off it hard and never went back. If someone likes it, good for them, but I’ve never gotten it.
To be fair, that’s always been a reasonable description of games like Sims
I disagree with you here. You’re making it out to be that this is the extent of it, and that’s not true. Sims 3 had a HUGE amount of content aside from Building. There were quests/tasks, lineages for families, hidden objectives, you could wander around your entire city/neighborhood. None of these are possible in Sims 4. Every “neighborhood” has like 5 housing plots. Some have more than that, one of the Vampire ones has literally 4 homes, you can’t scroll over or have your sim walk next door and make a new friend nope. If you/others haven’t played Sims 3, seriously… Go try it, try to 100% it by experiencing all it offers, especially the Future DLC. It’s insane, really. Every S4 DLC by comparison is hollowed out and has like 5 things to do total. Most of the traveling ones, the university ones. They slashed the content in Sims 4 by 75% and kept the price for the DLC the EXACT same. It’s criminal.
I’m not saying it’s not possible that the Sims franchise has gotten worse. I’m just saying that lots of people would have described every Sims game in the same terms OP did. I’m also saying that your tastes and preferences can change over time. It’s possible, but certainly not the only option, that these two things are more true than it is that Sims is getting worse.
Because the gunplay is really good. I never had a shred of interest in the story.
I don’t still play because the level and enemy design tanked when they went into expansion treadmill mode, but “a path forward” was never something I cared even a little bit about. “The path forward” is what killed my fun.
The gunplay is SO good. There’s just something about the way it feels that makes it so distinct from any other shooter.
I haven’t touched Destiny in two years. And every shooter I played (first person and the gears of war third person), nothing has yet scratched my Destiny 2 itch.
I could pop cabal heads with [insert high impact scout, bonus if firefly] for days. Hell, I pretty much did on D1. Then D2, in addition to all the other bad design stuff to satisfy live service, also decided they wanted to try to dictate your gun choice in certain game modes with all the bullshit seasonal modifiers on untouchable enemies without specific perks.
All I want to do is run strikes on the basic races by myself. But they can’t milk me for money like that.
Generally shorthand for animation, sound, and somewhat game balance. As for what’s good about it I couldn’t tell you because I came into the game jaded. IMO the visual design is nothing standout and the aim assist on mouse aim makes the entire experience sleep inducing.
Confirmed. The gunplay is amazing. I haven’t played for a year or two but I would jump back in today if The Final Shape included all the catch-up/prior DLC packs.
I like the DualSense controller. Yes, it’s “for playstation” but all controllers work on PC nowadays. Especially on Linux, the driver for PS controllers is in the kernel, and they can work both wired and via Bluetooth.
It even supports using the special features of the DualSense in some games, like the adaptive triggers when playing Rift Apart or Forbidden West.
And the touchpad works as a mouse, which is handy.
I had a Dualsense and I loved it. it served me well until it met its end to a can of Soda and my Cat. Now I use my Childhood DualShock 3 to game. It has no where near as many QoL features as its younger brother (like the touchpad). But it’s so fucking durable.
Why does this billion dollar company not do exaxtly what I expect them to😡 They made great games because those are the ones I like and now they make shitty games because I dont like them.
I percieve them as different to your run of the mill EA or Ubisoft, so I expect more from them. That’s on me I guess. I’m not angry though, just disappointed.
Artifact has good scores from critics, as does CS2, nothing from Zombies. Not sure one game from 20 years ago says much when it’s just 1.6 with bots. The game isn’t bad, people just expected more than that.
Because, as I said, it is the same game with bots on top. The game isn’t suddenly bad because of that, so look at reviews of 1.6 instead of cherry picking convenient information. Artifact was review bombed, which I also mentioned.
Again (third time), it was review bombed. Steam reviews, if you actually look at them, are generally positive, except for people who “played” it for 0.1 - 0.3 hours, or over 100 and jokingly clicked to not recommend. CS was 1.6, and thus obviously not a bad game.
I kind of quit Overwatch after they sucked the soul out of it and called it a sequel. It’s not entirely a replacement, but as a fun shooter to play with friends/ family, I’ve mostly moved to playing Deep Rock Galactic. In some ways it scratches the itch: various classes/ roles, weapons, abilities, cooperation and teamwork to accomplish objectives, clicking heads and making things die, and purely cosmetic skins. It doesn’t quite have the satisfaction of a good back and forth grudge match (on account of being a PvE game), but the community is super chill, the game design about as far from predatory as you can get (while there are a handful of exclusive fomo items, it’s mostly just annual anniversary hats, or gifts to commemorate steam award nominations and such, there’s no collection interface to mock you or rub it in for not having them), and the devs are just all around great. Bonus points for being able to spin up or join missions pretty much whenever.
Same, friends and me went to DRG instead. While of course it gets rote after a whole the procedural generation helps, and it’s the chill background game to play while voice chatting that Overwatch 1 was in its early days before its balance shifted to high-end competition.
It doesn’t quite have the satisfaction of a good back and forth grudge match (on account of being a PvE game),
Heh… It’s not designed for it, but I’ve had some pretty grudge-like experiences joining public games, as some teammates turned out to be hostile.
To be clear, I don’t recommend that experience. It’s not fun to be antagonized with deliberate friendly fire throughout a mission, bullied by a group when you eventually shoot back, and left for dead when the ship leaves. (It’s easily avoidable by playing with friends, of course.)
You can always refund it. Even if you’ve gone over the 2 hours for an auto-accept refund, if you explain the issues in the ticket Steam will always accept it in my experience.
Even got a refund for a game after 20 hours of game time due to them adding aggressive client-side anti-cheat.
The reason why everyone doesn’t do it is because it requires significant capital to be able to support a dev team through production for a number of years.
Not to mention they will still have to deal with publishers potentially fucking them over, as shown with the Helldivers 2 PSN fiasco.
Exactly. In fact, there are so many indie Devs that it’s nigh-impossible to break through the massive numbers of them. Occasionally there are breakthroughs like Stardew Valley, Hades, Vampires, etc.
On the other hand, you partner with a company like Microsoft or Sony and you’re basically guaranteed success. They put up all the capital to make sure you make it to release (albeit probably a rushed, half-baked one that you just fix later because why not). Even if your game blows ass and is completely broken, full of DRM, microtransactions and ads, gamers still buy that shit up.
bin.pol.social
Ważne