Reject the idea of an absolute GOTY, normalize a Mt. Rushmore style "Best of the Year" selection.
Games can be great in so many different ways, many of which are somewhat exclusive with each other, that I've never understood the concept of saying that one was absolutely better than the rest.
I think the thing everyone is forgetting is that valve isn’t stupid, there’s no way they didn’t realize you could work around accepting the (legally unenforcable) NDA, and it’s open invite.
Valve 100% knows that keeping it “secret” is good for hype and was expecting this to happen at any time, and the nominal ban was expected, but nobody is gonna get sued either.
More people are talking about Valve’s “secret” new game because of this than would be if they openly announced it.
Yeah exactly. It’s quite likely they didn’t really blacklist The Verge anyways, just won’t send them invites any more for this particular game. Best kind of marketing is hype marketing, and this is how you fuel the hype.
As someone whose played it I can say that it has some cool concepts but it’s sorta mid atm. It’s what to be expected for an alpha game though, I just hope they push the aethetic harder and not just use it as set dressing cause so far the aethetic is the most unique part about it. The rest is just overwatch meets leagueDota but slightly jankier (Again, to be expected since it’s alpha.)
Those are my thoughts as well, though I’ve only had the chance to play a couple of matches so far. When I heard about the concept it sounded cooler than it feels so far, but maybe I just need to get used to it. So far the gameplay loop hasn’t really clicked for me, and balancing the hero shooter aspects with MOBA stuff like farming and buying items hasn’t felt smooth, fluid or natural.
I do imagine - much like MOBAs - it’s more fun playing as a squad though. I’ve only done random matchmaking.
Dude glad it isn’t only me. The moba aspects slow it down but the shooter aspects speed it up and it hasn’t felt like a good mix so far. I know I’m the bad one so I can’t be too harsh but it felt like I was just getting one shot like in Call of duty but also I had to just grind resources like in mobas. My least favorite aspects of both games.
That’s sorta why I like overwatch, plenty of weps that aren’t guns and you don’t get one shot most of the time, especially if you aren’t playing a squish hero. No grinding either besides charging your ult, it’s more objective based which is fun.
I can see potential in the concept - needing to push and farm and take down neutrals or world bosses creates micro objectives and incentives for player movements and varied gameplay circumstances emerging from it. The shooter framing makes for a faster-paced style compared to Dota/League, and the ability and item system adds complexity and customization which increases the skill ceiling.
I think a big issue right now is balancing. The game is very snowbally and if there are catch-up mechanics in place I haven’t found them. So not losing the lanes is super important and whichever team builds a lead over the first couple of minutes tends to extend that into running the enemy team over. It also makes matchmaking and team skill gap a big problem (just like all MOBAs) since if you have a bad player they have a double negative effect: not contributing and feeding the enemies.
Apart from the aesthetic I do think the hero designs are pretty good (both in looks and gameplay) and the map has been pretty great - lots of traversal options and verticality.
I’ve had some decently fun matches today, but it’s a very uneven experience.
Agreed, heroes of the storm imo is a good example of a fun moba. League is my main game but hots is my love. In hots you don’t have to worry about last hitting things since there’s no gold to be earned just XP which you get by being in the vicinity of a minion or enemy death and each player doesn’t have individual XP it’s team XP. So even ‘bad’ players can contribute to the team by just being present, champs are also generally tankier than other mobas so unless you’re really caught in a bad position it’s usually possible to run and survive unless it’s a complete stomp and the enemy is way ahead but even then few heroes can truly one combo you.
I never played HotS but I played Dota 1&2 for many years. Recalibrating for Deadlock hasn’t been easy, despite being familiar with stuff like last hitting.
The farm thing is what stands out to me most, as you can’t really play passively if you feel like you’re outmatched skill-wise in Deadlock. In something like TF2 or Overwatch you can play more defensively if you feel disadvantaged, but here what will happen is you’ll fall so far behind on farm you’ll never be able to contribute.
The map feels too small and the pace too high, somehow, and 4 lanes seem too many. It’s been hard to feel like you can leave your lane and gank without opening too much of a vulnerability on your “home” lane. This exacerbates the problem of one lane getting stomped and that snowballing into an unstoppable victory.
It’s very possible all these problems diminish with good team play, though. This might be one of those games you can’t enjoy properly without organised team play and active voice comms.
As someone who hadn’t even heard about Monday Night Combat until you brought it up, I’d love your take on how they compare after you’ve gotten some games in. Looking it up they do seem to have overlaps.
Haven’t played it either but the other dudes points are real. They seem to be listening to the community though so it’s worth giving it a chance and speaking up, maybe you could steer it more toward the game you mentioned. Still alpha and they mentioned the gameplay could massively change, you never know.
For anyone reading this who wants an invite lemme know and I can shoot one over too.
Not exactly, though I see your point. I think it would be more accurate if McDonald’s charged for ketchup, mustard, salt, drink cups, lids, straws etc.
The big difference with physical goods is that it’s much harder to steal a McDonald’s burger that it is to crack a single player, offline game. Furthermore, once you ate your burger, if you want more, you have to buy another because it’s a consumables.
On the other hand games are prone to piracy, expecially on pc, you pay once but can play anytime while patched and updates require prolonged work after you purchase.
It isn’t strange that developers look at dlc, microtransanction or game as a service with subscription, because they allow a stable flow of income that can support development, and it’s harder to avoid paying when the game is always online and stuff like that.
Furthermore, once you ate your burger, if you want more, you have to buy another because it’s a consumables.
The same goes for single-player offline games, though. There’s only so much entertainment you can get out of one before you’ve seen everything, get bored, and look for another one.
you pay once but can play anytime while patched and updates require prolonged work after you purchase
If a studio fails to budget for that and make sure those costs are included in the price of the game, it frankly deserves to go bust.
There’s only so much entertainment you can get out of one before you’ve seen everything, get bored, and look for another one.
You’re absolutely right, but that’s true from “your perspective”. For you the fame might last 50 hours and that’s all, but the developers still need to work on big patches, content and fixes even years after release.
If a studio fails to budget for that and make sure those costs are included in the price of the game, it frankly deserves to go bust
And this introduces another topic I think. Would the average consumer willing to spend more for a game with everything in it? AAA already cost 70$ at launch, would the average consumer accept further price increases, or would selling plummet in comparison with reduced price+dlc or free to play with microtransanction?
At the end companies are not inherently “evil” they just look for what works and what doesn’t by trial and error
the developers still need to work on big patches, content and fixes even years after release
Why would they need to do that? If it’s years down the line, there shouldn’t be any bugs left to fix by that point. And offline single-player games don’t need regular content drops. Sure, an expansion or two might be nice, but those don’t come free. Only online games need to constantly feed their players new content in order to keep them hooked and coming back to buy more MTX.
Would the average consumer willing to spend more for a game with everything in it? AAA already cost 70$ at launch, would the average consumer accept further price increases, or would selling plummet in comparison with reduced price+dlc or free to play with microtransanction?
Oh sales would plummet for sure, but it would still make a profit, just not as much. If From Soft and Larian can do it, everyone can. They just don’t wanna. (see below)
At the end companies are not inherently “evil” they just look for what works and what doesn’t by trial and error
That really depends on your definition of “works”. Sure, it’s a business, but what’s the goal? To me there seems to be a noticeable difference between companies that want to make good games, for which the business side of things is just a means to an end, and companies that want to make as much money as possible, where the games are the means to that end. Is that latter category ‘evil’? Maybe not strictly speaking, but I have no concern for those companies whatsoever, they can go fuck themselves.
Movies and books exist and they are one time purchases that you use once and stop interacting with. Why do games get special excuses for being extremely exploitative and shitty to their players? I don’t have to pay for a book chapter by chapter or pay extra for a character to appear, but authors and filmmakers still make TONS of money.
The game industry makes lots of excuses for it’s shitty behavior but none of them hold water.
but authors and filmmakers still make TONS of money.
This is an affirmation many writers would find offensive lol
The editorial sector is in deep crisis, it’s really hard to live off as a writer unless you’re ridiculously famous.
Same thing for the filmmaking industry, look at protest of screenwriters and actors, and to companies terrible financial sheets, and to movie theaters basically bankrupting as maybe their time is over. Also we both agree there’s been a shift from movies to tv series and one of the reason is that you “buy the product piece by piece”?
Ps: funnily enough, period publication of chapters were a thing until not long ago, and still are in somewhere (for example manga in Japan)
Webnovel sites in Korea and China sell books one chapter at a time, and some of their publishers are trying to break into the Western market with the same structure (ie Wattpad bought by naver, Webnovel.com owned by Qidian). They also like using virtual currency for buying chapters. Korean and Chinese web comics are also sold this way. Publishers really like the microtransaction money no matter the industry. If they could figure out how to sell microtransactions for movies I bet they would do it.
Side note: I downloaded this chinese app for downloading region locked games on mobile and they somehow figured out how to put gacha in it. Publishers seem to do anything for money no matter how little sense it makes.
Sorry for not combing through every major release since tetris and making a perfectly objective list of every good game of which most them I’ve never even seen gameplay of.
Salty? I listed a bunch of games that are clearly made by passionate developers and have been part of defining of defining the space in recent history. You are the one leaving a snarky comment that I listed less than 1 percent of games as if that proves anything.
How could you learn anything about what people think of microtransactions from the success of a game that doesn’t have them? If a beloved franchise added a sequel with microtransactions in it and that sequel tanked, then maybe you’d have a case. From the success of Baldur’s Gate 3 the most you could conclude is “people will still buy a game that doesn’t have microtransactions,” which is not particularly revelatory.
A bunch of AAA games that heavily feature microtransactions are smash hits and made millions of dollars. Sure, people complain about it, but they also purchase tons of them (may not be the same people, mind you). I’m pretty sure we can conclude that not all people hate microtransactions. Hell, publishers will look at Baldur’s Gate 3 and probably go “man, this game is good but if they put some paid cosmetics in there they could have made even more money.”
All 100% correct unfortunately. These companies put in micro transactions because they make a boatload of money off of them. End of story. Til that changes, they will continue to shoehorn them into games to sustain the unsustainable infinite growth/profit model. Until pissing us off costs them more than they gain from it, it ain’t gonna change.
Then fuck it. All the people who want microtransactions, or don’t care about the quality of the medium enough to stop engaging with shitty practices, can have them. There are plenty of developers making games that care enough about the things they make that I’ll be happy to buy from. We’ve reached a point where the big studios will spend three years and a quarter of a billion dollars putting out 7/10 games that look great in trailers and don’t function on PC that exist alongside solo devs who make the games that look at home on PS1 and offer a better experience than anything Blizzard has made in the last decade. Even if my wallet’s vote doesn’t matter to the big guys, it doesn’t have to as long as it’s enough to support people whose passion isn’t exploited to make a just barely par product.
Don’t get hyped, don’t preorder, don’t buy games until they’re fixed. You can’t change the industry but you don’t have to support it.
It’s kinda crazy how quickly people just… stopped talking about Starfield after release. Like, even if it ended up being bad or disappointing, people would’ve at least still been talking about it in that capacity.
Starfield was one of the most hyped releases in years, at least since Cyberpunk, yet when it finally released, it seems like the entire gaming world played it for a few days, collectively decided, “eh, this is alright I guess,” then moved on. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the mood towards a game shift so rapidly from massive hype to complete indifference…
I think discussion around it just became toxic, you can’t really say anything about Starfield without a bunch of people hijacking the conversation to talk about how much they hate it.
I watched some videos on it after it released and for about a week after my whole YouTube frontpage was full of Starfield-bashing (many with several hundred thousand views) so it’s definitely out there.
Yeah a couple of streamers I watch made it a point to stream “starfield bad” streams and then stream literally anything else while talking about how it was better than starfield
Lemmy was filled with posts linking to clickbait articles from PcGamer bashing the game.
YouTube just flooded my feed with videos about how Starfield was the worst game ever made, modern gaming was dying or something of the sort after watching a couple positive reviews.
Even in comment sections, whenever I mentioned some nitpic I had about the game, I’d get answers bashing the game as if I had said it was terrible.
It was pretty much everywhere for a month and a half to the point I just decided to stop trying to find discussions on it.
I don’t hate it, I’m mostly just ambivalent to it. It felt like Bethesda’s Ubisoft moment, where they went from being a company that had been doing something really well and switched to doing something really safe…which is iust boring and generic nowadays. For the first ten or fifteen hours it was like ooh my first Bethesda game in ages! And then I put it down and never felt compelled to go back. I don’t hate it, I don’t love it, I don’t really feel anything towards it. Skyrim grabbed me from jump street and I was all in, same with FO…idk I really wanted to like Starfield…but I just never really felt anything towards it.
I feel like the same thing thing happened with FO4 until the new mod tools came out. Like I bought starfield, it’s ok, but IMO it won’t hit it’s stride as a game I play frequently until there are a bunch of mods to improve QoL
That’s what hype does. Hype can be good if the end product lives up to it, or the hype isn’t so potent. Tears of the Kingdom comes to my mind for this. The hype was more like “it’s coming, we think it’s going to be cool” and a couple of gameplay vids. Then their reputation combined with the understatement of how good the game actually was created a wildfire of good hype.
Starfield was like “PREPARE YOURSELVES FOR THE BEST GAME EVER MADE, IN THE WORKS FOR HALF A DECADE, YOU’LL NEVER PUT IT DOWN, GAME OF THE YEAR GUARANTEED” and created a ton of bad hype. Bad hype is good for sales, but creates unrealistic expectations and makes a lot more people go “meh” once they find out what it is.
Let me tell you a secret: bad hype is intentional. All that matters to a studio is how much they sell, not that players continue playing.
Bad hype makes players stop talking about a game pretty quickly.
But didn't TOTK also have the issue that to some it felt like an "expansion pack" (Probably closer to a switch's version of Majora's Mask, where many assets are reused and remixed with a new gameplay element added). While it was a good game its probably not as revolutionary as BOTW. It also doesn't help it was the switch's first 70$ title.
I’m not really commenting on how the actual game was, just the hype building up to it. Nintendo consistently teaches a masterclass on hyping their IPs. Whether or not the game was good, or worth the money, is an opinion beside the point.
In the same vein, people call starfield “fallout but in space” and “fast travel simulator 2023”. There are plenty of things to criticize there too. But I honestly think the reason those criticisms weren’t taken in stride like totk was is because of all of bad hype surrounding the release. People expected a lot more.
Also, “as revolutionary as the last one” is probably not the standard we should hold all sequels to. Changing the fundamental design of a series is important to do periodically to keep it fresh, but well executed iteration is also really important. I definitely feel I’ve gotten my time outta totk, and I’m not done with it, tho I have gotten a little distracted by life, bg3, and picking ror2 back up.
Also for anyone looking at full price switch games as too expensive, you can pretty frequently find $100 eshop cards for $90, which you can use to buy a 2pack of game vouchers, and effectively get any switch game for $45, including totk.
I mean, the only game on the GOTY list where the hype is still going is Baldurs Gate 3. At least thats how it feels to me. Granted Im not into nintendo games as I once was both the new Zelda and Mario felt like they flew by me. Maybe it was the stacked year. maybe I didnt have as much time for gaming or maybe Im not seeing them much on the internet. BG3 sure feels like its cementing itself into the 2023 zeitgeist.
This is where I was. Decent game, just lost interest after like 2 weeks. There was a bit too much fishing around in the inventory and clicking through menus.
There were definitely a few cool moments in it, but I think they got to engrossed in the procgen planets to really give it all that handcrafted feel. Having 1000 planets forced the content to be too spread out. And other games have been out for years that handle the procgen better.
7/10 review guy was right. Decent game with some cool parts, but also a lot of issues and annoyances.
Yeah this about sums up my feelings on it. The main story seemed alright from what I experienced, and the characters seemed fairly interesting. Better-written than FO4, at least. I was particularly charmed by the PC’s parents that you get when you take that one perk at character creation.
But the exploration just feels… dull and empty. Surveying planets just felt like a chore, and any particular landing spot on a planet was just a few cookie cutter lairs scattered among a bunch of nothing. Didn’t feel like you were actually discovering anything interesting.
Funny thing is that when Morrowind came out using the grandfather of their current engine, they even advertised how every single stone was hand-placed and how that made the world feel more alive compared to a procedurally generated world. Guess some things still hold true.
Well calling Starfield impressive but also immediately-boring would be a massive understatement.
It almost feels like a benchmark. With all the gameplay depth and immersion that goes along with running one. It’s not bad at what it does, quite the opposite in fact. It’s stellar. But there’s just so little to it, despite the massive world fulll of blips and bits. It’s Skyrim driven to an insane extreme: Even wider, even grander, even more impressive. And even more shallow. Much more shallow.
Apparently not enough of one if he is saying shit like this out loud. I would assume the GTA6 Online efforts will attempt to make their “+” more attractive.
Because everyone here is just reacting to the terrible Forbes headline because that’s all people do. Here’s the actual content that you can pick apart, instead of picking apart the headline that some Forbes editor wrote.
he thinks GTA is one of the best values on the market. Here’s what he said:
“In terms of our pricing for any entertainment property, basically the algorithm is the value of the expected entertainment usage, which is to say the per hour value times the number of expected hours plus the terminal value that’s perceived by the customer in ownership, if the title is owned rather than rented or subscribed to.”
So he was just saying that gta is good value for money given their metrics
He can still go fuck himself. I was promised single player DLC in GTA 5 and instead they put their entire focus on GTA online which I’m sure will continue with 6. I’ll probably pirate it because, as much as I hate to admit it I’m still a fan, but I’m not giving them another cent.
I agree with the general sentiment of boo for not making dlc. but if your proposition is “i’m going to pirate your next game” then you’re probably just pushing them further into a direction you don’t want them to go.
If you think that companies look at social media more than their own sales metrics, then Ive probably already sold you a bridge and have a loyalty program for you to sign up for, to get 15% off your next purchase
I can deflect the doxxing slightly by saying it’s more than one. The first rhymes with Wicrosoft and the other is too small and would definitely doxx me. However I have friends all over the industry, and can confirm identical reactions from places with names similar to Acti… mizion, Sledge…wammer Ztudios, 434… endustries, Pioware… Grames?
That really only could be considered even remotely plausible if everyone played online, but most people quickly discovered it was a trash money grab. Otherwise it’s no better value than any other story driven single player game.
gta games are typically pretty competitive with everyone else in terms of value for money on the base game. it’s been a while since there has been a new GTA game, and the other game they have produced - red dead redemption - was incredible value for money given the content and length.
we can complain about a lot, I’ll be the first to say their online is a money sucking low effort playground. But the quality of their single-player experiences is at worst “very very competitive”.
Ah but see, that may only be due to GTA V actually having the development time and releasing as a single player game because Online wasn’t near being ready when the game launched. Now that Online is out and that’s where their focus has been, we will most likely see the base single player game quality suffer dramatically. Look at games like Call of Duty. They used to have phenomenal single player experiences, and now you’re lucky if you get something worth playing at all.
So I would point at rdr2. That came out long after gta v online made mountains of money. Large single-player experience. Online existed, didn’t detract.
Cool, so could the makers of the software they use to make these games do the same to them? They should pay them all for the per hour value times the expected hours of development plus the terminal value perceived by expected income from sales! Yes, good business model. Maximize them profits!!!
Yeah, and I bet they’re affordable. What Strauss is proposing is a massive increase in initial purchase price for those that aren’t paying subscriptions. $70 is borderline affordable for a lot of people as is and that will now be a higher entry price. I’m not in that boat, personally, but I can see how it would be detrimental to the gaming industry as a whole.
Then again, there is the flip side where people are now forced to choose the games they can afford that year even more carefully (1-2 vs 6-7 or more as an example) and if a game fails expectations and someone misses out on something else, then maybe it’ll start putting some shitty developers out of business.
They aren’t proposing increasing the price. Did you read the article or my initial comment about how people just read the bad headline and argue against it at all?
Of course I read the article. It specifically says, “… value of the expected entertainment usage, which is to say the per hour value times the number of expected hours plus the terminal value that’s perceived by the customer in ownership, if the title is owned rather than rented or subscribed to…”
I’m beginning to wonder if you read the article. They want to charge off of one value and add it to an initial base value. If you think this idea has nothing to do with increasing profits then I have a bridge in the Sahara to sell you.
Nothing in that is about raising the price, the whole thing is about him showing off what great value the series is by their metrics.
Here’s where you say “of course it is! I’ve imagined that this leads to the next thing which is raised prices”. Cool, go make these comments on the thread about them raising prices, or proposing raising prices. That isn’t what is happening here.
That may be true for many, but I’m willing to bet most of those “hours” they count are for GTA Online. Have they ever mentioned what percentage of players play Online versus all sales? Because that is something many of us have never and will never touch so it isn’t included at all in my value consideration other than a negative for the company to focus on INSTEAD of additional single player content.
If they want to turn GTA into an always online Game as a Service, that is their prerogative, but don’t try and hide it stuffed alongside a single player game they’ll ignore after release, and don’t be surprised when some people stop buying and playing when the only option is online multiplayer.
It’s that a handful of people virtue signaling about how bad X game/company is on niche social media communities don’t matter if their opinions aren’t aligned with your average person.
Most people just enjoy games as a hobby and treat it the same way they treat picking something to watch on Netflix.
I would wager they many of the same people arguing for a boycott went on to purchase it anyway. Opinions are free, as long as it doesn’t affect your life in any way.
On the plus side, the virtue signalers saved $ and can spend it on something that’ll bring them more joy and is hopefully more aligned with their views. And gives them practice and a mindset of “I’m the kind of person willing to boycott” for any other boycotts that might have a real effect someday.
…I have thought about it and it is interesting that “virtue signal” is such a dirty word now. When I say “please” and “thank you” I’m essentially just virtue signaling that I’m willing to play nice, but nobody calls me the bad word for that. Although I understand that the current use of “virtue signal” is more about people you find to be sanctimonious and obnoxious online who you personally don’t think actually bother with real activism, just online keyboard warrior-ing, and not about any type of “hi, I am not horrible to interact with” social signaling ever.
On the plus side, the virtue signalers saved $ and can spend it on something that’ll bring them more joy and is hopefully more aligned with their views. And gives them practice and a mindset of “I’m the kind of person willing to boycott” for any other boycotts that might have a real effect someday.
It’s not really a boycott if you never really planned on buying the product. Otherwise, I’m technically boycotting Apple and Ford. Because I don’t buy Apply products and I don’t buy Ford cars.
When I say “please” and “thank you” I’m essentially just virtue signaling that I’m willing to play nice…
Those are specific actions you are taking in being kind and nice towards another person in reality. However, if you were to make a comment on Lemmy about how kind of a person you are because you claim you say “please” and “thank you” all the time, then that would be virtue signaling, because making claims about what you do or care about on social media is relatively meaningless without the specific actions being taken outside of that context.
So, in this case, talking about how evil Nintendo is for pricing a game at $80, what does that do exactly? Why should anyone else listen or care about someone expressing that opinion? Are you joining activist groups and spending time or money pushing for laws/politicians/etc to enact change to fight back against these actions? If so, then that’s not virtue signaling. But I’m unconvinced most people expressing these opinions and upvoting/downvoting posts and comments are doing anything beyond exactly that.
Most charitable interpretation: social pressure to get others to not buy, thereby hurting Nintendo just that bit more. I can say I was planning on buying a Switch at one point, but all these comments and news posts about anticompetitive practices have turned me away and slotted me in the “not buying” category.
Somewhat charitable interpretation: maybe venting outrage? Frustration at being the little guy in this situation who can’t do much? If you hate homelessness you can go volunteer at a soup kitchen or homeless shelter or donate money to either two, but if you hate these rising prices not much I’m aware of that you can do besides raging online and hoping you turn others away from buying. Although to be fair, you just proposed some things. Promoting other games instead could also help.
I don’t care too much about virtue signaling. What bothers me is people getting nasty and personal, and unfortunately that often happens in Company Does Bad Thing comment sections, so I’ve learned not to click on them. I should probably change that to big company news at all. I say this all because I want to say thanks for kind of disagreeing with me while also not being awful to me in this discussion. But I get how virtue signaling can annoy others.
I have thought about it and it is interesting that “virtue signal” is such a dirty word now. When I say “please” and “thank you” I’m essentially just virtue signaling that I’m willing to play nice
“Virtue signalling” implies a level of hypocrisy. Like, you don’t really care about the underlying issue, and only cares in reality to look like you do.
When you say “please” and “thank you” you are being polite. You may be “virtue signalling” politeness when in truth you are an asshole, but I would be unable to tell, so I give the benefit of doubt.
By the way, I dislike the term “virtue signalling” as I think it was overused to the point of meaninglessness, and I have an issue with that. On top of that, sometimes performative actions do matter to call attention to a given cause. Things are more nuanced sometimes.
An intentional boycott, no. But we don’t know how a console will do by its launch. The Wii U and 3DS sold out at launch too after having very successful predecessors. It wouldn’t be people intentionally boycotting that would humble Nintendo, but the masses just deciding it’s not worth their money for them or their kids. We’ll see what they do.
I don’t think the Xbox One was a disappointment due to a boycott, I think it was just a product people didn’t feel the need to buy.
Sure, there was early controversy about the always-online DRM approach they planned to take, but it didn’t launch with that in the end. What killed its hype was just being US$100 more expensive than the PS4 and having no killer exclusives lined up.
IMO that’s more of a problem with the industry not really caring to support lower specs, or generally not seeing the deck as a real console or platform to target. People still make Switch games and the damn thing was already outdated at launch and they even underclocked it for good measures.
At 800p you’ve got to start thinking, is most of the detail those games compute even actually visible the on screen? How many PCs does that make obsolete? If the deck can’t run it at 800p, even at 1080p you’re gonna need what, an RTX 2060 for the lowest settings on a PC?
Some of the example titles don’t even sound like they’re the kind of titles that are made to showcase what your 4090 can do, which logically you’d want as many people as possible to be able to play it.
It’s not even about the lower specs, it’s the optimization in general.
My PC is a little old, but still fine for most games up to medium settings.
But when I tried FF XVI, which is mentioned in the article, I couldn’t get anything close to acceptable performance with everything turned as low as possible and looking like shit.
I agree with you, handheld can never compete with a desktop when it comes to raw power. So, if companies don’t consider it as a platform to target for, you’ll always have problem with latest games. Maybe not at launch, but you can’t upgrade a handheld “console” every year or two.
That’s the good thing about consoles, you buy it, and you know (most of) the games that come to the platform will just run on it.
I don’t have a SteamDeck so not sure how it works, but maybe they should make a sub-store for SteamDeck, that only has games that are verified to run on it. They can still have an option to search and download game from full steam store, but it should come as a warning that these games aren’t specifically made / optimized for Deck.
Just thinking out loud. Don’t actually know what SteamDeck owners really want. :-)
That is how it sort of works the steam store displays the games the games that work with the deck. You can install other games but you get the a warning that either it has not been testet enough to make sure that it works, or that it is not recommend because that issues with the deck.
I think, that the steam deck is popular enough, so that it can be treated as a console, were you make special “ports” of your game, which has it default settings adjusted for that console (and maybe some other patches to make stuff work)
I follow gaming news pretty closely and I’ve never even heard of this one. Wouldn’t be surprised if the low engagement, at least in part, comes down to poor marketing.
I remember it from one of the recent game conferences, but basically only because of the actress that played in the Witcher show too. Pretty much forgot about it immediately.
Same here, and frankly, what kind of title is “Unknown 9: Awakening” supposed to be? That reads like an internal Codename they forgot to change pre-release:
It’s part of a transmedia push. It started with a podcast, and they were pushing out a video game, a comic book, and I think a TV show? So they’re trying to keep everything a part of the same brand that hasn’t had time to breathe yet, perhaps rushing out the video game.
With permission from the family. Not the owner of the voice, who can’t speak for themselves anymore, obviously.
Whilst I think most people feel like this is the one exceptional case where we will be okay with this, I feel like every exec is seeing it, and the community reaction to it, and saying, “So it is possible”.
And we get into why everyone is striking. We’re all okay for normal use cases like this, but execs are like “we’ll pay you for 3 hours of work, then build a model and then do 180 hours of voice from that model. And you’ll say thank you for the opportunity”
I dunno, once you’re dead nothing else really matters anymore, does it? You’re not a person anymore, so why would your opinion matter? If my family can use my legacy to make money for themselves, I would just be happy knowing they’d be a bit better off once I’m gone. And if they choose to protect the right to use my voice/likeness after I’m gone, I’d prefer that they do so because of their own personal beliefs, not because they believe they have to do so for my sake.
I feel like that answer is for you and you alone, and not for actors in general. Personally I don't really see why I would be worried about this after I die (after all, I'm dead ), and if it helps my family a bit then it'd probably just make me rest easier if anything.
Not until Helldivers 2 dies too. I was tricked into thinking it was healing, and then that game exploded.
EDIT: The truth hurts, but that’s still a live service game that’s actively working against the interests of consumers and preservationists. The more money and playtime people give it, the worse this situation gets.
I still don’t think the enemy is “all live service games” exactly. A lot of us have a style of gameplay we enjoy that makes us go “That was fun! I want some more of it.”
Just that Rocksteady made singleplayer games well, and their poor shift just informs us that not all games need to be live service, especially when the gameplay shifts to something no one likes in order to achieve Number Go Up (similar situation with Gotham Knights)
Number can go up without being tied to a server you don’t and can’t control. Those games still get made, from Titan Quest to Borderlands. Nothing about the gameplay loop of Helldivers offends me; the totally unnecessary forced obsolescence does. The thing that makes it a live service game is the thing that makes it incompatible with surviving for more than a few years without an Act of God, like Knockout City. I also hate that people have been trained into differentiating “single player” and “live service”, as though multiplayer must inherently be this way when it doesn’t have to be. A live service game is just an inferior version of a game they could have made that would survive offline, because it’s tied to their servers. Do you think Sony could have mandated a PSN account after the point of sale if it was available DRM-free and allowed you to run your own servers?
There is some hope for these games. For example Shadow of War works perfectly fine now and doesn’t have any of it’s “battle pass” stuff in it anymore. It can happen.
Rarely.
forbes.com
Ważne