I just looked up one of Netflix’s star movies, Nimona, and yes, I can still buy blu-rays of it.
All mediums have had exceptions where the license holder is a fickle, or ineffective, ass at selling; rare books, games with soundtrack licensing complications, unloved movies. They’re generally exceptions by individual work, not from having signed on to the Great Netflix Prison.
Generally, where there’s demand, they still let you become its permanent owner. (In the topic of anime, they even overcharge for it because it’s such an uncommon choice made by super-fans as a prestige item)
PS+ set forward a theme of letting people have game trials - you can download and play for a few hours before needing to buy. I think they want that tied to some kind of invested subscription setup just so that people wouldn’t abuse the system.
It’s easier to avoid abuse if every game has demos coded to end after level 1, but as many old analyses have shown, that takes a huge amount of developer resources.
The issue of downloading 100 GB is something that some publishers have tried to solve with cloud gaming. If you’re only mildly interested in a Game Pass game, you can play it on cloud, and then if you enjoyed your first session, download it locally for the next one.
Feels kind of weird to have a remaster coming long after a total remake. Granted, I don’t think they remade 2-3, just the first one - and it was for the sake of their small trilogy referencing events from the first game. (I think it went, Legend, then Anniversary (Remake), then Underworld, right?)
I can see how Game Pass popularity could be bad for a number of studios, as he says in the article. But, I’ve never understood how Game Pass’s existence was anti-consumer.
We always get these baffling quotes like “Microsoft insists on renting you your games, and you will like it.” or “I’m not going to be forced to pay $17 a month just to play my games”. GP never gained popularity off Microsoft forcing people into it, people voluntarily signed up, even when MS continues to make their games available for direct purchase.
The previous quote from Ubisoft even seemed more like an investor excuse than a threat to gamers.
“We need ideas to find a way to monetize our active playerbase!”
“We already are. They pay us money each month. In turn, we continue to make sure the game is fun and has stuff that keeps them interested.”
“Aha! Carry on.”
I’m not sure how you drew this conclusion, since most people I know consider paying full price to obtain a digital copy to be extremely close to ownership.
I liked Telltale’s Law and Order series. They can’t sell it anymore, but I can still download my digital copy because I bought it full price.
The whole argument in the article is about monthly subscription rentals.
I have a story plan I’m tossing around, and trying to decide something around this. It’s nothing so complex - basically, there’s a nation that has historically been extremely homophobic, and as a result, a mid-sized cabal of defectors that the book follows are gay. One of those situations where an observer (in or out of universe) could tiredly claim it doesn’t matter to them, except that it apparently does matter to this fictional nation.
There’s a similar bit in Trails in the Sky I ended up unexpectedly enjoying.
Joshua: “Good luck, Estelle.”
Estelle: “…What do you mean, good luck? You’re coming too, right?”
Joshua: “…Pardon? The plan is using a maid’s disguise. There’s no butlers in that part of the castle.”
Estelle: “So what? You fit GREAT in a dress!”
Joshua: “…Just drop it, Estelle. They only have the one outfit.”
Head Maid: “Well…so actually…”
Joshua: “…no. No, we are NOT doing this!”
Y’all say that, but anytime someone makes even a decent approximation of an Ace Attorney game, I’m out here chasing the high of pointing out contradictions that pin a killer.
I get that to some degree, but also look at it this way.
Developer A spends 10 years and lots of people’s time developing a heartfelt, memorable game, and prices it at $25 - keeping it at that price no matter what changes. Meanwhile, Developer B develops dozens of cheap games chasing crummy junk trends, and charges $60 initially for them, and discounting them down to $10 after two months. Theoretically, Developer A should deserve more of their money. But, many people will often see “83% off” and go for Developer B, even though the game refusing discounts is worth far more of people’s time.
I do think some people only really focus their wallet-voting in one direction. It should be not just avoiding expenditure on bad games, but also volunteering it on good games.
I don’t know if you could call this a positive, but I’ve definitely seen signs that the results of these projects will routinely turn out soulless and flop hard. In the past few years we’ve seen some VERY well-funded projects turn out as total flops. If that’s happening even with human creative input and corrective steering, what should we expect from AI following a straight algorithm?
Any return to turn-based would probably have to be careful about it. Persona 5 managed it well, but it easily reaches criticism of being too much of “Use fire on ice”. Ideally, every decision a player is making in their infinite-time turns should have some form and consequence to it. I have always hated the “solution” wherein you can turn on an Auto-Battling system. It fixes the problem, but doesn’t acknowledge that the problem is battle decisions always being completely unnecessary and routine, which itself is something that can be fixed using more intelligent game design.