Nobody really expects RPG's to be as big and deep as BG3, they just want a complete game that works without shitty microtransactions everywhere and always online for no reason. Plus, having interesting characters and storylines, quests that can be solved in more than one way, and gameplay that's actually formed by taking player feedback and listening to it is what people reacted well to, among other things. Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't even have Denuvo!
If there's one thing that I hope competitors learn from Larian and BG3, it's that respecting your players and giving them what they want leads to success. Similar to Elden Ring and from software, like that video mentioned. Now compare BG3 to Diablo 4 and Immortal, or the upcoming Starfield and you'll see why people love it. It's not about specs or scope, it's about designing a game to be actually FUN.
It's not about specs or scope, it's about designing a game to be actually FUN.
This is the key point that these publishers and studios are trying to avoid.
How much of most AAA budgets are spent on designing microtransaction psychologically manipulative money sinks (dark designs)?
How much of most AAA budgets are spent on creating addiction in the player-base so that they keep playing the game (and spending money)?
How much of most AAA budgets are spent on bullshit DLC (not actual new content)?
How much of most AAA budgets are spent on bullshit to satisfy shareholders?
How much of most AAA budgets are spent on shit the devs don't want, but executives do?
How much of most AAA budgets are spent on bullshit padding for marketing purposes?
How much of most AAA budgets are spent on bullshit DRM?
And keep in mind, by budgets here, I mean both the dollar amount AND time spent by devs that could be spent elsewhere (which is part of the dollar amount since salaries, but I wanted to make it clear that time spent is also important).
Some of the absolute best games in the industry have literally none of that, and people still want to play and buy them years after release because gasp they're actually fun, but these publishers and devs don't want to compare to those, because they WANT the industry to be a bunch of "GAAS" bullshit that's basically a vacuum pushed into people's wallets, cause hey, if it worked for Candy Crush....
yeah I dunno, the bike boost animation looked a bit jank. Couple that with the empty desert and the implications for the game design and I’m officially worried about Prime 4.
Well, it’s not like I plan on getting a Switch 2 anytime soon anyway, so there’s that.
I think it’s a fun novelty, but locking the actual software behind the Online+ Expansion pack instead of including it with the (no doubt expensive) accessory is a bit crap.
I know for a fact whoever developed the GoG launcher isn’t capable of adding this in.
Source: half of the connectors to other game services don’t work, and they haven’t bothered to make their Mac app function in literally years (and if asked about this they tell you to “use the website”).
This is true. I’ve been grieving the loss of Isekai Demon Waifu, which shut down only a few days ago on the 19th of this month. I had been playing it over 3 years, and had unlocked most of the girls, become the #1 on my server, and had grown attached to seeing my harem girls every night when I play the game before bed. I missed the server shutdown notification and I was messed up the next day. It hit me hard.
I hope there is another harem game with succubi and monster girls. IDW had a lot of charm. The music, art style, aesthetic. Amazing monster girls. I’m going to miss seeing Ephinas, Fiadum, Hastia, Scardia, Palotti, Ymir, and all the others.
It doesn’t seem fair that we can spend years of our life, hundreds or even thousands of dollars, make a game experience part of our lives, and then one day it just goes poof and it’s all gone. Part of you vanishes in that moment. It’s like a bandaid being ripped off a wound, or a light in your life going out. Because someone else decided it cost too much to keep a server running?
They should be required to transition the game into an offline mode!
You paid this money knowing you do not have the ability to run the game. Why does the developer have the obligation to change the user agreement you signed off on when you created your account? You chose to play a game that you cannot run yourself.
That’s weasel speak. Hiding behind a user agreement is a pathetic excuse for bad behavior on the part of the developer. The developer decides what is in that agreement. It can be changed at any time, and 'but you agreed to this" is a poor excuse for laziness and disrespect for the community that supported them for so many years.
Transitioning the game into an offline mode could be done with some development time spent on a final update. Take out the multiplayer stuff, let the game run offline, and put the game up for sale as an idler for like $5 or $10. It might not make much money but it lets players continue to play a game that they love. It shows that you as a developer care about your product and the customers who have supported you for so long.
That’s the point of agreements though. If you buy a game and don’t like the agreement you should be allowed to return it. If they change the agreement you should be allowed to return it. Agreements aren’t inherently a bad thing. There just hasn’t been enough backlash about bad agreements or the business models they create.
They should be required to transition the game into an offline mode!
Seems to me like this would be good business sense too. Wouldn’t people be more likely to buy their next online game if you felt there was a good chance you could keep playing it after a few years? Instead they’re going to get a reputation for making products with a short shelf life.
Maybe I’m just old, but I feel like all the people complaining about no PC port at launch, or how this trailer doesn’t show gameplay must be ‘new’ to the series (which to be fair, could mean as much as a decade).
This is how Rockstar have pretty much always done it, going all the way back to GTA3 on the PlayStation 2; PC ports have always been 6+ months after.
Trailer 1 tends to be about the setting, Trailer 2 about the primary characters, then Trailer 3/4 about the supporting characters. ‘Gameplay Trailers’ usually don’t come out around/after launch as that’s usually what’s being still being worked on by the devs.
Feel free to complain, no one is trying to stop you. Just understand though that you are screaming into the void, and nothing will come of it bar heightened cortisol.
Grand Theft Auto is the arguably the most profitable gaming franchise ever, and it got there doing this exact release cadence. Rockstar Games & Take-Two Interactive will continue to do so for as long as it continues to maximise profits.
Does it stuck for us gamers? Absolutely, but that’s just Capitalism. Given how quickly this hobby has been enshittified over the post decade, we should probably be counting our lucky stars that it looks like Rockstar is still investing heavily into the next entry, and not just pumping out shallow annual releases like Call of Duty!
You know what’s wild? The original Vice City was a period piece, taking place in 1986, 16 years before the year it was released. This Vice City will be released 13 years after the last GTA.
I’m starting to really despise this franchise, studio and/or publisher. Fuck off with these remaster cash crabs two years after a game is released. Are we due a The Last of Us: Part 1 Remastered - Remake too soon? Get out of here.
youtube.com
Ważne