very apt meatphor, especially when you consider the development and enjoyment of games has consistently been part of the human experience.
a lovingly crafted game is a gourmet meal, each ingredient lovingly selected based on experience and a desire to give the recipient a special experience that will stay with them emotionally long term
a big studio game is fast food combination meal, each component focus tested after optimizing the whole pipeline to reduce cost to the investor and the resulting experience leaves the recipient feeling empty and unsatisfied. sure, occasionally something innovative will come along like a first person openworld sandbox or a 4 pack of cinnamon poppers, but eventually the big firms will replicate what’s working at other firms and you’ll be left with every studio offering the equivalent to chicken nuggets, hamburgers, fried chicken sandwhiches, french fries, and soda
How is this a nightmare vision? Proprietary bullshit, which is what consoles are, is what Apple does better than the others. M series chips seem ideal in terms of hardware, and a consolized Mac mini would be pretty dope.
M chips are super expensive. They’re optimized for low clockspeed/idle efficiency and pay through the nose for cutting edge processes, whereas most gaming hardware is optimized for pure speed/$, with the smallest die area and cheapest memory possible, at the expense of power efficiency.
And honestly the CPU/GPU divide over traces is more economical. “Unified memory” programming isn’t strictly needed for games at the moment.
And, practically, Apple demands very high margins. I just can’t see them pricing a console aggressively.
It is “cheap” because they are hoping that someone is stupid enough to pay the upgrades like $200 for 256gb of extra SSD. Or that it later leads to purchasing more Apple devices.
Charging $200 for having 256gb of extra SSD space on a $700 computer (cost for them: $2) is textbook definition of scam.
The price is actually good for the Mac mini but clearly they sat on a table for hours discussing how they can fuck the end user like “and for the SSD, let’s make a board that LOOKS LIKE a standard M.2 drive, has almost the same dimensions and connector, BUT we don’t include a controller on it, so it’s not electrically compatibile with existing drives and we can charge a 10000x markup on it”. And all the marketing managers in the room started clapping
The base Mac Mini is not super powerful. Physically, the silicon comparable to AMD Strix Point, which you’d find in any AMD laptop.
I am not trying to rag on Apple here: their stuff is fine. It’s ridiculously power efficient. It’d be beyond excellent for a handheld like the Steam Deck, or a VR headset.
…But a plug in gaming console? That’s more ‘M4 Pro’ silicon. And what they charge for that speaks for itself.
I mean didn’t Microsoft just bring Apple back from going bankrupt around that time. Had to have competition so they wouldn’t become declared a monopoly. So you bail out your friends
Good on ya for sticking with it that long. I stopped at 4. Tried 5 but couldn’t get through it and I only had it bc it came with the wife’s Xbox.
Edit: just to add, I’m not even sure what it is since I like some of the things they’ve tried. Like, I love the multiplayer bots. They’re just fun to mess around.
Infinity was such a joke. They told everyone it was going to have a 10 year support plan despite the gaming coming out unfinished. Master Chief collection is great.
The Apple event after was just insane. Jobs said about the previous announcement that Bungie is still making Halo for Mac. And Bungie and Microsoft reps came on and nervously said it is still being made.
It released in Xbox. And then PC. And then a long time later, a third party were hired to port it to Mac.
Almost all of the “Top 10 most replayable games” I have are Indie games, especially in the last 10 years.
They’re games like Factorio or Project Zomboid which I keep getting back to a year or two after I last played so much of it that I got fed up.
Glitzy AAA open-world-ish games have beautiful visuals but their replayability is near zero, worse so for games which seem open-world but are in fact linear.
Mind you, some older AAA jewels in that style (such as Oblivion) do get me to come back eventually, but it takes something like 5+ or more as I basically have to forget most of the story before it’s interesting to play such a game again.
If Price matched “Hours of Fun”, almost all of the AAA stuff would be way cheaper whilst many Indie games would be far more expensive.
Glitzy AAA open-world-ish games have beautiful visuals but their replayability is near zero
I mean, I gotta disagree, at least in part. Some of these games don’t age well. But I still know folks who line up for the “WoW Classic” experience. Hell, I know people who have been playing since the game came out in '02/'03(?) and now they’re out playing with their kids. I know one family who plays with their grandmother, ffs.
I think one thing that really gave Blizzard and Nintendo titles staying power was the choice to deliberately tack towards the cartoon-y style of art. When you’re not going for that hyper-real experience, the games age better. Hard to pick up a vintage Laura Croft or Devil May Cry without feeling its age. But Wind Waker? Mario 64? They do just fine.
For me it really depends on the game and whilst the “glitzy” is often an indirect indicator of a game which is limited in its replayabiliy - I suppose because often they’re games were there was much more investment in looks than gameplay - I should have added “highly curated” to that sentence since for me games with a story meant to be experienced in a certain way are pretty much “play once”.
Most of the games which I keep coming back to again and again in quite short cycles have emergent gameplay elements and even the entire game area is different from play to play - not just Indie Games like Factorio, Don’t Starve, The Lone Dark in Survival mode and Project Zomboid but also something like The Sims - whilst of “story” games, there are very few I go back to (as I mentioned Oblivion but also Fallout New Vegas and Fallout 3) and when I do it’s after much more time, I suppose because I have to forget most of the story for it to be fun again.
My impression that in the last decade AAA has focused mostly on just two kinds of games - “Glitzy AAA open-world-ish” RPGs and multiplayer battle games - and for me the first have limited replayability unless they’re a world with A LOT of depth were the story is but a small part of the game, whilst I can’t be arsed to play the latter ever since online battlefields were swamped by kids in consoles as I really don’t have the patience to babysit somebody else’s ill behaved kids (still waiting for game makers to figure out that Adult Only servers would be immensely popular).
It’s not that AAA can’t do games with massive replayability, it’s that the AAA part of the industry seems to have gone down the route of games being either “curated experiences” or massive multiplayer were the emergent gameplay comes the actions of other players, whilst many Indies - having way smaller budgets - have gone down routes were the gameplay is “self-assembling” emergent, often with the game area being procedurally generated, which adds up to something less predictable were two runs of the game whilst sharing some similarities are in practice sufficiently different not to feel repetitive.
Similar to “we absolutely swear this will be the last major update!! For reals this time!” ReLogic. I still wonder how in the hell they are still making enough/any money to keep their studio working on games after all this time?
Yeah I pretty much almost never buy AAA games anymore outside of some very specific creators/franchises. Price is definitely a part of that, but the bigger things are creativity and business practices. Indie games are where all the new ideas are and where you get honest expressions of the artist’s intent. And you generally don’t need to put up with bullshit micro transactions, DRM, etc.
I’m not gonna pay $60+ for Call of Duty 500 when I can find full, fun, inspired indie games for less than $30. I will still buy the handful of more creative AAAs that do come out sometimes.
Same here. The last AAA game I bought was probably Diablo III, and I barely touched that piece of junk. I’ve learned my lesson and either pirate it to try it out first or wait for sales on Steam. My most prized games in my collection are the indie ones anyway, so I’m not rushing to buy AAA anymore.
I just started waiting as long as I needed to, years if necessary, for the games I want to drop down on a sale to under $20. I really don’t care how long I have to wait. There’s enough games out there now to keep me busy.
My rule is I’m only willing to pay a dollar for every expected hour of play, so you can imagine I buy few things at full price.
The last two games I paid full price for were Elden Ring and Mandragora. I am far more likely to pay full price for an indie title that I’m excited about than anything else, because as an artist myself, I fully understand the impact of a pre-purchase on an indie studio.
I like some of the early access development styles used in things like Enshrouded and Satisfactory, so mostly ive been spending on games like that. I like the idea of collaborating with a player base to create a game together I think.
If you only look at $/hr, there are some 70 hr games which milk your time and should have been shorter, like Assassin’s Creed, and then there are short, story rich games, like Outer Wilds, which are absolutely worth it even at more than a dollar an hour.
To you perhaps. Cinema is less than half that cost here and even then I go less than once a year because I don’t really feel like most films that come out are worth bothering to see given the combined effort and cost.
2 hour movies are also competing with streaming services like Netflix where people can see many more hours of TV shows and movies for less. Some just stick to youtube which requires no money and has some free movies there too.
Its like how people can drop hundreds and thousands of hours on f2p games without spending any money. $/hr valuation is outdated.
To be convinced to spend, consumer has to be convinced what a game is offering is unique to other cheaper and sometimes free alternatives. $/hr is something they will have a hard time competing with.
I don’t strictly adhere to it or anything, but I think it’s a good reminder sometimes when I balk at the price of a new game that I’m liable to spend hundreds of hours playing.
Yeah. Only reason I mention hours not being so important is because I’ve bought many games that are 5-10 hour experiences because I found the aspects like the atmosphere, story, or gameplay very compelling.
On a per hour basis The Finals has been the clear winner for me past 2 years its been out dropping over a hundred hours a year with no money spent. And enjoying more than paid multiplayer games.
It all depends on what you’re looking for. I’ve put hundreds of hours into games and gotten way less than $1/hr, and I’ve also had a great experience paying significantly more.
So I don’t see games in terms of $/hr, especially these days when I’m more limited by time than money. Instead, I look for unique experiences with cost being a much lower factor. Generally speaking, I spend much less than $1/hr since I buy a lot of older games, but I’ve spent far more ($5-10/hr) on particularly interesting games.
But yeah, generally speaking, I’m willing to pay more for indies than AAA titles because indie games are more likely to offer that unique experience.
That’s generally how I follow it also. Though I add the stipulation that they’re enjoyable hours, and it’s not hardline. I know not every game can be measured that way. If it’s a particular genre or series, l might take the dive anyway. For indies, it goes even further than that. Some I track for years before release, so I pre-order as soon as it becomes available, just to support as much as I can. So $/hr is a good baseline, but it’s deeper than that.
If you asked me to name a major gameplay innovation in the last 5 years, I literally couldn’t. Clair Obscur won a fuck load of awards for doing basically what Final Fantasy did 15 years ago, but not completely losing the plot. Hollow Knight blew everyone’s mind for making a decent Metroidvania game. Balatro made a game where you make a series of combos that people have been making for over 200 years. You don’t need fancy gimmicks anymore to be considered good, you just need to be good. Major publishers waste their time because they don’t know how to put “be good” on a spreadsheet.
I would argue Expedition 33 is a lot closer to Legend of Dragoon released 26 years ago. Its claim to fame was the active turn based system pulled right out of that game.
Metroidvanias standard was set 28 years ago in SOTN. It has n
That crazy now that you think about it.
I would not put Balatro in the same category. While it isn’t mind blowing. Nobody put the pieces together in the same way that Balatro did. I would still call it innovative.
gamesradar.com
Aktywne