I know they are probably bombarded with requests for comments and interviews, but CDPR have learnt nothing from CP2077.
they are going to over-sell this again, promising things that don’t materialize because they are dreaming of the thing now when it’s still 3-4 years away, then people are going to be disappointed when it releases and doesn’t have all the things they talk about.
Obviously consumers haven’t learnt anything either, we eat this up, but CDPR is going to get the fallout from it.
Obviously consumers haven’t learnt anything either, we eat this up, but CDPR is going to get the fallout from it.
I waited for almost 3 years of patches and a deep discount and I’m still somewhat disappointed, it’s just three shitty ubisoft sandboxs stacked in a next gen suit.
I’m talking specifically of the over-promising and under-delivering on game design. not the technical issues which is a whole separate problem that may or may not be solved by UE5
Now if only CDPR would eliminate their crunch work environment, and release games when the DEVS say it’s ready.
If you can’t afford advertising the game prior to launch, just don’t. That’s where for example Bethesda saved a ton of money. Released “complete” games within 1-3 months of the first announcement. (Do mind I’ve lost all hope in Bethesda)
In other hand, over-promising in terms of what’s actually currently out is fine. The issue is when you …
Don’t have the devtime. (Board releasing the game way before it’s ready, because marketing is so damn expensive, and the stockholders want it now not later)
Don’t have the skill. (Which means re-training all your employees constantly)
Don’t have the work morale. (Which leads to talent bleed, further exaggerating point 2.)
Additionally, this isn’t new IP like Cybeypunk was, you’re not designing in-game systems from the ground up or hashing out the gameplay loop…you’re just improving on an already existing formula that is well received. The main challenge is the new engine, but as you’ve said they will also get a lot of problems solved with UE too. I think it’ll be fine in the end.
I feel like the kind of “freedom” players want from an RPG is somewhat inconsistent with playing as a specific character, i.e. Geralt. For me, I want to be my own character and decide who they are and what they do. I never really got on with Geralt because I don’t want to be a moody medieval jedi, I’d much rather be a whimsical wizard or something.
As someone who personally enjoys a told story more than a lot of directionless freedom (because I get bored after a few dozen hours, so I want the game to get its thing told and then I’m ready for the next game, basically) I of course enjoyed Geralt’s directed character more, but the two are definitely incompatible at a very basic level.
And honestly, none is inherently better, though I wish studios understood more readily just how different the underlying approach is. If someone creates a defined story then give me those fully defined characters. Give me a cool story through which I learn of them. With a few surprises. Make it like a book! On the other hand, if something is freeform, then go hard the opposite way. Make it sandbox-y! Allow me to create narrative myself through what I do, don’t hold my hand and try to guide me back onto rails.
(That is, the main story was just about the part I enjoyed the least in CP2077 next to the bugs, and I really don’t think V’s character fits the gameplay and what we players do in it very well. V is an interesting character, but not for an open world do-whatever-you-want game, and the game they created doesn’t fit a character that is supposed to have a specific design very well.)
I’m not suggesting it should be at all. Not sure how you got that from my comment. I liked the Witcher 3, honestly, but it isn’t a game about freedom and it shouldn’t be imo. It tells character focused stories well, which is harder to do the more choice you give the player.
“You don’t want to be forced to play a specific role, and that removes the R in RPG” is what they are saying. However, I disagree with them. Real RPGs let you choose your role, ethical alignment, and quirks of behavior. Even older video games like Fallout 3 have that. Being forced to play a specific role is almost antithetical to the concept of RPGs.
Of course, maybe that’s not what they meant at all.
Yes and no, there are MANY games I have been forced to use DSX for because they don’t recognize my controller (not that what this update does changes that).
Too bad my Dualsense started drifting less than 8 months after purchasing… it’s just been sitting in a drawer ever since. I liked it, but I feel it was a waste of money.
I've had playstations for multiple console generations, but I just ordered an OLED Deck as my first ever "gaming PC". Forgive the naivety, but could non-supported titles potentially get Dualsense features modded in?
Yeah, that’s what steam input did, it emulates a controller on the fly, you can even emulate a keyboard and mouse in games that don’t support controllers, I have a steam controller and in most fps I configured it to emulate a controller but with mouse look on the right touch pad and gyroscope on a light press on left trigger, unfortunately some games don’t support simultaneous mouse and controller use, other games change UI when switching between mouse and controller, which may be annoying
Touchpad always works, but the haptic triggers and rumble need you to be wired. They also only work in supported games like Spiderman. I remember needing to go into desktop mode to enable the controller’s “speaker” for the rumble.
I wish more PlayStation games would allow use of motion controls. I’ve gotten used to enabling it with Steam Deck to actually make fps games playable for me on controller, then when I switch to ps5 and start tilting the controller for precise aiming and nothing happens…
Steam input, and their customization options for controllers on Steam Deck (or I guess in Steam in general) are incredible, and something I don’t see mentioned nearly enough.
I think it wasn’t used enough or not creatively enough in the PS3, the only one that comes to mind is Heavenly Sword and its implementation was a bit poor and I’m unsure if it was the Six-Axis fault.
As someone who uses gold to buy WoW tokens for both game time and shop credit to make other Blizzard purchases, I have a hard time getting upset over this. I’ve been playing the game without spending money for years, and tokens are also how I buy both WoW expansions and other Blizzard games. Asking me to pay money for a month of sub time every few years seems reasonable, especially if this change makes it even the slightest bit annoying/harder for bot accounts.
The WoW token wasn’t introduced until WoD, so if you played that long ago it wouldn’t have been an option. If you’re ever looking to jump in again though, it’s definitely a useful system if you like to make gold in game.
As long as it’s a one-time thing I can’t get too annoyed by it.
I just hope it doesn’t turn into a frequent thing, and it’s hard not to be skeptical when the token/battle.net credit system has only become more restricted over the years.
True, if it turned into a situation where you had to sub with money for a month every time you wanted to redeem a token or something, that would definitely lessen the value for me. I’d still say it was worth it because I could use the tokens for expansions and other games, but not everyone may have the same opinion.
But somebody else has spent the real money to buy a token. The only justification for the concept is, that it allows people with less time and more money to balance things with people with more time and less money, in an effort to curb the expansive illicit gold trading that happens otherwise (and still does).
Without the motivation of the people with less money and more time, to afford playing for free, the whole concept is weakened and the token sellers are more inclined to go back to illicit gold farmers.
I guess gold farming bots were too self-sustaining? Blizzard really wanted to make sure they were getting their pound of flesh out of the exchange?
I just can’t imagine this mattering in any other instance. It’s not like you were realistically farming the gold with the free trial, this is a weird change solely to prevent theoretical abuse.
Free trials can’t farm gold anyway because they’re capped to 1k gold, so this really does only impact bot accounts for the most part. There’s likely a small number of people who use tokens because they otherwise couldn’t afford to play, but I expect that’s not terribly common.
From the article, it indicates you’ll just need to have bought something since 2017 to avoid this wave. I can’t imagine someone has been playing exclusively free since WoD while buying the expansions, but it sounds like just paying for the next xpac with money will be enough.
Oh, I’ve been doing that. This is a hot topic on the big gold-making Discord server, and there are over 10,000 people in there (and that’s just English-speaking players who even know about and opted-in to said Discord server).
No, Blizzard makes an extra $5 a month on any subscription bought with gold.
This seems intended to create an extra hurdle for people managing a large number of accounts in the hopes of making that kind of operation less profitable.
I’m gonna be really cynical here and say they’re hoping people sign up to auto sub which they forgot to cancel.
Was a long time wow played and back before tokens were a thing it was pretty straightforward to just pay for 1 month only of game time. I stopped playing midway through baf and at that point I mostly bought game time with gold but on the few occasions I did pay for 1 month it wasn’t that easy to find the 1 month game time, like the nonauto sub. Then I fired up the game like right before the last xpac, can’t remember the name now and it was near fucking impossible to find game time in the store, it kept trying to get me to buy an auto sub.
That seems a bit ridiculous since you can immediately cancel it if you’re only in it for one month. It seems like they want to link payments to account so they can ban all accounts of specific boters at the same time that are on one payment source. I’m going to guess that they also want to ban people who are using other regions accounts. Like Chinese and Korean users who play on the American realms. If they have a contract coming up for someone else in China it would be a big push they would need to get the Chinese players back off the American realms.
I'm all for people buying what they enjoy playing, so if someone genuinely enjoys CoD I'm excited for them that they get some new stuff to play.
What I don't get is the constant group of people buying it every year and complaining. Like, guys, if you don't like the product you're buying, stop buying the next product from the same place until they fix what you hate about it.
There's literally tens of thousands of video games out there. You'll be fine if you don't play one of the most creatively bankrupt franchises in the industry, I promise.
DMZ in the last iteration of CoD was the most fun game that I’ve played in a long time - despite the bugs.
Zombies mode in MW3 is also good fun but it irks that I paid money for this game and it’s buggier than DMZ which it’s evidently based on, and they’ve had a year to fix it.
pcgamesn.com
Gorące