That person ends up being the success or failure of the project. If they're doing a bad or mediocre job there's nothing that can change that course because you won't know that until it's too late. The flip-side is that it prevents 'design-by-committee' mediocrity and can allow people with bold visions to express those ideas.
From what I have seen, granted I haven't played it myself due to my burnout with Fallout 4, Starfield is just a Bethesda flavored No Man's Sky.
Not much to grab my attention and most people I have seen played it seem to put it at a 5-6/10 type of game. Good, but nothing really great.
Meanwhile we have an arguably more fleshed out space exploration game that is No Man's Sky to suit your itch, that is probably cheaper or on sale somewhere. Doesn't helping modding will take years to reach really big game altering levels as it took a while, If even that.
Tbh, No Mans Sky and Starfield have little in common except being space games. Starfield isn't a space exploration / space sim game. It's an RPG set in space. Starfield has more of a storyline and characters then No Man's Sky, they're different games for different people
I wouldn’t call Starfield Bethesda-flavored NMS, I’d call it a NMS-flavored Bethesda game. NMS and Starfield aren’t very comparable except for the setting.
It would be a shame if they were forced to follow through with this threat. Cult of the Lamb is a great game. I'd be curious to know if this changes their plans for their next big content update, which they'd tentatively moved to late 2023 back in August.
A lot of snark in this reviewer's writing style. I get that it's her opinion and her freedom to write like that, but man it was annoying to read.
Still, is a bit of a shame to hear that this title did not seem to execute well, since it has cool art, fits a niche that I like, and is from an indie dev - all of which are reasons that had kept me interested in this game since I first heard about it a year ago.
Bloomberg reports that newly-appointed CEO Takashi Kiryu is aiming to improve the company's profitability by whittling down the number of smaller projects it releases, while focusing on big-budget games with a higher potential to improve profitability.
So you're disappointed with the sales of these enormous games that spend far too long in development and don't get the return you want, and your plan is to double down on these games instead of Dragon Quest Builders and Octopath? Here's an idea: take someone who's successfully led a smaller game and then give them progressively larger projects to lead. And maybe don't make a main entry in your marquis series exclusive to a single console in an age where the PC market will likely outsell it.
Last I read, the performance improvements are mainly related to ReBAR, which you could have manually activated before. A noticeable improvement, but not what some people might have expected or wanted.
He was the CEO of Electronic Arts when the controversial loot box monetization was added to FIFA 09. He made news when he called developers “fucking idiots” over some developers’ reluctance to introduce monetization schemes earlier in the development process. There’s also the infamous clip of Riccitiello talking during a shareholder call about charging Battlefield players a dollar to reload their guns.
Look at this guy...I couldn't read all of the Bloomberg article due to paywall, so I don't know if this jackass actually provided proof of these "death threats."
While I don't condone them, it seems awfully convenient that an executive who's known to stir controversy with his monetization strategies received "alleged" death threats. I have a hard time believing it without proof because this guy is a sleaze ball greedy mofo.
In any group of people there will always be a tiny subset of the population who will pull this unhinged bullshit. It's unfortunate, but now the CEO gets to play the victim, and anyone who's against his bullshit gets to be painted with the same brush as the unhinged guy.
I never understand freaking out about death threats. If someone actually wanted to murder you, they’d be quiet and methodical about it, not grandiose. To be fair, I’ve never received a death threat so perhaps I’m not theeeeeeeeeeeee
I mean you are assuming the person who is trying to murder you is a rational actor but you can't really be a rational actor if you are threatening death to someone because of their shit monetization policies on your entertainment. Hell some people throw "Death threats" at people because they decide to change a reload speed by a fraction of a second. So yeah "gamers" can be quite unhinged. Hell you had idiots in Jan 6 who loudly stated their intention and beat a cop to death. Hell we have seen situations of weirdos getting close to celebrities (in their heads) then trying to kill them, and I imagine cases like that will only get worse with parasocial relationships getting a bit out of hand with modern influences and streamers.
That's the fallacy of trying to understand criminal acts. For the most part, if someone were as smart, logical, and thoughtful as you are when you imagine the best way to commit murder, the kind of person to actually try and commit the murder would not be as smart, logical, or thoughtful to have gotten into that situation in the first place.
There are exceptions, of course, but it's enough of a possibility that it's probably better to take them seriously than not.
Edit: typed all that, scrolled down, some other dude already said it
gaming
Najstarsze
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.