Ok, hear me out. My intuition tells me its because consoles are subsidized. The manufacturer loses money or breakes even in order to make money back in the games sold. I think Nintendo is an exception. So having the additional expense of having to support them harms the hardware subsidy model.
Maybe, but why should that exempt them? If the model doesn’t work anymore then it doesn’t work. Who cares. They’ll still sell consoles and make money. They might cost more upfront or something, but they’ll still sell them.
Seems like repairs would increase the usable life of the console, thus allowing the user to buy more games for it, letting the manufacturer get over more money out of that purchase.
What’s the alternative, they fix it for free in a recall instead of selling parts? Someone buys a new console which is another loss for them with limited chance to make it up? The person gets upset and buys the competition’s console?
Wouldn’t that be an argument for right-to-repair? If the user has to buy another console because theirs broke, the company has made twice the loss for the same number of games bought (or fewer, because the user has less money to spend on games). Reparing looks like a win-win here.
Soma is pretty awesome, features a mode where you can't be hurt by the enemies, I enjoyed it immensely on its environmental and story merits while playing on that mode.
Does anyone know the reasoning used for the exception? From the article, it was clearly a deliberate decision. But I do not see any reason why it was needed.
As much of a bummer as that is, I don’t think there has ever been any major cases of someone just replacing parts for their console and not selling it. What is a company like sintendo gonna do if you replace the screen on your switch with a 3rd party screen or open it up to replace any parts but don’t end up selling it?
It reminds me of the absolute insane stuff arcade manufacturers would do to keep control over everything.
Capcom used to sell full blown arcade systems where the game’s ROM was actually volatile - in 2 years, it would vanish. You needed to pay them a monthly fee so that a technician would come up with a special device capable of rewriting the data periodically.
From what I have seen, granted I haven't played it myself due to my burnout with Fallout 4, Starfield is just a Bethesda flavored No Man's Sky.
Not much to grab my attention and most people I have seen played it seem to put it at a 5-6/10 type of game. Good, but nothing really great.
Meanwhile we have an arguably more fleshed out space exploration game that is No Man's Sky to suit your itch, that is probably cheaper or on sale somewhere. Doesn't helping modding will take years to reach really big game altering levels as it took a while, If even that.
Tbh, No Mans Sky and Starfield have little in common except being space games. Starfield isn't a space exploration / space sim game. It's an RPG set in space. Starfield has more of a storyline and characters then No Man's Sky, they're different games for different people
I wouldn’t call Starfield Bethesda-flavored NMS, I’d call it a NMS-flavored Bethesda game. NMS and Starfield aren’t very comparable except for the setting.
It's only 1.5k/hr more, so short term gains are marginal. But over the course of the skill, you can expect to save roughly 30 hours.
(This is literally all made up, but you have so many extra toes, just try it out) ((Also ignore that they added a tired mechanic so you can't AFK mine it anymore, that'll get reverted. You wanna be ready for when it comes back, detach that sucker))
I’m honestly amazed that anyone could have completed it more than once already. I’ve played it every day since Friday and I feel like I’ve barely got out of the opening seconds of the game.
another article said a ng+ run is about 90 minutes. so it seems if you just wanna complete loops, the post-game is a much different pace than your first run
pcgamer.com
Aktywne