Is that where it is now? I haven't looked at the documentation in an age. I think most stay lower because ultimately cloud storage is a cross-platform concern and different first parties have different requirements. Plus you want to keep it under control anyway. At any rate it's not a huge concern and other services like PSN or Nintendo Online already charge for it, so... not a dealbreaker as long as the base implementation stays free.
It's on par with Steam, I think. You get like 200 megs per product. I know because my Witcher 3 install is above that and it's annoying. That wouldn't be a dealbreaker as a subscription benefit, I don't think.
With the rest I do agree.
I can tell they're struggling and have been for a while. It isn't easy to compete with Steam, and the thing that would have done it (having DRM'd new games in the service) was voted down in a similar survey some time ago.
I would not be against some Patreon-like crowdsourced solution for behind the scenes stuff and prioritization rights. GOG, or something like it MUST exist. Steam is bad enough with their current dominant position, it can't be the sole remaining option in this market.
I would much prefer to be able to give them more money in exchange for more games, though. I am constantly frustrated by how often some indie game is only available on Steam, and I've started buying things full price on GOG but waiting for sales on Steam as a matter of policy.
Looks good, seems fun and it's obviously ripping off the SNES demakes of the X-Men CotA and MSH Capcom made, which is 100%, absolutely the right choice.
Right now you can absolutely share digital games. You do need to have your account logged in on both machines and only the one where your "main" account sits can play the games offline.
This seems both easier and harder? There are now arbitrary time limits and per-game activations, which seems like a massive mess. Before the only limit was that a game couldn't be played in two places at once and that secondary consoles needed to stay online.
But conversely, the "main account" thing was annoying for a portable, so if you shared with someone that carried their console around outside the house it kinda required giving THEM the main account with all the games and keeping the secondary for yourself. This is a very parent-like situation to be in. So... that's better?
The worry here is that this sure seems like setting the groundwork to give up on physical media altogether without messing with the way people use Nintendo portables, and that is a bad thing overall. Given Nintendo's dumb, litigious approach towards these things they're getting no benefit of the doubt from me in this area.
No, I am seeing what people say and how it relates to reality, then deriving conclusions from that.
For instance, my conclusions just got significantly reinforced by the fact that you're framing my stance as "defending" the subject of built-in outrage because of what or who they are, as opposed to what they did.
That's a meaningful part of that statement. Unintended, for sure... but meaningful.
What combination? The game was announced as F2P a while ago, it's been running tests for a while and was always assumed to have MTX. The only thing that changed is they will make the MTX live during a test run and then refund them, which is not particularly rare.
If you must know, it normally has as much to do with seeing how popular your ideas for cosmetics are as it does with testing that your commerce system works properly.
But none of that is what's sparking the fake outrage.
I did! And if this conversation was even remotely related to any of them I'd give it more consideration.
But people read "microtransactions in Alpha", which was clickbaity on purpose, did not read the game was free to play, which was hidden at the bottom of the article on purpose, and got mad anyway.
So proxy for the disintegration of public discourse it is.
But it IS a crazy conspiracy... theory. "Skate testing its MTX during an alpha means that they will be a scam at launch and/or impact gameplay because Multiversus also had MTX and that had a bad relaunch" is a complete non-sequitur. This is cavemen sacrificing goats to make it rain levels of random event association.
So I have to conclude the emotional layer is what matters here. Being mad loudly online at a frequent punching bag with a bad reputation is sheer mob-induced dopamine and that's why that headline exists and why this conversation happens. And why social media exists and is killing liberal democracy, but that's probably beyond the scope of this thread.
You just made all that up. None of that is even tangentially related to the thing that actually happened.
I mean, now we're arguing that this weird ploy to extract more money for cosmetics is probably going to harm gameplay (even though it's unrelated to gameplay) because a different game from a different company also had MTX which were also not related to the bad gameplay changes they made.
I don't know what to argue there. It's entirely irrational.
To be clear, it's not irrational that F2P games often push monetization in intrusive ways that are annoying. It's not irrational that Multiversus had a very weird history and a poor relaunch. But the way you're connecting those pieces along with a healthy dose of entirely disconnected preconceptions based on branding is completely off the rails.
This is why this is so frustrating to me. People just want to be mad at things because some other things that are unrelated made them mad once and they want to just smear the anger a bit. It's pure mob mentality and I fully admit that it pisses me off in games as a proxy for how much of it informs modern society and politics in general. Which I guess I'm doing, too, a little bit. But still.
The implicit perception of value in this comment is making my head spin. We all realize that in-game cosmetics aren't real, right?
Also, yes, they are doing the free to play version of preordering. It's called Early Access and it's supposed to happen later this year. See also Path of Exile 2 and Baldur's Gate 3.
People are working overtime to get their knee-jerk reaction to be retroactively justified here. The thing is, I would get being mad at this being a F2P game in the first place. I would get being mad at it being funded through microtransactions. Those are meaningful changes from the previous trilogy that I don't particularly care for.
It's the being mad on the spot at a haf-misunderstood headline depicting something entirely unremarkable that rubs me the wrong way.
Man, that's a fair point. If you want to be mad at something be mad at the five year dev cycle into an early access launch. I'm not even saying it's the devs or EA's fault. Making games is hard. And expensive. But definitely hard.
I guess it depends a lot on your background. I thought it felt simple compared to the old X-Wing series but not necessarily dumbed down, they did a decent job streamlining it for a modern take.
I guess that means some people can find it too slow and intricate and others too arcadey. I imagine the Skate guys are having to make a lot of those same decisions for a lot of those same reasons.
I have to say, I was pretty neutral on this coming in, but reading all the people posturing anger while clearly not having any awareness of what the game is supposed to be or even reading the article is getting kind of annoying.
As per the article, they're refunding all purchases at launch.
It's a free to play game, there is absolutely nothing newsworthy about this. Path of Exile 2 just launched on early access with a bunch of microtransactions AND a paywall and people were absolutely delighted with it.