What they don’t do is make money hand over fist without the need to design more product, as happens with subscription-based, game-as-a-service multiplayer titles. Some companies don’t want to make good games. They just want to make good money.
Boy those are some memories! My comment was actually just a cheeky response to “you do you” - which always triggers me for some reason. I can understand the douchevotes it’s getting lol.
How many video game franchises are making the leap to tv/movies these days? Hint, it’s the ones with narrative driven, story rich games.
Go ahead and make pay to win mobile games, I don’t play them and they rake in millions so it makes perfect business sense.
But the idea that gamers don’t pay for good narrative driven, story rich games is laughable.
I think the biggest problem with a lot of game franchises have is they only sell the game. So much money is being left on the table with the best efforts being a screengrab lazily printed on a cheap shirt that sells maybe one or two.
If I could get some official, quality, Umbrella/Shinra/Arasaka/Faro corporation mugs, phone covers, meme tier shirts etc I’d be all over it.
They don’t sell enough. These companies want endless growth and endless sales so they can milk the whales for endless revenue. Narrative rich, story driven games don’t sell as much as pay to win or gacha trash.
I think the title of the article is misleading a bit. According to the article, the game has been in development since 2018 and they’ve been having issues they cannot seem to be able to fix to their satisfaction and it sounds like it’s more viable for the studio to abandon the project than try to fix it by throwing more money and time at it. And it’s a console game, so that limits their market, too.To me, reading the article, “narrative driven games don’t sell anymore” is not the main problem.
It’s not F2P, and furthermore it’s not a CoD clone. But you make a good point. They should’ve retasked those employees instead of just sacking them on the spot. Fucking corpo assholes.
They tried too hard to be a CoD/Siege clone without offering anything new. I'm surprised it ever launched in the first place.
It really feels like somebody at Ubisoft is intentionally trying to tank the whole company or something lately. They used to be such a competent studio, so much so that it's hard to believe that these major failures as of late are an accident.
I still fondly remember how Spellbreak just dropped the tools to run dedicated servers when they shut down. I don’t think forcing companies to run servers forever is tenable, and slapping an expiration date on the games is less helpful than it seems. Would be nice to enforce distributing those tools on shutdown, but that seems like a difficult fight considering what right to repair looks like.
First off, I support both this campaign and linking to it. More awareness is always good.
However, as Ross himself posted, the problem with this comparison is that the “Stop Killing Games” campaign is aiming to end the tradition of simply turning off game servers. This Californian lawsuit, though not a bad thing, is very likely to simply change the labeling of games, which doesn’t help the end goal of Stop Killing Games.
I want both to succeed and am not attempting to attack your post, just provide clarity.
IMO if every such game came with a large “Playable until [Date]” sticker, a lot more people would care about preserving them. And just the market pressure may save a lot of games.
Now I’m picturing a video game version of the Disney Vault. “Play now through the end of the year for just $129.99* before GTA 9 goes back in the Vault for another decade! *Not including Microtransactions, Online Pass, BattlePass, Totally-Not-A-Lootboxes, or Megalodon Cards”
If they could, they would. But a lot of the time, they don’t even bother to keep the source code of the games that they make. It’s estimated that more than 50% of all games are lost to history because the companies that made them never kept the source code or a copy.
I remember there being a little scandal a few years ago when a remaster of a game came out and it still had the cracker’s logo in it from the pirated copy they used for the source code.
The analogy makes no sense.
Your pinball machine keeps working until it breaks, relying only on electricity you provide.
A server-based computer game relies on running it on a server you aren’t paying the upkeep on.
If you buy a game that relies on servers that don’t belong to you, you should expect this to be a temporary lease, not something you can expect to use forever.
Of course, the language in the store’s UI needs to match that. You can’t “buy” a server-reliant game.
With games people used to setup their own servers. (And we liked it that way. Way more sense of a community.) So that could be an option. Allow people to run their own servers again.
What you say makes sense for a multiplayer-only game! But the game has a full single player campaign. There is no technical reason to remove access to that part. That part can be kept working without incurring recurring costs.
rockpapershotgun.com
Aktywne