I have no problem with competition, but don’t force me to use your inferior product. If any of the major companies developed an actual competitor with the Steam launcher (in terms of features, not just a lousy storefront), it would likely get some use. If they somehow made it better than Steam, plenty of people would likely jump ship.
Epic is just a failure of a launcher. Nobody uses it over Steam by choice, because it’s lacking in nearly every way. While I’m not big on exclusives, if the launcher was a reasonable Steam alternative, they wouldn’t bother me nearly as much. As things stand, I’m firmly in the “fuck Epic” camp.
He’s been in charge for almost a decade and spent 60billion on cod. If he actually cared he would have done it. He has the ultimate power to green light it. He’s just chasing Armour core clout.
Hopefully development studios can hold strong and continue their boycott anyway. Backing down now basically means Unity got away with it, in a sense. Plus, companies are learning from each other’s shitty tactics lately ala Twitter, Reddit, and Recently Facebook coming out with payment schemes on things that used to be free.
So if Unity does this, other software companies will probably try some similar stuff.
I loved the server test. Totally hooked. Bought it on launch and after a week I was done.
After a few days it all seemed like a reskin with “retention” gimmicks and FOMO.
TBH after like a decade, and playing it for some 100h, it’s a weak offering for a studio of that magnitude. I often feel they spent more on marketing that making the thing.
With maybe the notable exception of multiplayer games, all games will be at least just as good a year after launch as they are at launch day.
Add to it that in a year’s time there will be enough reviews out there from people who actually played it longer than 5h and the heavy marketing phase will be more than over so it’s actually possible to get a hype-free overview of it, AND the game itself will likely be better than at launch due to bug fixing in the meanwhile and maybe even some content added, and it’s the logical thing to never buy before or at launch and just wait.
However most people have problems with “reward delaying” (and actual psychological term for the ability to wait for something to be more ‘rewarding’ before going for it) and “just have to have it now!” and that just overrides logic (assuming they even took the time to think about it in the first place).
Honestly, I’ve only ever spent over 100+ hours on a game I felt “meh” about once before that I can think of (it was Disgaea).
In any game with RPG elements like unlocks and numbers-going-up (and these days that’s all of them), it’s always worth asking yourself “am I really enjoying this, or am I just anticipating the next carrot it’s dangling in front of me”?
Like, I used to play Civ games way too much, and now I don’t because I realized that the actual fun parts of the game were kind of fleeting and most of it was about The Next Thing.
It’s slim picking in the field, so mostly PoE these days. Probably my longest running game. But TBH, they are kinda on fumes too. New leagues have all been pretty meh. PoE looks great but it’s like 2 years out still (beta late next year).
There were a couple that showed promise but not sure if they ever materialized.
When you weigh it against all the bullshit hoops games make you jump through these days, I’d say comparing 100h in Super Mario is a faaaaar cry from 100 h in a modern ARPG.
If I install a game I bought on both my desktop and steamdeck, the devs have to pay unity twice. If I uninstall it and re-install it, they have to pay it thrice. Four times if I ever use my laptop to play.
If I share the game with my dad and sister via steam family share, the devs have to pay yet another two times.
But I only paid for the game once.
It’s complete insanity. Do they have to pay again for every update, does that count as a new install? What about games on subscription services?
What devs see is “all those other devs are too lazy to make a good game”.
What players mean is “all those other games are full of micro transactions and sell missing content and features as dlc”, which is not the same thing.
What players want to be addressed is the bad influence investors have on the products. Publishers aren’t interested in publishing good games, they only care about money.
Devs don’t go about making a game only for the money. Most of them would rather do it the same way Larian does it, focus on quality and provide a good gaming experience, but their hands are tied.
So the message gamers try to get out goes to the wrong recipients, and it’s obviously being taken the wrong way.
And that’s why I generally prefer indie games. Many indie games are made with passion, with money being down the list of priorities. AAA games are made with money first, though there is certainly passion as well, it’s just not the top on the list. As studios and budgets get bigger, so will their expectation of profits.
So if you want better games, buy from smaller studios. Show them that you value passion over high budget.
But when a game like BG3 comes out, with all the stuff no indie studio can afford to do and it has this level of passion without sticking its hand in your pocket, it absolutely reminds us that AAA doesn’t have to be like it is.
As good as indie RPGs are, Disco Elysium was only able to afford voice acting after being a giant commercial success. No small budget team is going to be able to have mocap work on the level of BG3. These things cost a lot of money and involve paying a lot of workers. BG3’s Kickstarter got to be carried by the name recognition of Baldur’s Gate and Dungeons & Dragons in general, following a huge popularity surge for the latter thanks to the rise of real-play podcasts and such.
Do games need hundreds of voice actors and incredible mocap to be good? No. But it’s something that only AAA studios have the ability to add, and it’s a shame that it’s all going into the next fifa/COD/whatever other money pit GAAS the industry is shitting out.
Agreed. But I’d much rather sacrifice AAA features like mocap, voice acting, and RTX if it means a higher chance of playing a game with a lot of passion put in. Those are nice to have, but not the reason I pick a game.
Yup. And I wish more AAA titles took more risks in gameplay and storytelling, but those seem to be few and far between.
Starfield is a fantastic example. If you asked me to describe a Bethesda game set in space, it would look a lot like Starfield (but I probably would’ve missed the procedural generation). Usually AAA games are pretty much as expected, with one or two surprises on the side, and that’s it.
BG3 basically delivers on Cyberpunk’s promises (branching storylines, mocap, great visuals, etc), and it did so on launch, which is really rare.
Not neceserally but I think it has the same issue as say the google play store. IE roblox promotes the games do the best at extracting profit. There’s lots of games that are well thought out that don’t make much money. and they are burried somewhere on page 50+ hidden between a bunch of thrown together test projects etc…
games
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.