I am not a developer but don’t they have to state the engine at the beginning of the game? Really no idea, just guessing, as I’ve seen a lot of games with it.
That would involved buying/downloading the game first to find out though (which would defeat the purpose of avoiding Unity in the first place). Out of curiosity I checked some of the games on my Steam wishlist to see if Steam had the engine listed anywhere, and unfortunately they don't. A few had it under the fine print copyright section under System Requirements, but not all. Because of this whole thing, it would be nice if Steam would include that as well, like in the sidebar where they list the developer and publisher. I can't speak for other pc storefronts though.
You can go to the SteamDB page for a game, click App Info on the left, then look for the “Detected Technologies”. This will usually tell you what they’re using if it’s not a custom engine. You can use the Augmented Steam or SteamDB browser extensions to get a direct link to the SteamDB page from a game’s store page.
Also, SteamDB has a page here with aggregate data of how much each detected engine is used across Steam. Unity currently accounts for over half of the games using known engines (snapshot).
Edit: For non-Steam games you could check out IGDB.com. It has crowd-sourced data on all video games, including which game engine was used.
I realized the only game I play online is FFXIV, which doesn’t require PS+. I almost never play the “free” games they add to the service, and spend a non-zero amount of time browsing said free games in an effort to find something to play rather than something in my backlog. So I just canceled.
My membership is up in December and I doubt I’ll even notice when it’s gone.
Price rises aren’t welcome and the latest one does seem quite high. However I’ve been paying for plus since I got my PS4 and I’m still ok with it. Considering I maybe buy one game every two years for the price of another triple A game a year I’ve built up quite a library. The hours my partner has put into Spiritfarer, Slay the Spire and Hades indicates it’s still providing good value. Every month we at least check out the new games unless it’s a survival horror.
If I have one complaint it’s since I got off the CoD train as I got older when I do occasionally dip into the free ones via plus I find it very hard to find any online matches. I assume this is because all the hardcore players move pretty quickly to the current iteration leaving the lobbies of the older games empty.
Same here, I set to cancel renew every time I top up and since late ps4 time I don’t even add free games that are remotely interesting so I keep a cleaner library. And then when they announced the hike, I did the review and filter by games acquired via plus, same feeling, I almost never play those games, even though they look somewhat interesting and added them but probably never gonna play them since my primary interest and good backlog will last me long enough for next main games to release. So they will have the same treatment like my humble bundle games. And I also decide to not top up any more.
Man, this sucks. I haven’t played any games like this in a while (i legit have my guitar hero mounted on the wall) but it sucks to see something like this going away
It’s still crazy to me that this somehow became normal. I’m not paying rent for a fucking video game. Hell I’m not even paying in general, least of all for Ubisoft or some other Activision-Blizzard-EA shlock.
Things are getting back to normal in a way. People rented games for 8/16-bit consoles from video rental stores commonly. These days it’s common for people playing on consoles to buy, play through and sell games because there are no such stores anymore.
Oh no, we might be making marginally less profit than we told our investors we’d be making, and none of us have the backbone to just tell them that you know, sometimes you gamble money and get little in return.
They are. The games industry is releasing a lot of hits in recent times, and there’s a lot of money flowing in. Just not as much as covid times and interest rates are high.
This has nothing to so with the actual industry and the people making games.
A fair point, but I do want to highlight that we’ve had plenty of companies like Bethesda releasing crap like Starfield, using tactics that specifically turned on their artist employees, and then scratching their heads on why it didn’t sell as well as Skyrim or Doom. I’m also seeing a lot of C-class laziness here.
dang i had not heard about this unlicensed controllers thing. I find this move very baffling, given Microsoft’s current position in the gaming market. This is the kind of move you make when you are in first place, because you have market dominance to shield your company from the effects of bad publicity. Yet in spite of two massive acquisitions, Xbox is still the third-place console. And after 3 years of the Xbox SeX and PS5, it’s kind of looking like they’re going to stay in last place unless they start packing their release calendar with A-tier exclusives.
So if Xbox is still in last place, why are they going out of their way to burn the goodwill they’ve been building up over the last 6 years?
Those were the days when paid Xbox Live service was way better than the free PS network. If you wanted to play online, the experience was much better on Xbox. Sony’s online experience has vastly improved since then, and their first-party games are generally considered much higher quality than Microsoft’s alternatives.
This explains how Sony clawed back market share in the second half of the PS3 gen, but you’re missing one crucial detail: the Xbox One. One cannot overstate how badly Microsoft misread the room and flubbed the reveal of the XbOne. The all-digital announcement in a time when physical games were still king, the required Kinect, the always-online requirement…they basically wrote the playbook on how to piss off reddit gamers. Sony had built up good will by becoming more pro-consumer over the PS3 gen, so then all they had to do in 2013 was say “the PS4 is just like the PS3 but better” and they were heralded as the saviors of gaming.
Quake world engine. Huh, wasn’t aware of that one! Speaking of which, you can do all sorts of silly stuff with Doom sourceports, so that’s also a valid alternative.
Non-endemic companies such as Google and Amazon are among the biggest threats to the games industry.
That’s according to former PlayStation boss Shawn Layden, who shared his thoughts on the future of games during the keynote at last week’s GamesIndustry.biz Investment Summit in Seattle.
The irony is palpable throughout this entire article.
They only feel it would be dangerous because they have the capital to drain talents to do experimental things while not care about the fall outs of closing subsidiaries or abandoning projects. It could also drive up developer cost and make the business more risky.(IMO, the developers are getting paid in peanuts compare to what the big publishers made. Even after considering flopped projects.)
The danger lies in once people get used to the new payscale, if big capital consider it’s not that profitable, then the better talents may not keep staying or heading toward this industry. Also less loan/venture awarded to companies doing projects not passing the “market research” phase.
Yes, and lastly Tencents also don’t like competitions bidding their potential acquisition targets.
Even ignoring he’s now working for freaking Tencent, how far are we supposed to go? Even his former company Sony was technically “non-endemic” for video games before the 90s. So was Microsoft.
Nintendo was selling playing cards long before video games, and Namco was building mall coin-op rides before arcade machines. Though I guess those two and Sony were at least in the entertainment business. But in any case they weren’t created as video game companies (of course given when they were created, they couldn’t).
Between alan wake 2 barely breaking even and fbc firebreak flopping hard, I can see why they would change the CEO. hopefully this doesn’t compromise the actual games in the future to try and get more money
AW2 was incredible, but I knew it wouldn’t do well when I played it, because it’s too niche. I love the Weird Fiction universe they’re building, but it’s just not pulling the Resident Evil audience.
Firebreak I think was their attempt to monetize the IP, but oof, it’s just not fun. I feel like they could have gone more “friend slop” in tone and been much more successful. Imagine a game loop like Repo or Lethal Company, but set in the Oldest House, interacting with weird, goofy phenomena. Instead it’s a very dry shooting experience wrapped in a very dry upgrade system. I want to support them, but it feels like work to play this game…
Alan Wake 2 sold like shit because no physical release on launch for console and it’s still only available on Epic Games Store for PC. I refused to buy it until the physical release came out. Good game by the way.
There’s the advantage, too, that quickly made games can be adapted to suit current trends, avoiding the pain of, say, launching a live-service shooter years after the genre has been saturated.
All that to say that adapting to trends creates genres and results in honing in on better versions of the original idea. There will be bad versions along the way, but it’s good to get that much iteration. We used to get that much iteration.
I don’t think corporate is able to follow the idea. It’s politics. If they follow the idea the idea must come from their boss. It’s just buzzwords to me.
Fortnite is a still-very-visible version of this exact concept. They were able to iterate quickly. Mostly because they just adapted their dud of a horde mode game into a completely new genre using the same mechanics, but they still did it quickly and found that success. We’re also seeing it in the likes of Getting Over It, Lethal Company, Vampire Survivors, and plenty of other games that spawned imitators.
Sorry but my brain is shutting down after iterate quickly. To much corporate bullshit, you can repeat those words 1000 times and they don’t mean anything because with all respect you’re saying some bullshit. Trends don’t make money. Shaping trends make money. Actually shaping trends and exposure but despite the huge exposure look how hard is to shape trends. With AI they can shape shit somebody already created and nobody likes to see same shit 1000 times.
“Iterate quickly” isn’t corporate bullshit. It’s just English. There are always those that tag along to something successful and find success themselves, like Terraria and Starbound to Minecraft; or Apex Legends and Fortnite to PUBG. But if you spend 4 years chasing an idea that came out in 2017, you end up with Hyperscape or Concord, unless there’s truly such an insatiable appetite that customers can’t get enough. In a world of live service games, they look to retain those players for years. Decades ago, they didn’t. We had so many first person shooters coming out every year, single and multiplayer, that it would be a full time job to count them all. Most of them brought new ideas to the table, and across many releases it would take years of iteration trying things that are slightly different than the last idea that would eventually lead to things like aim down sights becoming a fairly standard feature of the genre.
So you’re saying people can change ? Stop chasing ideas ? I don’t believe. Nobody can change people ego. Not on this planet. It’s PR bullshit and then they go to business as usual. It takes generations of people to change mindset. Look at history, when I was born there was war on middle east and it will be there when I will die, because there is always war there since like 2000-5000 years, and you’re expecting miracles.
I think I’m saying that what we changed from is better than what it changed into. Chasing ideas being the desired goal, because it leads to permutations of those ideas. So it has changed. It can change again.
If they drop marketing departments and go to core by showing game plays, giving away demos, publishing game dev diaries and articles about what they do, being open about development process there is chance and the market will open wide. I want to believe but I can’t. Why ? Because of AI, now it means less money for people because you need to pay computer their cut.
Games that are paid for with cosmetics are fine imo. I will never, ever, not once buy a virtual hat for any amount of money. That said, if a game wants to be free and provide consistent updates, and morons riding the meme-train want to subsidise me, that’s just gravy.
Im shocked and appalled that game companies think people are stupid enough to spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars on pretend clothes and I’m exactly as shocked and appalled that they’re right.
If games want to be free to play, but suddenly im coming up against a guy thats basically invincible because he spent real money, im out.
There are two games in which I have spent money on cosmetics. Path of Exile and Vermintide 2 and in both of them I wasn’t not even interested in the cosmetics. I just wantwd to support the developers further
It does seem a lot of games pivoted from cheap enough so everyone will buy it, to whale hunting. They had people run numbers and found whale hunting paid off more, and how much $ they could charge for a skin combined with FOMO before driving the whales away.
Honestly, I’m not even a fan of this take. This essentially boils down to “I don’t care if a company has shitty business practices as long as only people dumber than me fall for them.”
Cosmetic and P2W MTX needs to go in all cases. The only thing people should be asked to pay for is additional game content (actual gameplay content, not just cosmetics) developed after launch.
Im not happy about it either, its forced development to stop looking at how to make a game fun and start looking at how to maximise player retention. Which means hijacking weaknesses in our psyche.
I like to think Im immune to it, but I still get turned off a game pretty quick when you load it up and you have to make it past 4 or 5 popups telling you what’s new in the store.
gamesindustry.biz
Ważne