Honestly I thought that it was more bare-bones than, say Fallout, because this was Obsidian’s attempt at a large-scale RPG without the backing of a big time publisher like Bethesda, LucasArts, Ubisoft etc. I had no idea that it was purposefully made more shallow to cater to more casual players.
Which other Obsidian titles felt like that? Neverwinter Nights 2; South Park: The Stick Of Truth; and Fallout New Vegas all felt like very well fleshed out games to me. I don’t think I’ve played anything else from their catalogue.
Dont get me wrong, obsidian has created some of my favorite games. Fallout New Vegas is a masterpiece, but it was a rushed hot mess on launch.
Knights of the old republic 2 is the best example. To be fair its also a masterpiece IMHO.
Never winter 2? I’m struggling to recall, but my impression is that it felt empty compared to 1.
Pillars of eternity set up an amazing world and system, then dialed in the ending with the excuse that the sequel would complete the story. Which it didn’t.
Personally, I had no issue with it. MS have so many RPG developers under their wing now, that it’s good they all have their own identity in game styles, Bethesda makes the BIG RPGs, Obsidian make the smaller more focused ones, etc.
I know Outerworlds wasn’t received as well as was expected but I honestly really liked it a lot! The companions were interesting and I liked doing their quests, the world and the general ironic tone of it all made me enjoy spending time there. I mean, the gunplay certainly isn’t as good as, say, Borderlands and if looter shooter aren’t your thing, this won’t change anyone’s mind. And yet, I had fun with it and I do hope for a more refined second installment!
I can understand being underwhelmed if you went into it thinking it was going to be Fallout in space. But I went in knowing it was a space western RPG, and I quite enjoyed it. I’ve been thinking about replaying it, and it was just in the Humble Bundle this month, so that’ll probably happen soon. (I played it on PC Game Pass the first time, I think.)
As someone who used to have a lot of time for gaming, and now has basically no time for gaming, I really like an RPG that puts quality ahead of quantity. The Outer Worlds and Far Cry 6 were the two that stand out in my mind.
I’ve had to skip Diablo 4 because I know I just don’t have the time, and I’m looking forward to Starfield with some worry because it’s going to be Skyrim size.
I got the game for 11 bucks from GameStop, and couldn’t believe how much fun I had, I actually played through the whole thing twice back to back. Which I think, Morrowind is the only other game I’ve ever done that with. Story and just everything was so much fun. Top marks. And I kept trying to get people to try it out but everywhere I saw it was only selling for $15 tops and I still haven’t met anyone who played it. Is it just the marketing that sucks for this game?
For me I just can’t support it because I feel like it’s just one more step in changing digital ownership. Always my fear that one day I’ll wake up and storefronts aren’t a thing, you have to subscribe to play a game.
You can still buy 100% of the games on gamepass. I don’t see Microsoft stopping individual sales as I’d expect that action to draw the attention of regulators
Considering Microsoft is supposedly releasing a new revision of the Xbox Series X and S next year without disc drives, I wouldn’t get your hopes up. Given the direction the industry is moving, I wouldn’t be surprised if the PS6 and whatever Microsoft calls the next Xbox are all digital only.
I'm a little fuzzy as to why the first-sale doctrine exists for physical goods but not for digital goods. It seems to me that any reasonable economic rationale should affect either both or neither.
The Series S and Game Pass have shown that people like discounts; so either competing console is going to run into issues attracting customers if they never offer them in any form. That’s currently an issue for the Nintendo eShop.
It’s this or buying nothing. I play most games for a few hours to see what they’re like and then ditch them. I love the current system as it is kinda making me feel like I’m part of gaming still while mostly being too tired to play. Starfield is the first game in years I’ve spent more than 5 hours on (dozens by now) in years. Never would’ve played it without gamepass.
I haven’t used a disc in a long time. Even before I got my series s most everything I played was gamepass or a digital purchase. When used physical games barely cost less than a new game, why bother?
I would say now do the Google Play Gift card scam where buyers cannot redeem the cards in Google’s automated systems, and the buyer is not allowed to return the card either so the money is kept by Google forever…
I wouldn’t trust shit either of these two companies argues.
This is probably technically correct, but in some really constructed way. And the reply by the Google lawyers will again be technically correct, but again be utter horseshit in some legal manner.
Suffice to say, people spend a lot on mobile apps. A lot.
Also, the thing they’re spending money on is the hard work of other companies, not Google’s. The profit margins are not tied directly to a Google product; the Play Store generates very little of its revenue in-and-of-itself (Play Pass is the only thing I can think of).
The Play Store certainly isn’t cheap to maintain but it pales in comparison to the amount developers collectively have to spend to create/maintain their apps. The Play Store’s profit margin is obviously going to be high, because Google doesn’t have to spend much to get a cut of the revenue from other companies that have spent quite a lot.
And that’s sort of to be expected with any digital store front that manages in app payments. The question is how much of that profit goes back into the Play Store, or Android development, or into other Google products, and how much does Google eat into the profit margins of those other companies while preventing them from managing payments themselves.
the play store, like other download stores, provides discoverability, trust, and all the infrastructure to distribute and automatically update your software products.
this is not a worthless service, otherwise publishers wouldn’t have flocked to Steam on Windows in the late ‘00s/early ‘10s. only the very biggest ones like EA and Ubisoft felt like they could make more money by rolling their own.
this doesn’t justify using anticompetitive practices to maintain your market position, but there is real value being provided there.
tweaktown.com
Najstarsze