Yeah. I’m of the same mind. I was here to witness the resurgence of Boomer and Movement Shooters. Now, we’re in the cusp of the resurgence of RTS. I am very much happy with the state of gaming, without having to focus on sequels.
The last game published by 505 I played were apparently Indivisible, which was trash. I never played Ghostrunner nor Control which basically eliminates most of their notable recent output. I think I can safely say I’ll be fine with my continued ignoring of them as a publisher.
FPS players are beasts on their own next level where it comes to binds. They also rebind movement options like jump to mouse wheel and switch WASD to ESDF so there’s more surrounding keys and better pinkie access.
Nah, they don’t need to stop this at all. This basically lets people pirate games all they want so long as the devs don’t intentionally throw in a game breaking bug on the review version.
Well, you can. But you have to be PERSONALLY hacked. At which point you’re at a level of risk equal to “will my house burn and my notebook full of passwords get lost?”
The only annoying part about the modern world is that you want to have that keepass file synchronized between devices, at which point you either go down the path of something like Synchthing (not mainstream user friendly) or you just end up asking yourself “fine, what cloud service do I trust to not go looking at my files?”
Half the cost of the game is marketing. And marketing is an effort that builds upon itself
The more smaller games you have, the more you have to market to niches from scratch. And niches are generally more inclined to be informed users. And it takes a developer with vision to make a satisfying niche hit. Well it always takes vision but…
Meanwhile one big bombastic game will get a bunch of mainstream folks hyped over qualifiers of scope instead of quality. Yes, I am saying hype culture is primarily an idiot’s hobby, but idiots still got cash.
Plus, plus, most studios don’t really see their junior devs as something worth fostering. Better off burning them out and replacing them.
I showed this screen to someone else to make fun of the name and said it the way you did, then looked again and man, what they went with really does sound dumber.
Like, switch the words and it actually sounds like you’re giving a certain legacy a qualifier.
To which the response is: I don’t care. I would have paid the same amount of money for games no matter which of the stupid funny numbers you picked out.
The beginning and end of how much one should care is “are the devs happy with it? Is that the standard for digital stores as well?”. And the answer to both is Yes, so the concerns are abated.
If it opens them to driven out of the market by a more generous competitor: Cool. But that alone doesn’t impact me, the costumer. The generous competitor needs to do more. And you know, they know that. That’s why Tim gave me so many free games.
No you wouldn’t.
Immortals of Aveum cost 70 monetary-whatevers and killed its studio and no one commented on it. It would have cost 60 whatevers two years ago and still would have killed its studio. But if they did 70, they would have torpedoed that price point in the news circles as a death sentence. They only had the gall because literally no one dared release a game for 70 till Activision did it and others like Sony and Nintendo followed along.
Steams share has zero impact on my wallet. The market is dictated by things way more arbitrary. Everyone with brain knows this.
Plus, it only applies to base price, not sale price. If a platform states “you can have your game on sale 100% of the time”, and a game undercuts Steam that way, Steam wouldn’t do anything about it. Well, they wouldn’t have to anyways, it’s illegal to have goods on sale 100% of the time, but the point is there.