What if you only bought the expansions that speak to you though? I don't need the content creator pack or the K pop radio station, but I did want Green Cities and Mass Transit, for instance.
I'd rather that basics be part of the game from the start. Mass transit should have been there to begin with. Looking at a lot of these dlc it seems like they should've been there by default.
So then what if you waited until it had all of the features that you consider necessary and then buy those on a sale? You're a far cry from $2k spent in either case.
I shouldn't have to spend anything extra for basics. It should be there already. So I'll just not pay anything and pirate it if their monetization scheme is going to be this fucked.
Who determines what's a basic and what's expanded content then? You know what's in it when it comes out, and you can buy it at that price or not. If they do extra work, it makes sense to sell it as an add-on. If you were happy with it before they added night clubs or weather features, were they really that essential to be included in the base package? If you weren't happy with it before they added those things, wait until they add those things. They sell a good product at a fair price, and they're forthcoming about what's in it. They don't try to keep you hooked with weird psychological tricks or gambling mechanics. Nothing about this is fucked.
I used to be perfectly happy with Paradox's "slew of DLC" business model... until they raised their prices.
Before that, I would buy everything as soon as it dropped. No biggie. Now I only buy DLC when it eventually gets those deep discount sales. I'm open to their experimental "subscription" & "seasonal bundle" models, though... so long as they include everything and they don't get cute with exclusions.
Just because the DLC exists doesn’t mean you need it. I bought the original Cities Skylines, haven’t bought any DLC, but still had a great time. It looks like this time around they’ll also include more features from DLC into the base game. Evaluate the game based on what it is. Is it worth the money? Then buy it. Is it not worth the money, then don’t.
I really enjoyed The Planet Crafter! It's a crafting game bringing a barren world to fully lush environment. Lakes will form, grasses start to grow. It's very peaceful and visually appealing.
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....
I've never heard of that one, but I personally enjoyed The Outer Worlds, but got it in the recent Humble Monthly. Was hoping for Outer Wilds when I first saw the listing.
Gone Home is pretty neat. I usually need secondary gameplay loop to placate my short attention span but this one gripped me through presentation and atmosphere alone.
A single console is one of those things that sounds great on paper, but considering how scummy the industry has been lately, would be used in the most anti-consumer way possible.
A single console on the market = Monopoly. Those are never good for consumers.
Press X to doubt. Didn't Google try this sort of thing with Stadia already? Why is Netflix spending money on becoming a video game company? Are they trying to justify the price increases?
They are trying to diversify since streaming is not a sustainable business on its own. What they are trying is more similar to something like Apple Arcade than Stadia.
No, I meant streaming of movies and tv shows in the current market. Someone has to fold eventually when the current strikes are over.
Edit: Streaming services are paying to much to generate content in a battle for customers. Actors and writers are not getting paid enough. By diversifying Netflix has a better chance at competing.
Strikes not withstanding, I don't see how that business is unsustainable. Film and television companies integrated and consolidated until there's at least 4 or 5 major players in that space for healthy competition, and the back of the napkin math makes plenty of sense.
It’s unsustainable because everything is being splintered into different streaming services, forcing the consumer to spend more to watch the one or two decent offerings on each platform. This is causing people to return to the days of mass pirating.
That's not unsustainable...that's a healthy, competitive market, and a great deal better for the consumer than the television model it replaced. You also don't need to stay subscribed to a streaming service after you've watched the show you wanted to watch, and even if you stay subscribed to only the ones with shows you like, it's far cheaper than cable.
Funny you mention it, I just finished the 4th and final weekly for Origins this morning. Though after 110 hours to 100% it, not sure I'll be moving on to Odyssey too soon.
But the real-life problems aren't unsolved because there are not solutions. It's just that the meaningful player base is wildly toxic and spends the entire time griefing rather than trying to build or progress.
Yeah, the lack of transparency in the Pay-to-win game mechanics is annoying as heck. It’s frustrating to be lectured on F2P deck building strategies by someone who is P2P and pretending to be F2P (And that’s ignoring the contradictory advice of “Break out of the meta and do something new” and “Don’t spend your resources frivolously and don’t do anything too outlandish, stick with the established strategies”).
The P2P playerbase are functionally playing an entirely different game, and whilst I am fairly sure that game is still grindy and difficult in its own ways (I’ve noticed that P2P players are often so OP that they only engage with the co-op mechanics superficially, if at all. That makes me sad because the only reason I’ve stuck playing this game is how incredible the co-op multiplayer is and as salty as I am about P2P advantages being OP, I want everyone to experience the parts of this game that I have truly loved).
This is why solving the real life problems stalls so much, because “progress” literally means something different across different chunks of players. It’s why griefers sometimes say “I don’t know why you’re getting angry, I’m literally just playing the game”. That used to make me rage, but I’ve realised they’re not lying, they’re just playing a different game. Now I’m just sad that I have to spend so much energy trying to keep them out of my game if I want to make any progress
That's a big reason a could never get into City Skylines, I have 0 interest in managing roadways, and I feel like that's 90% of what that game is. Now they're going to throw even more micromanaging on top of that, I don't think I'll be looking to get this one.
And many people feel the precise opposite, the whole point of the game is to micromanage
To me this new game makes the first one feel like a prototype, i’m so much more interested now that there’s actual sensible simulation of things and people don’t pull a car out of their ass or merrily walk 30km to work
For me, CS1 shows how difficult it is to build effective roads. I solved traffic on my map with an extensive, fast and direct public transit network, and well-connected bike paths along the same alignment for those who don’t want to pay. For roads specifically, timed&sensor traffic lights (TMPE mod) and one way systems in built up areas work well too from what I’ve seen.
I am a little scared of the extra management they’ve popped in to CS2 but I’m hopeful they’ll get the balance right
I don't see Thief mentioned yet. It's old but it was called a "first person sneaker" by some reviewer back in the day.
I'm seeing something on Steam that looks like it but with a 2/2014 release date, which seems newer that I remember. Apparently there's a bunch of DLC too, so you might consider buy a bundle.
I was curious so I looked and you’re remembering one of the first three games (‘98-‘04) the one on Steam is the 4th game in the series. The originals were pretty neat back then and are still available at gog.com and probably other places as well.
I remember years ago playing SimCity for the 1st time at my cousin's house. Started playing in the evening and stopped when the birds came out and the sun came up...much to my surprise.
I got Cities-Skylines about a year ago and I think I put less than 5 hours into it.
gaming
Aktywne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.