My opinion: Follow the Apex Legends one. Don’t tell the public literally anything. Build up zero hype, and then release it out of nowhere and let the game speak for itself. No hype = no overinflated expectations or impatient gamers. Obviously not every studio should do this, but I wish more would. I enjoy being pleasantly surprised, rather than wait for a game for years, only for it to be overpromised and DOA.
I see what you’re saying, but it’s unviable for much of the industry, and Apex seems to be a rare case where it found success despite the competition of overwatch, counter strike etc and despite being unknown (unlike valorant, which had significant brand recognition behind it).
But it’s unviable. Large studios need to market their games early to recover development costs through pre purchases and get people excited enough to buy day 1 (and to convince investors that there is enough excitement behind the title).
Small studios already do this - they don’t have brand recognition and therefore no money or need to market their games extensively (except on free platforms like Lemmy, Reddit etc), and hope their game somehow gets picked up by twitch and does well (e.g. Among Us). For many, many indie titles, their games die in obscurity, or get just enough attention to cover costs.
In general, what you’re asking for is the following: Don’t tell the public anything. Build a game that’s good enough but has an unknown IP (so that people who are hunting for registered URLs or LinkedIn hires don’t spot anything that could hint at a game), and then release it suddenly, but be absolutely confident that it is genuinely fun, it’s watertight (free from major bugs) and chef’s kiss optimised so incredibly well, that it gets nothing but glowing reviews on day 1 and word of mouth alone, through Twitch and YouTube is enough to propel it into the mainstream and make it an instant hit.
Or be Starfield lmao. If Bethesda is unable to do to Starfield what No Man’s Sky and Cyberpunk did, then there’s absolutely no confidence that Elder Scrolls 6 will be a good game.
I think you can learn a lot from apex even if it’s not the obvious choice. For Counterstrike 2 the trailer was dropped, aggressively marketed and a beta was put in people’s hands basically at the same time solidifying the game is good. Then it disappeared until launch. It very clearly worked because there were no complaints about the game. No question how good it is because the streamers played it. Then it’s just a waiting game. BG3 not quite the same but putting the game into people’s hands meant that people knew it was solid, before launch. Access creates buzz, especially if a game is enjoyable. It’s the through line between all the success stories. Let people play good game, then other people want to play the good game.
I used to use PlayOnLinux for exactly this thing. It’s a front end/manager for WINE. Heroic and Lutris are similar, but have carried the concept further.
sourcing an older computer that can run xp isn't terribly difficult, or expensive. don't need internets for them, don't need massive video card, or a big high-res monitor. in the end, finding one, and a little space to set it up, is a lot easier and with far fewer headaches than getting many of the old games to run on 'modern' windows or linux.
i have systems from an old celeron 300a to dual core am2 to play the really old games on.. even have crt and white kb/mouse for the full 'experience'.
It would help to know specific games, as many games of that era require extra fan made patches to run on modern systems. You could buy them again from GOG with these already packaged with it, but depending on the game, there is probably a free option available to you if you have the original discs.
1994 - 1996 and beyond. Originally played on Win98, currently on Win10. Trying out several different CDROMS, but I’ve been testing out an old “Learning in Toyland” CD, but I also have an old “Yukon Trail” CD I’m trying to boot up.
I’ve tried DOSBOX, but I keep getting messages like “requires Windows” or whatnot. Like HOE, I HAVE WINDOWS AND IT DON’T EVEN WORK
Dosbox is for dos games ;) If they ran on Win98 then try them on Win98 again. Get something like Virtualbox and make yourself a Win98 machine to play with.
Seconding the recommendation for Virtualbox. Wanted to play my old Lego Island CD a few years ago and I just booted it up in an old Windows VM. Worked like a charm.
Hilarious to imagine from the perspective of a non tech savy person though: your virtual machine program “something box” is for the other old windows, not the old windows you want. Get this “other box” windows thing to make the right old windows so you can play windows games on your windows pc.
Have you tried installing a copy of Windows in Dosbox, then install the game from there? I remember doing something like that to play the original SimTower.
Very likely the game is 16 bit mode, which is why nothing in Windows 10's compatibility mode is working, as it doesn't support 16 bit programs.
Ahhh....you're trying to play Windows 3.1 games...that's why you're having issues...yeah emulation for Windows 3.1's random differences from Windows 95 and DOS are surprisingly rare still.
There's no dedicated emulator for Windows 3.1 yet. I personally installed a copy onto Doxbox, but it's not a very easy solution.
But I can tell it's 3.1 cause one of those is The Learning Company and the later versions of the Super Solver games have the same issues.
This varies between “functionally impossible” to “tricky but doable” depending on the game. Generally speaking getting old games to run via using the original media is very hard. The easiest way is to buy them again on GOG.com. Second easiest is to quasi-legaly (legal in my country, illegal in others) download a pirated copy of the GOG version. The other options I’d need to know which game before I promise anything.
Well not if you can dig up and get running the computer you bought the games for, or one say 5-10 years younger. Windows XP will do for anything on a CD, Windows 95 for anything on a 3.5 floppy. 5.25 floppy then most will run on 3.1.
It’s just that it’s a lot of work ensuring backwards compatibility and it’s not always a good idea, I’d argue the software world, in general, strive to much for backwards compatibility but that’s another discussion.
That work needs funding so it’s either pay GOG for the work that has been done remaking parts or repacking to make it run on modern computers. Or look to the hobbyist side of things but since they aren’t paid, they of course seldom package what they do in an easy to consume format leading to enormous guides with 20 steps that maybe works, but probably not if you don’t have an exact setup like the guy who wrote its.
You own a version of the games, sure, but the version you own is effectively useless on a modern system.
Perhaps the taste is less sour if you consider what you are paying for here is someone else doing the hard work to get an old game to run on modern hardware, saving you all that frustration and effort and time.
You're trying to get games built for a different OS (e.g., Win98) to run on your current OS. If it doesn't work out-of-the-box, you're going to need to seek a solution that either requires emulation or significant hoops to jump through. For example: if the game was built for a 16-bit machine, and you're running a 64-bit version of Windows, the game is just not going to work natively.
DOSBox may not work as it's an x86 emulator intended for MS-DOS. However, earlier versions of Windows (up to Win95) were just shells to MS-DOS. So, if the games in question were built for Win95 or earlier, DOSBox could be an option. I've also successfully installed Win98 on DOSBox but have run in to issues with drivers.
It may be best to simply list the games you're trying to get running and seeing if someone else has gotten them to run in Win10.
I’m talking to you Hello Games (No man’s sky), just don’t mess it up with upcoming ‘Light no fire’.
What messed up NMS was overpromise to a basically criminal degree. If this were a B2B-transaction, they’d have been sued to hell and back. There’s absolutely 0 chance LNF won’t suffer exactly the same fate.
Early Access is just “release”. Only the devs openly admit ahead of time the game is buggy and unfinished, and promise - as always - to fix it up and add the missing parts.
Often they do. Sometimes they don’t.
TBH it’s ultimately nothing but a shitty buggy release, but the honesty of making that known ahead of time buys a whole lot of goodwill. It should be the default, that any publisher releasing a game that is not finished - so most AAA nowadays - marks it as Early Access, openly declaring the unfinished part.
It’s also very different from a beta version, which is usually feature and content complete (otherwise it’s generally called an alpha). Early Access versions are often very early in the development process, they’re feature-complete-ish, but never or rarely content complete, usually just starting out on that. This works exceedingly well for games that need “just more stuff”, but can miss the mark on games that need underlying systems reworked as this ires the existing playerbase and splits it.
Early access isn't necessarily different from a beta version, it's just the name of the program used by devs to generate some revenue and get feedback during development. The game can be in alpha or beta or whatever.
Personally, I avoid games in early access on principle (with a couple exceptions) as I would rather play them once they are completed.
I have been playing NO Man’s Sky since the autumn Steam sale. Unfortunately I feel like I have gotten to a point where I’m a little bored. It feels a bit repetitive and I feel a bit aimless. Will probably start on The Talos Principle 1 and 2 next.
Yeah and? I don’t know what are you trying to say here, its not like I said “Its crazy that Grim Dawn still gets updates unlike WoW”. Do I really need type out all the old games that still get updates when I want to talk about one?
You wanna know another old game that still gets updates? Project Zomboid. /J
But really though Zomboid has also been in early access since like 2013 and it’s still getting actively updated. Not to mention all the mods available on the steam workshop.
I really dislike that it’s game news outlets that get the vote, because they’re just plain gonna have a different outlook on games than people who don’t have to engage with ones they both do and don’t like as a job, and it really shows in the kind of games that get picked (shorter main storylines, narrative-driven), and the ones that don’t (sandboxes, open-world games, strategy, simulation games, etc).
And that’s only even when it’s not a selection of the 5 most well-known games, since just like the Academy Awards, not all of them have even played all the games they’re voting on.
Well typically the outlet convenes with a bunch of people who have played a wide variety of games, so I feel they have a pretty good pool of minds to pull from.
Also I don’t think it’s a bad system compared to having it be all user voted. Golden joysticks already exist for 100% public vote, and that can be easily influenced by bots and the like. Also half of the games nominated for game of the year this year were open world games that were not short. I mean I don’t think many expected in January a crpg would win in a year a Zelda game came out ¯_(ツ)_/¯
bin.pol.social
Gorące