Who would've thought that making your product more readily available would increase sales? That's so much more counterintuitive than "double down on NFTs and release schedules that require knowledge of calculus to figure out."
SE releases have been all over the place recently. Sometimes it’s PS exclusives, sometimes Nintendo exclusives, sometimes console exclusives, sometimes they release on PS and Nintendo but not Xbox…
I was an XOne user a few years back and it was exhausting. PC side it’s a bit better, except that their flagship series is locked on PS for who knows how long, and then locked on Epic Store for one more year.
As a potential customer, I didn’t feel exactly welcomed. I was interested in FFXVI, but didn’t have a PS5 (I still don’t). Now I don’t have the time to play long-ass games anymore, which means that by the time it will finally be released on PC, I won’t probably buy it.
I was someone who was willing to give them money, and they refused it time and time again. I’m sorry for their difficult situation, as Square has created some great games from my childhood that I will forever cherish (both as Square Soft and Square Enix), but let’s be honest, this is their fault.
I hope they follow through with this decision, though. I doubt I’ll be a customer, but maybe they’ll make some kids as happy as I was when I was their age and playing those old FF titles. People deserve to play those games without being told to buy two different consoles and/or wait an eternity and a half for exclusive deals to expire.
This is very true. And it’s interesting in that generally Ubisoft has been fine across all platforms. And yet Japanese companies seem to CRAVE exclusivity. Have they not seen franchises like Assasins creed and Far cry and thought. Yeah I want that money too?
Another game launch, another broken game. How hard is it to just release a game that works? This is a port as well - pretty much their entire job with this was fixing issues and optimisation
I want to blame the company but from their point of view this business model works so I understand why it keeps happening.
Steam refunds are great for situations like these but I doubt the average casual knows how easy it is. The other platforms are much stricter on refunds.
There’s also the culture shift of gamers defending broken releases with “at least they fixed it!” Or “they released a roadmap for future fixes” that encourages early releases.
Harder than delivering shit and cashing in just as much. The grab&run simply is more profitable than actually putting in the work - especially since there seem to be no palpable negative consequences.
As far as the ethics of it, whatever, there are games where you can do worse. I just think it’s annoying that the devs went this far out of their way to cynically controversy-bait up attention for themselves. There was no need for this - it adds nothing to the gameplay beyond shock value.
They don't want to dig into the spaghetti code to make it work.
And considering the lukewarm response to the shitty San Andreas port, they probably don't want to risk more bad publicity by farming it out to the lowest bidder... again.
They have consistently done the second, which makes absolutely no sense to me since doing it right would mean they could bring great old games to a new audience. All they need to do is increase framerate caps (and fix bugs caused by that), increase render resolution, and improve texture quality. They should have all of the original files, so this shouldn’t require a ton of effort, even if the code is a mess.
GTA SA and friends was terrible because it didn’t look anything like the originals since it was a mobile port. Nobody asked for big changes, just a few QOO updates. The same is true for RDR, we just want to play it on PC with higher FPS and whatnot, we don’t expect anything groundbreaking. If it’s easier, they could port the campaign to RDR2 (they already have a lot of the models) and then not have to maintain the older codebase. Surely that’s an option too.
Yeah, have no clue why people don't think they are just doing this. They literally did this with RDR 2. Like we aren't in the days of the 360 and PS3 where consoles were very weird architecturally. Things have been mostly smoothed out and porting while can be quite a task especially if you want to do it right (however Rockstar hasn't done great with doing it right) but its far more trivial compared to the past.
I love it. I do wish they had opened up mods and community servers before launch but the core game plays and looks so good. Most of the missing modes were never core to the game, hopefully they add some of them back after reworking them later (DZ?). It runs even better than GO did on Linux too.
Woof. I want to play BL4, I’ve always been a huge fan of the series, but like…I distinctly remember BL3 and watching Claptrap do that stupid Vanna White thing across the screen for ages after every update. I kind of want that time back.
Supposedly that's why it does things this way, right? Instead of the very long compile up front they do a smaller one up front and then run it in the background.
They seem to imply that because the game is heavy by default this is what's causing people's performance issues. I don't know that I agree, but there's probably part of it.
Fuck pitchford and all that. But this is an increasing problem that most games have. Shaders are getting more and more expensive and compiling them on the fly… when it works it works and when it doesn’t it is horrible. But having a mandatory “sit and watch this load screen for three minutes” starts you off with a HORRIBLE first impression during the period where it is easiest to get a refund.
It is why MS are setting up their convoluted, and destined to fail, system to add those to the downloads. Since people have increasingly been realizing that Proton/Linux weirdly have an advantage in this… that again mostly manifests during the first 30-40 minutes of benchmarking while writing a blog post.
I honestly feel like it would be better if Steam would compile the shaders in the background after the download finishes and before it tells me that the game is ready to play. That seems like a thing they could totally do.
They could even precompile shaders for known setups (the Steam Deck, the last three generations of Nvidia and AMD, that sort of thing) and just add that to the download for people with those devices. It would improve the experience for a lot of people.
I mean, they do (for most games) on Linux. “Allow background processing of vulkan shaders” in Downloads.
The issue is that they can only do so much without support of the games themselves. My, very limited, understanding is they distribute “good enough” shaders with games and then the background processing is optimizing those for the user’s computer. But getting those “good enough” shaders is already a mess.
Yes, there are issues with updates and cached shaders… I mean, look at the topic of the thread. But the vast majority of the time there are zero issues and, again, this has been one of the biggest causes of a lot of the “This game runs better on Linux than Windows!!!” because the fly by night org just rushed into a single scene and took very few samples.
Maybe they could add a setting to automatically start up the game in the background after an update. Since shader compilation happens right at startup, that could get the job done.
Hey, say what you will, but I do think the solution is technological. MS at least has an approach. About time, too. I don't want to overplay it, because a lot of these arguments is very... terminally online, but it's nuts that the DX12/UE5 combo of tech that has now been a thing for ages is still so poorly understood and unadressed on a wider scale.
Also crazy that dev teams don't have enough systems engineers bitchy enough to insist on figuring this out.
I think for BL4 specifically the problem is the game is just... heavy. Not chuggy or stuttery on good enough hardware, but good enough starts kinda high here.
And yeah, it looks better than previous games, but it's a stylized look and it's taking shortcuts meant for photorealism into a space where a lot of stylization is going to cut into the extra bits of indirect lighting or vegetation or environmental detail you're getting out of it.
Blend the confusing shader issues with the disproportionately high frame budget even when things are working fine and you get this stuff. But I'll say that I was shocked at how playable the game is on higher end hardware given what the Internet was saying.
Maybe if there were any variation at all in the dance. Or a cycle of two or three different dances he goes through. Maybe give him a hat at random intervals. But no, just the same nonsense, over and over, for five minutes every time you start the game.
I played BL2 at launch and don’t regret it. But I only just picked BL3 up again over the last couple of months. It wasn’t only the loading screen, but I will say I don’t think the writing shines quite as much as it did in BL2.
Actually I think this is the only way to save Xbox, at least as a very first baby step. I’d bet you dollars to donuts that in ten years, there will be no functional distinction between Xbox and Windows gaming, and Xbox games will be running on PCs.
So in ten years Xbox won’t exist as a brand at all? I agree. No need to take the bet.
I think what you’re describing is exactly what Microsoft is doing. Except I think it’s incredibly short sighted from a business, consumer, and brand perspective.
IMO, It’s basically the brand equivalent of seppuku.
With no functional distinction between Xbox and Windows, you just get the entirety of the Xbox ecosystem silently competing with all of Steam. But even worse: it’s now just the word Xbox on Windows. And everyone really hates Windows at the moment. It’s bleeding OS marketshare to Linux like nothing I’ve ever seen.
So they want to put the entirety of Xbox recognition on a Platform (PC) that their console users won’t be familiar with, and the OS they’re integrating it with is actively losing users. Mostly to Linux. Which Steam has an entire OS built on top of that anyone can use for their games for free.
So the consumer choice for PC users will be between:
Steam OS based on Linux for free. Runs all steam games and has a desktop mode for all other apps.
Windows 11 for $hundreds, smaller pool of games + worse performance.
I don’t think people are going to choose option 2 just because the word Xbox is in it somehow. Some might, but this is just HBO becoming MAX all over again, but without the escape plan of returning to HBO.
Destroying a console AND brand just to compete with Steam with an inferior product is incredibly dumb, and incredibly Microsoft.
I don’t think they’ll scuttle the brand, I think they’ll make Xbox a standard for compatibility backed up by custom hardware targets. Like the generation after next might be System X and System S, but you could have a custom PC build that certifies as “exceeds System S” and thus any app can reliably run at that level of quality as a guaranteed minimum. You could still buy an Xbox, but it would be more like a Steam Machine. And a handheld would simply be “any System S certified handheld, including the Xbox first party device”.
I agree this is clever, and a decent shot at evolving what an “Xbox” is. I just think it’s spreading the brand thin when it’s already been stretched far. While it would be very convenient and cool to have a certified Xbox machine, outside of CoD or Overwatch, there’s not much software that makes the Xbox brand as a recognizable game service valuable.
Basically, If all Microsoft has to offer on our Xbox PC’s are CoD and Overwatch, then that is what the name “Xbox” will be worth. I would not say either of those games have a bright future, let alone one that’s uniquely identifiable as “Xbox.”
So while I agree that Microsoft is making sure everything can be an Xbox, I disagree that will increase its brand value. I think, if anything, it will just further dilute the value of Xbox as a service or name that people relate to for games. If the only games offered are ones that have shrinking crowds, then what else is growing them that Xbox offers?
Imo, more entry points into having an Xbox doesn’t mean there’s more of a reason to enter.
It’s possible you’re right, but strategically, I think the Xbox brand is a lost cause on its own. PlayStation is just beating it up and stealing its lunch money at this point. On the PC side, Steam rules the roost and makes money hand over fist running other people’s games on other people’s operating systems. So it looks to me like the only valid move is to see if the combined PC/Xbox ecosystem can compete with either of them or, optimistically, both.
The catch will be that they need to position it properly and we all know how awesome they are at that coughxboxonecough. If they sell it as “buy an Xbox like you always have and it’ll play tens of thousands of PC games too OR buy a Windows PC and it can play Xbox games natively or with backwards compatibility now” then I think they have a shot.
I mean, imagine being able to play every Steam Deck-compatible game on your Xbox console OR your Xbox handheld by default, even if you bought it from Steam. That’s a goddamn value proposition if I ever saw one. Then they just need to try and win market share from Steam through distribution and ecosystem, which would be their next big battle.
Of course, I say all this as though they aren’t going to epically deuce the futon like they always do.
Interesting strategy! And thank you for describing it in detail as well! If I sounded condescending at all, it was certainly towards Microsoft 😉 But you’re right - that path is worth pursuing for that value proposition. It’s a safer path than others as well.
Agreed it’s almost destiny that the futon will be dueced. But at least this approach could make things interesting 🤘
You’re all good! You didn’t come across as condescending, just rightly pessimistic about Xbox’s brand. My friends and I have been diehard Xbox players for decades at this point, and now we’re all starting to feel like Microsoft is dropping every ball they can get their hands on. It’s depressing.
That’s a marketing campaign, not a strategy. To be clear, I’m saying native Xbox games will run on Windows and vice versa, which is a lot more than a marketing campaign based on what devices can stream cloud games.
It will parallel the push to Windows365 in the enterprise space. Thinking in terms of hardware only misses the internal goal at Microsoft of locking everyone in to Azure hosted services where they have unlimited access to your data for CoPilot training.
THAT is their strategy. TPM requirements, kernel locking and secure boot are baby steps to the end goal. It’s not about Xbox, it’s about training data for their GenAI platforms.
Additionally, their Prism Emulation Engine is running Xbox games natively on ARM hardware as of a few days ago (insider preview users at least)
That emulation engine just runs Windows games, not Xbox games.
I think you’re right in that they highly prioritize cloud data and subscriptions, but that’s where the Game Pass road leads. Native apps on a subscription service now, bets all hedged for a possible all-cloud semi-distant future.
… Civ 7 is the Civ series shitty attempt at copying Humankind, Humankind is currently $12.50 USD, $25 for all DLC + base game, and is a way better deal than Civ 7 at $70, if not just actually a better game than Civ 5 or Civ 6 + all their existing DLC/expansions.
Haven’t played Humankind yet, but Amplitude’s previous Civ/4X-like “Endless Legend” was amazing and very fresh take on the genre. And it looked like Firaxis were already trying to copy some of it in Civ 6, so I’m not surprised this trend continues.
Civ peaked at Civ 4 and all its expansions for me.
Yes, doomstacks were a problem, but hard pivoting all the way over to Civ 5’s only one unit per tile led to a whole bunch of other bullshit in the opposite direction.
Humankind … just has better inter game system synergy, and those individual systems seem better thought out, more engaging and less… cheesable, exploitable, to a great extent due to how everything meshes together.
The first few months after launch absolutely were rough, with some pretty significant bugs in specific, but often crucial scenarios… but they got ironed out, and the result is great.
Also a lot of the initial backlash was from the pollution / global warming mechanic… they quickly added an option to just turn most of its effects off, but to me the entire thing read as a bunch of people being used to massively colonizing, industrializing and war mongering and then being angry that … that has consequences.
Guess those people have trouble grasping the concept of an externality.
Oh well, they’ve all been filtered, recent steam reviews are ‘very positive.’
Err… well, without any mentions of specific gripes or difficulties you are having… entirely seriously, actually play through with the tutorial enabled.
There are 3 different tutorial settings:
No tutorial
Moderate tutorial (ie, you’ve played some Civ games and want to mainly focus on what is different in Humankind)
Full tutorial (baby step you through everything like you’ve never played any kind of turn based 4x before)
The middle of the road tutorial does a pretty good job of highlighting and explaining systems and actions that work differently from Civ, or are just entirely not present in Civ, but doesn’t hold your hand through every single basic concept that you would already be familiar with as an experienced Civ player.
EDIT: Beyond that, I guess uh… a lot of the game sub systems kind of work… similarly to a lot of Civ game mechanics, but not quite the same, in some cases, significantly differently.
For starters, your civ progresses as you unlock new ages, but your leader stays the same. NPC leaders have a set of traits that affect their demeanor in diplomacy, as well as give them varying kinds of buffs for their gameplay.
These NPCs and their traits are actually classed by the total score of their cumulative traits, basically just a few minor traits are ‘easy’, up to a whole lot of powerful traits as ‘hard’. You can pick to play against easier or harder NPCs as you like.
You can also unlock traits for your own leader by basically doing in game achievements.
But uh yeah, get used to the idea of swapping civs situationally as your progress through ages… or you can sort of ‘prestige’ a civ beyond its roughly historically accurate age, if you want a buff to … i think its your renown or fame score generation the purple one lol. In some situations, it might make more sense to continue with the unique units, buildings, and sometimes civ specific gameplay mechanics through an age.
Other stuff uh…
City planning is pretty important, Humankind uses a multi tile approach to cities, where you can plop down varying kinds of districts and unique buildings according to the terrain around the actual city center. You may have to balance between urban design/zoning that is super efficient in the short run, but actually inefficient in the medium or longer run, as well as defensive structures, which you’ll may want to place on a choke point tile, even if it would be highly productive with a non military structure on it.
Human kind uses a heigh layered terrain approach, with I think 7 different heights. A height 6 tile right adjacent to a height 1 tile will have an impassable cliff on that border. I like to play with more extreme height variations so as to both make the world feel larger in that land traversal takes longer, things like mountain passes and terrain chokepoints become as relevant as they often are in the real world, and it offers more interesting battles.
Rivers are in tiles, not borders between them. This makes crossing rivers more time consuming and annoying… but plays well into the rest of the games combat systems… also, if you embark on a river tile early game, this is basically the representation of building small makeshift boats… and now you can move much faster up or down a river, which is very much in line with how many real world civilizations used rivers as basically logistics highways.
There’s also a system of regions, basically. You can assign a few cities to be connected to the same major city, and then basically micromanage the entire region of cities to coordinate their production to subsidize each other, in various ways. If you do this well, you can benefit greatly, but if you either screw it up or don’t take advantage of it, you can be at a comparative disadvantage to other players.
… theres a whole lot of stuff that is different than Civ games, I could type for hours lol.
That’s a huge reply! Thanks so much for the write up, but I meant it’s not civ /s ofc
I did play with the tutorial and on my last run I actually did the prestige thing too! I think that I got lost in the urban planning and just really screwed that up, I didn’t think when placing let alone ahead of time. I got some stellaris vibes from the difficulty level, harsh when making stupid decisions. I got slapped a few times early game for getting baited into attacking and then immediately overrun.
Your write up inspired me to try again, I think I just made the same bogus mistakes I made with stellaris first time. Play it too casual and get bitten in the ass for it.
Aw, been a while since someone’s complimented me, thank you!
Yes, I too fucked up the city planning stuff a good deal until eventually… it clicked.
It isn’t the same game as Civ, a lot of the sort of ingrained ideas you don’t even realize are baked into your subconcious from playing Civ a lot… will lead you to knee jerk, make the kind of ‘well obviously i do this in this situation’ decisions…
and yeah, then get slapped with ‘nope, no workey’.
But… if you stick with it… just like you probably did, many moons ago, with Civ, you can absolutely get much more skilled.
You must empty your mind of false notions you didn’t even realize you had, before you can begin to fill it with correct ones, haha.
Its funny you bring up stellaris… i spent like a month just utterly failing until that ‘click’ moment.
Then, a few months of ‘i am actually decent at this’ and then a few more months till ‘actually this is boring because i win by stupid margins every time on anything but the most absurd difficulties, and in those games its pretty much a completely random dice roll of surviving early game or not due to the absurd early game ai bonuses… and then by mid to late game, the AI is just literally too stupid to engage in 80% of the micromanagement strategies i am using to snowball’.
I played the Humankind demo and found it to be genuinely awful and borderline unplayable. I’m surprised it’s caused this much panic amongst 2K, unless Humankind has gotten a lot better since the demo.
I never played the demo, started with the full game… maybe a couple weeks after launch.
As I said in another reply, yeah, it absolutely was rough on a technical level for the first few months, a good number of actually fairly common edge cases where the game’s systems would break, things wouldn’t actually work as intended, as described by the game itself.
But, after about 6 months, they fixed basically all of these… and didn’t really even have to do like major tweaks to the balancing of the game… the problems were technical implentations of the designed game, and once they got those ironed out, the game as envisioned was now actually the game as it performed.
Go pull up the steam store page right now: Overall score is still ‘Mixed’ it did indeed have a rough launch… but Recent Reviews are ‘Very Positive’.
The people that bothered to stick with it… well they seem to very much like where the game is now.
So, I’d say yes, the general consensus of people still playing it is that it did indeed improve significantly.
Also, its pretty undeniable that 2K, Civ 7, very much did try to ape some, but not all, of the changes that Humankind put on what is basically the Civ formula, that just never occured to them.
The entire concept of you and other players basicslly just having the avatar of your civilization remain the same for all time, but the civilizations themselves change, with historical eras?
Thats one of the most obviously visible differences between Humankind and any Civ game that existed … prior to Civ 7.
It is also, somewhat ironically, one of the main reasons those initial reviews of Humankind were ‘Mixed’: a whole lot of Civ fans just thought the whole idea was stupid, and were vocal about it.
… And then Civ 7 does the same idea, but more watered down, with only 3 eras, 3 different civs per playthrough, as opposed to Humankind’s … well basically 6 + 1, where that + 1 represents your pre-civilization nomadic tribe/culture, basically playing a fairly different kind of game, prior to building your first real city and thus advancing to your first choice of civilization.
Also, worth throwing in here I guess: Advancing through eras works with a similar mechanic as to racing to build wonders in Civ: You can only have one player as each civ at a time, so if you really want to have first dibs and the full range of civs to choose from, you have to be the first to era advance, otherwise another player may beat you to it and pick the one you were planning on.
But, it also works differently than wonders: Wonders are just built by a city in Civ. Eras in Humankind are advanced by earning points for completing basically era specific mini objectives… and you have a range of different options to choose from, maybe you go for numerous easier objectives, or focus on a few, more difficult ones.
It may have not caused that much panic, but Amplitude consistently put out interesting ideas and enhancements to the Civ-likes in their games, so no wonder Firaxis might use these as templates and negate any unique features their competition might have over them. Plus, the Civ genre has to move in some way, anyway.
Not sure why companies try to push mobile games like that so fucking hard. Just because everyone has a phone doesn’t mean everyone wants to play games on them.
Also doesn’t help that practically all mobile games like that are created with the intention to focus on microtransactions and grindy paywalled and timegated content.
Can’t say anything of value was lost with sacking studios/devs for this kind of crap. It would only be better if it were the higher-ups coming up with this garbage for once.
Not sure why companies try to push mobile games like that so fucking hard. Just because everyone has a phone doesn’t mean everyone wants to play games on them.
Mobile games make more revenue than PC and console gaming combined. Of course companies are gonna try to get a bigger and bigger piece of that pie.
Diablo Immortal made a depressing amount of money.
Us sweats mean nothing when there’s a billion dollars on the table for them.
And this isn’t even a edgecase. Even Bethesda/Nintendo saw their mobile games print money more than their regular games. Fortunately they have souls and think about their core audience.
This is the thing I don’t get. Long-Term they will make way more money if their mobile games are good otherwise they get a reputation for putting out crap and overall less interest the next time around. The best long-term strategy would be to put in effort, especially when the return is so good.
Playing first person shooter on a mobile phone sounds like literally the worst possible experience. You need physical controls for accuracy touch screens are terrible for that plus of course you’re obscuring a good chunk of the screen with your fingers.
There are a few good mobile games, although I admit not many, but the good ones work with the limitations of the medium rather than trying to simply brute force through them. Good ones include things like Hitman Go, Threes, And a fairly possible Eve Online mobile game, which was only really let down by being Eve Online.
That is a whole lot of talk about how much Xbox cares about its people and a whole lot of handwaving about why Xbox needed to decide to sacrifice its people in great swaths.
I bought the PSVR1 at launch back in 2016, excited to finally BE in a virtual world. And for some games, I was absolutely blown away by the immersion. Skyrim, Dirt and RE were awesome in VR. Especially Skyrim was everything I was looking for.
I waited and hoped for more true games but all that kept coming was mostly short ‘experiences’ that felt like early 2000s shovelware, just in VR.
The best VR games were not Sony games but mostly third party games remade for VR.
When the PSVR2 came out, I decided to wait and see if Sony had learned their lessons and had at least many deals with third party studios to remake existing games in VR.
For now, it does not look that way, and a few exclusive tech demo games and some years-old PC ported games just do not justify buying a PSVR2.
In a blog post, CIG chief Chris Roberts said 2024 will see the launch of Star Citizen Alpha 4.0 (yes, Star Citizen is still in alpha) […] However, there is still no release date or even release window for Star Citizen 1.0. CIG will share the roadmap later this year.
Lol. I wish I, too, was able to convince people to give me 600 million dollars to do fuck all for 12 years.
They didn’t do fuck all! They have an extremely unstable alpha of one game mechanic! They just need another few hundred million to get everything else done.
Oh and there’s yet another engine upgrade they’re going to do, and then implement this cool technology over here, and VR, and cryptocurrency, and AI…
ign.com
Ważne