The biggest sin was not citing the study. It appears to come from an interview with a professor, and the range is based on variation across applications.
This is the second article today where I saw Todd Howard talking about severely nerfing aspects of the game. Earlier this morning I read an article saying similar things about the space suit system - initially they were going to be a lot more punitive on what you can and can’t wear based on environmental conditions, so you’d need a suit for cold, a suit for toxicity, a suit for radiation, etc.
Also read about the spacesuit thing just today. The planet thing at least would’ve made more sense to all the spacesuit bits. It’s pointless and a bit confusing now, I just ignore it and repair whatever damage I receive which the spacesuit article made it sound like that is intended. The little hazard UI thing is so bad, and why doesn’t the aid section use the same icons as the status section. Hate having to dig around to find the right treatment in my inventory (slowly just grabbing snake oil whenever i find it)
Ah well still enjoying it at around 100 hours played, but you can see where they’ve had to cut back on systems all over the place.
Yeah the hazard warnings are pretty useless now, because they’re not actually that dangerous or meaningful. I didn’t even know that it caused damage, I guess I haven’t been on a severe enough planet.
The annoying one is Frostbite, especially on some story missions where you keep getting it while the characters blab on and on. Other than that i’ve either run thru a steam vent, broken my lags boosting wrong, or sometimes sandstorm lung damage.
It didn't even occur to me that this was a result of the patch, but I did notice it start happening recently. When the patch rolled out, I was in a spot in the game where all of my things were taken from me anyway, so I guess I didn't notice it initially when it first started.
I only got a VR setup this year. I find I am quite susceptible to the motion sickness issues. However, if the game has a good comfort rating and options, I don't have any problems. For example, I need "instant snap" for turning with the control stick and "teleport" or "blink" for movement.
Those options work well for some kinds of games but I will probably never play ones where you need to "move" smoothly without actually moving. Perhaps that is preventing me from adapting to it, but I still say "no thanks" to motion sickness.
Why wiuld any companies trust them at this point…bail, let unity die and set a precedent to other engines to not fuck with the companies that make the products.
I just wish collectively humanity could do the same for these multi billionaire companies who will kill you to make 10 cents profit.
I'm still holding our hope they just patch in a shared inventory system slike to the one in wrath of the righteous (or we get a mod for it). Inventory managment has always been a huge chore in DOS1 and 2 and something that would actively hamper my enjoyment of these games.
Companies need to learn that you can rollback policies, but you cannot rollback loss of goodwill.
Too bad modern capitalism is all about short-term profit over long-term anything. Who cares if you burn down the forest as long as you can walk away with the wood, right?
When I had my rig I got a boxing game and it fucking zoomed in and put totally unexpectedly and nearly made me lose my shit. I could only do an hour before my eyes would start to feel like they were going to melt.
Oh, I’m looking forward to finally getting to play the DLC! I have the game on PS4, not never bothered to get a 5 because I switched to PC gaming before they were easily available where I live, and now I don’t want one any more.
I’ll wait until it goes on sale, though, since I already paid full price once.
Honestly, he’s right. Game prices are the same 60-70 dollars they’ve been for 30 years, but nothing else has stayed the same price that long. With inflation, a game should be around 200 dollars.
Super Mario Bros 3 came out in the last half of 1988 and costed $50 dollars, or around 127 dollars. It also costed about $800,000 to develop, which is about $2 million today.
Nowadays, it costs around $80 million (about 40x) on average to make a AAA title that costs $60 (about half). This is why all these games have cash shops and battle passes and paid dlc and whatnot: they need to make up that extra cost somewhere.
I can understand woth this information companies wanting to charge more, but I feel like standards need to be higher and refunds guaranteed. They can't ask us to spend 100's of dollars on half-complete, buggy messes of games AND also want to charge for DLC and have micro-transactions.
And don't forget it's just a rental of the game, at any time they could shut off the game or license servers because they don't want to sell or keep that game anymore.
While i agree that prices have been stagnant, its also a game of companies wanting to reduce risk. You have unicorn examples like Baldurs Gate 3 which took its time to develop a game, and has stated they dont plan on making paid expansion content, meaning where they at they see the game as profitable, despite spending 5 years in development for it.
Part of the reason why some games have balooned cost is because of improper spending of the money. Many spend a lot of money on marketing which tends to have an overly inflated cost on its own, due to the fact that people have a preference to play whats familliar, however its been shown that also actually making a good game with little marketing also works, and a lot of dev studios havent gotten to that point yet.
Super Mario Bros also only sold about 2.5 million units in the first several month after release. Baldur's Gate, for example, sold almost 6 million in 2 weeks. The NES sold 2.5 million units in its first year. The Switch sold 13 million. Even the worst selling modern console, the Xbox Series X sold 8 million in the first year. While individual game prices have not risen, the total number of sales has dramatically increased. So pardon me if I don't think the cost of games not rising has been a problem for publishers and developers of AAA titles. Their real problem has been putting out good content that enough gamers want.
Distribution is getting easier and cheaper, the available talented workforce is larger than ever, tools are getting better and faster with every day and despite "no large increase in costs", the gaming industry has grown to be one of the largest and most profitable industries in the entire world and everyone wants a piece of that cake.
$60 is fine and anything above that is pure greed.
I buy games that release for $40 and $50. They don't have dlc. They don't have microtransactions. They don't have cash shops. They don't have battle passes. I just pay my $40/$50, get my physical copy, often with a bundled goodie like cards or keychains, and play and enjoy my 40hr game.
It's absolutely possible because the companies that release these titles are pumping out several per year. You just.... have to stop spec racing and obsessing over 200hr playtimes and top of the line graphics and actually focus on making a decent, mid-sized game, with realistic expectations.
gaming
Najstarsze
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.