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.
It might be a good time to revisit some other long-running series that have managed a very good “reset” after running dry. Some examples that come to mind are Resident Evil 7, God of War, The Legend of Zelda, maybe some others.
At least for RE7 and God of War, it does feel like their overall goal was to reduce the action-packed scope, and focus more closely on something character-focused. RE7 doesn’t have crashing helicopters, and God of War doesn’t have you killing gods in the first 30 minutes. It definitely felt like an overall goal for FF16 was epic, bombastic scope and throwing around their budget, which obviously drove sales…but not as much lingering popularity as they hoped.
(Oh yeah, and plan a Steam release already. The world is not as console-obsessed as Japan)
The specific game that gave me the idea for this post was Freedom Planet 2. I remember getting the original as part of one of the early Humble Bundles, and enjoyed it, but never felt compelled to try the sequel.
Something I’ve been missing is having more game stories with fully “melodramatic” character acting - where character A is gasping in tears over the injuries to character B, and won’t ever forgive ruthless villain Y. That was something I remembered FP1 for, for better or worse, and apparently from reviews they improved their craft a bit for the sequel.
I remember when I had to use my Steam Deck connected with USBC as a “desktop” for a while. It couldn’t remember to put my taskbar on my preferred monitor no matter what I tried doing.
I’m torn, because on the one hand, the logistics of constantly recording new lines for minor stuff is really annoying. Imagine you’re playing a live-service game that really needs a certain balance patch, but that balance patch is reliant on a very slight change to a voice line (for instance, reducing the time it takes for a character to perform a special attack. To take an Overwatch example, maybe a certain archer is voicing his ultimate ability too quietly). Having to call someone in just for that is costly and unproductive.
But, we’re talking about delivering the source of someone’s work and livelihood (as well as all their creative influence, exaggerative tones, and delivery) into an algorithm. The line where it would go beyond convenience into worker-reduction efforts is going to be hard to draw.
I would rather that the voice actor retains the rights to their voice, even if it’s put into an AI algorithm. Thus, if the developers want to make a small change to a voice line, they still need to get approval for some AI-generated correction - and the actor would have the right to say “No, that one sounds terrible. I’m only going to agree to re-delivering this one myself.” Similarly, actors could approve limited sets of explicitly-defined live AI usage, for instance pronouncing the player’s name. Granted, some companies would become annoyed at actors being too inflexible, just like they have disagreements with actors today.
I’m definitely worried about too much signing-over of voice identity. I think it’s very easy to cut humans out of the equation that way, which not only damages the health of the industry, but also reduces creative output.
I just finished Tyrion Cuthbert: Attorney of the Arcane yesterday. Definitely the kind of game that sits on your mind a long time after you’ve finished. It’s almost criminal to refer to it as an “Ace Attorney fan-game”, seeing how many things they get so right so uniquely. They absolutely nail the kind of cathartic, heart-twisting drama of all of these characters that gets you cheering for the ending.
There’s a lot in the soundtrack that I adore, especially the way they build multiple character leitmotifs and a particular track right at the finale of the game, but obviously, their equivalent of the “Pursuit” theme is always going to be a standout.