Can you believe this headline? I have this weird feeling where the video game industry now only presents itself as former of former of… Everyone is referred to as their past roles, there’s no present or future anymore, just looking back at what we had and pretending to offer something similar
How else can you judge what direction they might go in? If you like the projects they worked on in the past does it not make it more likely that you’ll like their next project? Effectively we are getting a merger of two of the better publishers that are going independent from more corporate overlords? Maybe I’m being overly optimistic…
It’s not you, I’m probably on the opposite spectrum, being overly pessimistic. I’m not criticising this acquisition in particular and you’re right, we can’t know how this will go ; it’s more of a jab at the industry as a whole : a lot of new releases are advertised as being made by ex devs of whatever studio was once praised, and turn out to be ersatz of the original material (Back 4 Blood, Stormgate, Kerbal Space Program…). This kind of marketing is super disingenuous!
As with most AAA-games, the people that view entertainment as a mere tool for money extraction got involved.
Support developers that are actually passionate about entertainment. The ghouls that make games as a means of profit seeking (and who exploit the people who are passionate) can wither away.
I remember it having initial difficulties due to optimization problems on most platforms. It’s almost like what they’re really saying is “We see how much time and effort it would take to remake it properly, and we aren’t willing to give that to developers because SHAREHOLDERS.” An excuse which an executive from Larian recently commented on and provided some useful insight towards.
If this is to be trusted (which is a big if), it’s very interesting Nintendo would not continue with the OLED screens. I’ve heard people theorize Nintendo is choosing to keep the OLED screen for a mid-cycle refresh, which I would believe; but would consumers be happy with the graphical downgrade?
Either way, assuming this is legit, it sounds like Nintendo is likely keeping the Switch form factor if they are still using small (ish) screens for the console. If this is the case, I wonder how likely a Wii U situation would be (where customers think it’s the same console they already have and don’t buy it)…
The only reason it would be remotely acceptable is to drive the cost per unit down because the rest of the hardware is expensive, but even then it isnt like this is cutting edge stuff. I’d just hate if it had some gimmick that no one will use like the IR sensor, and the go with an LCD.
I'd wait, at this point. The switch was nice as the first legitimate handheld that could play real 3D games, but the steam deck exists now and the switch is just my Nintendo machine. And even that's largely because I'm too lazy to rip my games and saves over. The stuff I've tried plays better on deck.
I could see a lot of the enthusiasts that drove their early sales on the Switch just not bothering and making it look rough until an OLED version comes out. It's not like they've never had consoles flop because they're out of touch with what people want.
It’s possibly a case of sourcing an exact sized/spec OLED panel in the time frame before release is harder than an LCD. Especially with VRR if it’ll be using that (and frankly, they’d be daft not to, as it makes gaming on lower spec hardware a lot more tolerable).
I dunno though. I’ve never sourced either. Could well be piss easy.
astro bot (4 titles over 11 years), dragon quest (11 titles over 38 years), ace attorney (11 titles over 23 years), or balatro (winning best indie game at both the game awards and the golden joysticks this year)?
However, Ace Attorney Investigations 2: Prosecutor’s Gambit was something that went untranslated (officially, there was a fan patch) for a long time. Fan translation came out 2014, official translation 2024. The base game came out in Japan in 2011 for the DS. It’s definitely not new so I’m not sure it goes on a 2024 list. On the other hand, seeing this series get acknowledged is pretty cool so…
I also live under a rock. I do not play console, and although I do play some mobile games I’m very uninformed about what most of them are. I have heard of Balatro, the Dragon Quest series in general, Astro Bot, the Final Fantasy series in general, and Metaphor: ReFantazio. I clearly know about Ace Attorney. The other games are totally new to me.
I guess it’s nice to have confirmation, but I’m not an ounce surprised that the story of Suicide Squad is “big publisher pushed developer to make live-service trash.” I’d be hopeful that the Rocksteady single-player title could come back, but Zaslav has committed to making more live-service flops. Absolutely wild that they couldn’t learn their lesson from Hogwarts Legacy, you don’t even have to make a single-player openworldathon that good and people will still praise it if you have a popular enough IP.
They should probably be more wary of the likelier—and grimmer—alternative: becoming something closer to most of the other casinos in America, where no parent would ever dream of throwing their kid’s birthday party.
I haven’t been to a Dave & Busters in ages, but I’d guess that their existing business model may not be in great shape. What did they offer? A restaurant with an attached arcade aimed at adults.
Generally, arcades have not done terribly well. There used to be a lot of video arcades all over out there in the 1980s. Video game hardware has gotten a lot cheaper, and a lot of people just have it at home now.
Last I looked (which was not recent), the kid-oriented Chuck-E-Cheese and the adult-oriented Dave & Busters tried to compensate with hardware that had a high hardware cost and couldn’t readily economically be brought home, like light guns, enclosures that enhance immersion (e.g simulated motorcycle seats to ride on on motorcycle games). But for at least some of that, VR setups are probably a partial competitor, and they’re a lot more available.
Many of the setups are aimed at letting multiple people play games together, but wide availability of broadband and VoIP and good headsets has made it easier to play games remotely. That won’t replace all of the experience of playing against someone else in person, but it is a partial substitute.
According to the NRA, on-premises traffic hasn’t returned to its pre-pandemic highs. But drive-through and delivery orders have grown so much that together they now account for a higher share of customer traffic than on-premises dining, for the first time ever. Meanwhile, the only parts of the day with growing foot traffic are the morning and late night, when customers are likely to be on the go.
Like, they may not be able to keep doing what they had been doing.
That’s a really good point about their business model potentially being unsustainable, but I still question if adding gambling is the answer.
Things that get me to go out (and I know that is anecdotal at best) are things like trivia nights, theme nights, stand up comedy, etc. I don’t think I would be very tempted to go out by the opportunity to be hustled in Angry Birds.
I agree that Dave & Buster’s needs to develop a more novel niche to not get erased by home entertainment, but I would be shocked if this was the best way to do it.
Generally, arcades have not done terribly well. There used to be a lot of video arcades all over out there in the 1980s. Video game hardware has gotten a lot cheaper, and a lot of people just have it at home now.
Why bother with going to an arcade when you could go to a cozy place with a Steam Deck? Why pay to play old games on an arcade cabinet when there’s countless handheld emulators out there?
It worked when people had to go to a mall or arcade to play things, but nostalgia can only attract so many people, anymore. The market is no longer captive, and the people who played in arcades have grown up, gotten jobs, families, Steam Decks, and beefy gaming PCs of their own.
The only demo left is the hobbyists, and even they can now build their own arcade cabinets to get some of the experience.
I mean, there’s probably still some niche, but the niche can get pretty small.
Movie theaters kinda did this before the arcades did. Used to be that it wasn’t normal to be able to watch movies at home, but once that happened, the space for movie theaters got a lot smaller.
One reason for the decline in ticket sales in the 2000s is that “home-entertainment options [are] improving all the time— whether streamed movies and television, video games, or mobile apps—and studios releasing fewer movies”, which means that “people are less likely to head to their local multiplex”. This decline is not something that is recent. It has been observed since the 1950s when television became widespread among working-class homes. As the years went on, home media became more popular, and the decline continued. This decline continues until this day. A Pew Media survey from 2006 found that the relationship between movies watched at home versus at the movie theater was in a five to one ratio and 75% of respondents said their preferred way of watching a movie was at home, versus 21% who said they preferred to go to a theater. In 2014, it was reported that the practice of releasing a film in theaters and via on-demand streaming on the same day (for selected films) and the rise in popularity of the Netflix streaming service has led to concerns in the movie theater industry. Another source of competition is television, which has “…stolen a lot of cinema’s best tricks – like good production values and top tier actors – and brought them into people’s living rooms”. Since the 2010s, one of the increasing sources of competition for movie theaters is the increasing ownership by people of home theater systems which can display high-resolution Blu-ray disks of movies on large, widescreen flat-screen TVs, with 5.1 surround sound and a powerful subwoofer for low-pitched sounds.
Several factors contributed to the decline of the drive-in movie industry. Beginning in the late 1960s, drive-in attendance began to decline as the result of improvements and changes to home entertainment, from color television and cable TV to VCRs and video rental in the early 1980s. Additionally, the 1970s energy crisis led to the widespread adoption of daylight saving time (which caused drive-in movies to start an hour later) and lower use of automobiles, making it increasingly difficult for drive-ins to remain profitable.
Mainly following the advent of cable television and video cassette recorder (VCR), then with the arrival of DVD and streaming systems, families were able to enjoy movies in the comfort of their homes. The new entertainment technology increased the options and the movie watching experience.
And, they apparently did a similar-to-D&B’s, more-adult-oriented shift to try to mitigate losses:
While exploitation films had been a drive-in staple since the 1950s, helped by relatively limited oversight compared to downtown theaters, by the 1970s, several venues switched from showing family-friendly fare to R-rated and X-rated films as a way to offset declining patronage and revenue, while other venues that still catered to families, began to show R-rated or pornographic movies in late-night time slots to bring in extra income.[citation needed] This allowed censored materials to be viewed by a wider audience, including those for whom viewing was still illegal in some states, and it was also reliant upon varying local ordinances controlling such material. It also required a relatively remote location away from the heavier populated areas of towns and cities.
bloomberg.com
Ważne