I love ONI and the base building but I sometimes definitely get annoyed when, through no fault of my own, a dupe gets confused and pisses in the water supply.
So making it a Terraria-like and holy shit I am gonna log another hundred plus hours.
This looks completely unappealing, and I say that as someone who likes 3D platformers. There’s even no replay with all of the attempts at once, I’d argue that gimmick did a lot of heavy lifting.
Hmm, I'll have to see some gameplay for myself when it releases but I'm a bit worried that it's heading into a more serious horror aesthetic. I was hoping it would be more like 4 and 8 which have horror elements but are also kind of goofy and fun.
Let’s say I have not yet had to do a full reinstall of Heroic and multiple associated games because something got unfixably (for my level of understanding) borked during an update.
Galaxy is free and not required. If it doesn’t work you can download games from the website (which I consider an important feature). I’m pretty sure you don’t have any rights whatsoever.
Buuut it also reinforces my point. The free open source solution works better than their in-house one.
Ok, but which? Can you sue them if Galaxy, a free tool that they provide for convenience and that isn’t required for the actual service, doesn’t work, or if it breaks a game? Name one thing.
I can think of a few reasons as to why a website would run ads. I can think of a few reasons as to why a website would limit download speeds
I cannot fathom for any non greed-ridden reason as to why a website would make you wait five seconds before downloading a mod. It’s an inconvenience for the sake of an inconvenience, a problem they made to sell the solution
Of course, we need to keep in mind that they don’t make the mods, they merely host them. Compare the amount of bloat on their website to other, less funded ones such as lovers lab and gamebanana, and it becomes apparent that there’s a money sink somewhere
Yup, this is why the $80 price tag doesn’t bother me. I’ve got a backlog of games I want to play that I probably already can’t finish in my lifetime. This will be $20 a year post release and in two years that $20 will get you all the dlc as well.
Yea. The only games I buy on release are fighting games, but that just because during the release window is some of the best fun you can have for the online multiplayer as a casual. After about the first month or so a meta gets established and then everyone online is just playing the same carbon copy of whatever the YouTube pros are doing.
Though these hands are getting old and I think this most recent release of fighters will be my last. Just can’t keep up anymore.
The Atari 2600 released for $190 in 1977. Or about $1000 today.
The best selling title, Pac-Man released for $28 in 1982. Or about $95 today.
Compared to so much else that has risen dramatically over time, vastly outpacing video games comparatively, I think it’s a bit hard to argue with the value proposition of modern titles.
I think looking at it through an “all else equal” mindset is a little misleading.
Back then it was basically space-age technology. Video games were leaps and bounds ahead of other forms of entertainment, techwise. You could somewhat justify the expense because there was literally nothing like it in existence.
Nowadays? People make video games for classes in high school. I can write a flappy bird game on my phone and play it there. Small projects with less than 50 people regularly end up as bestsellers on Steam. Thousands of titles release on steam every year.
Video game supply is through the fucking roof, yet companies go out of their way to overproduce and underdeliver. QA is nonexistent anymore because of day 1 patches and always-online. They realized a long time ago that when your primary market is children, you can be as absolutely shitty as you want because a parent will give their child anything to shut them up or help them fit in. You can exploit a child’s labor for profit and their parent will pay you just to keep them occupied (Roblox, cough cough).
I mean we all knew video games couldn’t cost $60 for all eternity, but watching the price hike an entire third at once (50% if it costs $90) I think has made people realize just how overvalued modern video games are in general.
You make a good point, and I agree. I wasn’t thinking that it was the only thing on the market and therefore the price is whatever a new technology costs.
I tend to think of video games - being a form of entertainment - as a great way to be entertained while also being an incredibly low cost option for the amount of time I spend enjoying them.
Buying a $600 console just to enjoy a single $60 title is an extreme example but to me, if that game provides 100 hours of playtime, that seems well worth it. Cheaper than going to a theatre or most other forms of entertainment.
To be sure, I don’t do this, but I’ve always viewed gaming through a $/h lens, and could never understand why so many people saw it as a waste of time. That’s what I was thinking when I wrote that comment earlier - it seems to me that you get more playtime with some RPG from this decade than you would playing Pac-Man. Though perhaps I feel that way because games like Pac-Man don’t appeal to me.
Thinking about it, your point might be valid again, with the Atari being a new technology, people were likely to sink far more hours into a title than they might do with modern games since we have so many to choose from now. I’ve never thought about it that way. Thanks for pointing this out.
Games at that time were cutting edge technology, distribution networks didn’t exist, physical units had to make it to stores, etc. The environment isn’t the same. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think $80 is terribly outrageous in our modern economy but at that price point it has better provide 60+ hours of entertainment. If outer worlds 2 is as good as #1 it’s worth $40 tops. I played that game end to end and can’t recall a single characters name.
I agree about everything in your first point. I hadn’t previously considered that the novelty of a new technology would necessarily increase have disproportionately high initial cost.
That said, I feel like any calculation of cost against how many hours played is entirely subjective. Your suggestion of $0.75 / entertainment hour is quite different than what I consider ideal. Games will vary genre to genre, person to person, platform to platform.
A person with limited time might exclusively play shorter titles, or maybe just multiplayer titles. A person with significant free time might spent hundreds of hours replaying an RPG.
To be incredibly broad, I would say that games shouldn’t cost more per entertainment hour than half of what any given person earns at their job - but even that is quite subjective and should be taken with salt.
I was accepted into the test of this game. I don’t play Siege at all anymore, but was excited to see their “fixed” audio in action, and the new game mode with limited operators seemed fun and fresh.
The audio was considerably worse. Sound literally was unable to go through doorways and windows.
I also noticed when spectating that like >1/2 of players would die from getting shot in the back. Like completely oblivious someone else was nearby. Then I realized basically no one could hear anything, like at all. We couldn’t hear gadgets, glass breaking, barriers being thrown up or torn down, foot steps; just faint gunshots if they were only one room away.
I hate gambling, but if possible I’d consider betting big $ it’s not fixed, at all.
I haven't played Siege in ages, so I wonder if this big overhaul update is worth trying again. The game is also free to play outside of ranked modes which is nice.
youtube.com
Aktywne