Nothing more disappointing to me than seeing a game I might enjoy… and then it’s only available on PC on Epic Games store. Why can’t it be available on Epic, Xbox game store and Steam? It’s so annoying, like you have no choice but to use Epic… which I would literally do ANYTHING not to use.
I'm annoyed when a game isn't on GOG. Epic's issue is that I use it the least and so I'm less likely to boot up a game on it unless I'm actively seeking it out.
There are a whole bunch of games that actively removed compatibility with SteamOS, and Linux by extension. Apex Legends was the most recent and the most vocal about it.
Well, yeah, but if I was going to get pissed about that, then Epic would be way low in my list of priorities. It's Steam sucking up all the oxygen in that particular room. I own every Yakuza game they made available on GOG and they've stopped doing that. That wasn't Epic.
Wait, who want a monopoly? Epic? The Epic store is like a tenth of Steam's size, and most of that is down to Fortnite alone. Hard to have a monopoly when you're struggling to break double digit share.
Oh, it was Sega. That's the thing about having an entrenched dominant position, you don't need to invest money to get exclusives, even when you are paying out a smaller share.
Gaben may be a libertarian, but I'm not. If you set up systemic reasons why I'm getting boned it's still your fault.
Well, yeah, presumably they all do. I'm sure the kebab place next door would love to have a monopoly, it just doesn't look like it's in the cards, you know?
So are you okay with exclusives but only when the developer is not getting paid for it? Or only when it's on Steam because you just happen to like Steam?
That's such a weird take. It owns the inconsistency so thoroughly I have trouble navigating it.
Since apparently I have to explain this for some reason, I don't particularly like exclusives in general and prefer platform-agnostic games so I can pick where to get them. but if you're only going to support a store, I'm perfectly fine with developers getting paid by Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Valve, Epic or whever else. You do you and keep your workers employed any way you see fit.
And when I get a choice I tend to pick GOG because... well, they don't need a little reminder that you're not buying the game you're buying in the payment page, so I get to back up my installers and keep them forever.
Now, THAT is a criticsm of Steam that I'm actually making here.
No, that's not how that works at all. Monopolies are bad (and indeed unlawful) even if people think you got them by being super cool.
Google didn't get a monopoly on advertising and search by sucking at it. They had the best search engine and design in a crowded market and that's why you don't say you "Altavista'd" something. But that's still a bad thing and they still should get broken up into manageable chunks, as current regulators are trying to do. Ditto for Apple and all these other oligopolistic online companies.
And... you know, Valve. Maybe. At some point. Not quite there yet. But that's bad even if you like Steam or if they have the better feature set. Which they do. Especially if they have the better feature set, in fact, because like all these other oligopolistic companies, the more time they have to establish dominance and get people to sink further into their ecosystem the harder it is to break it up later. That's true of kebabs AND software platforms.
They all have a chance at getting re-released later, unless they are first party (and these days even then).
I mean, Uncharted 4 is on GOG. Not The Last of Us, for some reason. That sucks.
I'd love to see Mario Galaxy on PC officially, but that's not gonna happen, I'm not gonna get mad about it. But Alan Wake II? Yeah, that'll probably make it elsewhere.
Ultimately all it takes for an exclusivity deal to be lifted is for the people involved to agree to lift it. That can be because the exclusivity is timed or because they got to some agreement on it. There is no fundamentally nefarious reason getting paid for exclusivity is worse than Valve being the only platform that is viable for a particular release. The impact is the same.
Maybe I'm just too old and can't cope with the weird whiplash of being there to hear people rage about Final Fantasy showing up on Xbox only to then see this weird vitriol for a storefront compensating devs to get an exclusive on a game inside the same platform.
Like, I get being mad that you'd have to buy a different console to play a thing, but dude, it's a free piece of software, you can just... install it.
Honestly, both things are sheer tribalism and I've never been there for it. Not since the dumb Sega vs Nintendo schoolyard nonsense.
Or the weirdly anachronistic mess that is the Dreamcast in general. I mean, it's not easy to visualize today because a lot of the "just a tiny underpowered PC thing" approach ended up winning the day, but the Dreamcast made no sense whatsoever at the time and produced entirely absurd looking games.
Maybe you could try to rationalize the 480p thing as an advantage today, but at the time screenshot comparisons looked a generation apart next to the PS2.
Specifically the VGA 480p output, which was a big deal for most use cases.
I imagine there is some regional differentiation here based on HDTV adoption and SCART vs component, but for reference VGA out was still the sole way I had to get any progressive signal for gaming all the way down to my day one Xbox 360 in 2005, which did not have an HDMI out (not that I had any displays with an HDMI in, for that matter).
Yeah, that's the thing about it, right? It has all the pieces of the architecture of a modern console in a world where none of them make sense. Even with the 360 I was probably an outlier, and the reward you got by being able to access 720p video on a CRT PC monitor was much higher compared to a SDTV.
That sucks. The game itself was great and its Steam numbers are Concord-bad.
I'd put a lot more weight on "Ubisoft games suck because of all the MTX and games as a service stuff" if people hadn't ghosted the legitimately great zero-MTX traditional mid-sized game.
Could have said that of Ori and Hollow Knight and people seem to have showed up for those. I don't think this is any worse than they are, FWIW. In any case to even notice that kind of nuance you have to play it. If that was the conversation we're having they'd be making a sequel.
The fact that it initially launched on Epic certainly didn't help its Steam numbers, but it also did much worse than Outlaws and other Ubisoft exclusives there, so the "it's the MTX/GaaS" argument doesn't hold.
Well, it's the same crowd that plays a bunch of games that did better. The game is on the same platforms, Ubisoft or not. And all their GaaS games did much, much better on those same platforms, so yeah, it absolutely takes away from their complaints.
Outlaws may have been a bit of a disappointment and Mirage may have struggled, but Mirage had 5x the player count on its Steam relaunch than Lost Crown did. People want AssCreed and they're gonna get AssCreed forever.
Hah. Did you hear about Concord before or after it left a crater visible from space?
In any case, there are two of them, in fact, and they're both good. You may be in time to help save The Rogue Prince of Persia, which is doing even worse, but if you don't mess with Early Access, Lost Crown is still up for sale and it's pretty great.
Yeah, no, I understood it. I'm saying that there are similar 2d platformers on those same platforms (look, it's not my fault language recycles words for things) that did much, much better.
Right. So you didn't make a difference here, since that's also true of all the Ubi games that did better than this, then.
But this doesn't have any of the other crap people are blaming for Ubi doing poorly. So you'd expect if the outrage was making a dent whatsoever their one game that is relatively clean of that stuff would have done better, not worse, than the other stuff they are putting out.
But nope, the opposite is true.
So hey, not saying you're lying, but I think the collective at least looked at the nice, small 2D metroidvania with no MTX and went "nah", but they were much more willing to give the GaaS-y stuff a try.
Although if I WAS saying you're not being all the way honest, I may guess that you just weren't on board for this anyway and now are performatively feigning outrage for something else after the fact to pretend other people's motivations are aligned with your opinions. But I'm not. So we're good.
So, one, I'm pretty sure in most cases that's not why, for the same reasons we all shared memes of people "boycotting Call of Duty" while appearing online playing Call of Duty.
But even taking everyone at their word, I'm saying the group as a whole is not working by those parameters. Directly, demonstrably in apples to apples comparisons they didn't buy the Ubisoft game that doesn't do the stuff people claim to be mad about and bought other Ubisoft games in larger numbers.
The thing with obstinance is that it's hard to make reality change its mind. Remarkably stubborn, reality.
I don't know the guy, but all of that sounds reasonable to me.
BG3 can be replicated, if you have a massive dormant IP that is part of a furiously resurgent franchise and have several hundred million dollars to burn in a years-long development cycle by a studio that has already done pretty much the exact same thing without a license successfully twice.
I wouldn't model my business on aligning that set of circumstances, but I sure am glad Larian did.
To be clear, there's a bunch of other AAA stuff that is also doing quite well with pretty clean, finished games. But for midsize stuff like PoP... woof, yeah, it's so hard to break through.
And you're right, it's a miserable set of incentives that if you launch broken you kinda have a built-in marketing hit because suddenly you're doing live support and adding features. No Man's Sky was a fun one for that. Cyberpunk. But those games did great at launch, so they had the built-in base to keep growing while they fixed the game. PoP launched pretty clean, was small and nobody cared, so it's no wonder Ubi has decided it can make those super talented devs do stuff on the next massive AssCreed or whatever is left of Beyond Good and Evil 2 or The Division or whatever.
Okay, but there was none of that here (except perhaps the launcher), and there was no suggestion in the results that anybody wants to encourage that. So that's definitely not the lesson being learned here.
Also, and I will keep repeating this forever, companies don't make games, people make games.
Also, also, good luck with that. Don't look now, but that's not how major companies going out of business and fire-selling their IPs tends to go.
Look, I'm not sure why it's Ubisoft's turn in the hot seat after EA and Activision, but none of that is a productive outlook or leads to a better outcome, as this one really good, really wholesome game bombing hard goes to show.
I get that you want that to be true, but there is really no indication that this is the case. There are a lot of elements in Ubisoft's recent issues, but there is no good suggestion that any of that train of thought lines up with what we're seeing here.
More to the point, even if it was, all that suggests for Ubi as a course of action is to keep doing what they're doing. I mean, maybe launch on Steam day one, but... yeah, if you monetize the big games better and the fans of the small games won't cut you a break for making them... just don't make them.
The point here isn't whether this game did poorly. It did. Cool.
The point here is that it did WORSE than other Ubisoft games.
Specifically, worse than Ubisoft games that include all the shitty behavior. More of the shitty behavior, in fact.
So the performance of the game is not correlated to the shitty behavior. Well, maybe more shitty behavior gets you better sales, that would fit, but I'm not going to jump to that.
You'd think if Ubisoft's shitty behavior is scaring people off this game would have done better than Mirage and Mirage better than Outcasts, but that's the opposite of what happened.
This doesn't have anticheat, it has DRM software, though.
But hey, if there is no overlap, then how come this did so much worse than other similarly well liked metroidvanias, right? That's been my point here. People keep pointing out that it's not comparable to other Ubi titles. I disagree, because PoP is PoP, but let's roll with that. It also underperformed compared to other games in the same genre with similar review scores.
So what happened there? Either the Ubi woes are behind this, and then it doesn't make sense because this did worse than other more Ubisofty Ubisoft games, or they are not because different demos, and that doesn't make sense because this did much worse than similar games not from Ubisoft.
I think as far as this tells us anything is that the stink of negativity is not very fact-based when it comes to the core gaming community. That and Ubisoft may not have more money to make by going to middle sized, pure and simple high quality experiences like Rayman or this. Which sucks. Those are the best games they've made in recent years, as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, I fully agree that they've stuck to a template far too closely for far too long. That's part of why I'm frustrated that this one went as poorly as it did, since it very much isn't that.
I think the hostility to any non-Steam platform is unwarranted, although annoyance is annoyance. That said, the Ubi launcher on Steam right now is just a pop-up, I don't think it makes you log in each time if you have everything linked.
Yeah, so I just checked, it brings up a Ubisoft Connect windows and then boots. It has less of a launcher than, say, Baldur's Gate 3.
I don't know if it makes you log in the first time or it creates a new thing for you by default, but I can tell you I had more account and launcher trouble running Warframe on a new PC this week than I did playing any recent Ubisoft game.
BTW, you can link up your Steam account to Warframe now and not have to log in each time and man, that only took a decade. Still didn't piss people off as much as Ubisoft being on Epic, though.
Not to my knowledge, but I bet not being on Steam had more to do with it than Denuvo, by far. There is no indication that DRM software discourages sales, to my knowledge. If it does, at worst it breaks even.
I will buy the DRM-free option every time, but every piece of data out there suggests that "I will never play a game with Denuvo" people vastly overestimate how much of a practical impact that stance has.
Me, I'm just weirded out that people are so mad about some solutions they know but not about Steam DRM or any other solution that isn't known widely by name. You know, since I'm sharing all my unpopular gaming hot takes here.
I mean, there are worse areas to run based on gut checks. Ultimately you buy whatever brands make you feel warm and cozy. But just so we're clear, Steam is the granddaddy of both PC DRM and digital distribution with no ownership.
I get thinking their implementation is better, but I don't know that I get "well, this one I actively root for, that one I consider a boycott-worthy deal breaker".
Hollow Knight is from 2017, I don't think it was out there draining business form this seven years later. Bloodstained is more recent, and that cost the same as PoP. Also the Ori games, which are priced the same.
Plus this launched half off on Steam and nobody bought it despite being cheaper than Bloodstained and Ori.
So... I mean, it could have been that, but it pretty clearly wasn't that.
Well, brand and image are relevant, in more ways than direct sales impact (something that "voting with your wallet" often ignores).
But mostly, and this is important, it's worth remembering that Denuvo's clients aren't the people who buy their games, they are the people who sell the games. That's who Denuvo is selling to. And Denuvo, which is a very big, if not the only, name in town for effective DRM on PC, would like to keep being that.
All else being equal, if Denuvo generates negativity in forums and a similar no-name competitor doesn't a client (that's a publisher, not a buyer of the game), may choose to go with the newcomer just to remove the noise, or to prevent an impact on sales they can't verify.
But also, I imagine people working at Denuvo are kind of over being the random boogeyman of gaming du jour while other DRM providers are actively praised or ignored. I'd consider speaking up, too.
I probably wouldn't because there's very little to be gained from that, as this conversation proves, but... you know, I'd consider it.
EDIT: Oh, hey, I hadn't noticed, but the guy actually responds to this explicitly. Pretty much along these lines, actually:
RPS: A lot of companies seem happy enough with the service Denuvo provides to keep using it. Why are you so concerned about public perception? Why not just let people have their theories and carry on doing your thing?
Andreas Ullmann: Hard to answer. So maybe it's just… maybe it's even a personal thing. I'm with the company for such a long time. The guys here are like my family, because a lot of the others here are also here for ages. It just hurts to see what's posted out there about us, even though it has been claimed wrong for hundreds of times.
On the other hand, I can imagine that this reputation also has some kind of business impact. I can imagine that certain developers, probably more in the indie region or the smaller region, are not contacting us in the first place if they are looking for solutions.
Because currently, there is only two ways to protect a game against piracy, right? Either you don't, or use our protection. There is no competitor. And I can imagine that there are developers out there who are hesitant to contact us, only because of the reputation. They would probably love to prevent piracy for their game, but they fear the hate and the toxicity of the community if they do so. And maybe they even believe all the claims that are out there - unanswered from us until today - and for this reason don't contact us in the first place.
Look, I get that there is a generation in anglo territories where the N64 sold ok that discovered multiplayer games with this thing, but it's a slideshow with barely functional single stick controls. Quakeworld was a thing over here.
OK, so this one is really interesting and I think people maybe don't realize how that brief moment in time played out in some places.
So the Internet wasn't as widely available everywhere worldwide. It was expensive over here, and you paid by the minute. You could feel money bleeding out of your pocket if you were using it to play games, and horror stories of people who forgot to log off and got hit by huge phone bills were all over the news.
So while arcades were dying, LAN cafés exploded. All the way from Quake 1 to early CounterStrike days people would pay some cash to rent a semi-competent PC in a big room of LAN-connected computers and play each other in multiplayer games. Or, you know, if you needed to send an email or you didn´t have a computer at home and needed to write something. But mostly games. It was not that much more expensive than using the Internet at home and the experience was so much better.
I played some Doom and Command & Conquer with a couple of specific weirdo friends who had a modem, but LAN cafés were certainly the main venue for that kind of thing. There were like half a dozen in my town, and they each had communities focused on specific games. There was the Quake 3 place, which then got taken over by CS, to my disappointment. There was the weird tiny place where people did Baldur's Gate MP runs, a place that insisted on focusing on Unreal. There was a cheap one in a basement that never got over Quake 1 and people were doing railgun only 24/7. One place had people pay in advance to leave their Ultima Online characters mining while they went to class. It was groddy and magical and it'll never come back.
And I remember in the Quake 3 place they had the PC port of Turok up and running and I kept wondering who would want to play that instead, and especially who would want to play it on a console with a single stick. And then moving on with my day. I think that's a big part of why GoldenEye and the N64 didn't quite work as well in this market.
Oh, I don't question the fun with friends. I had fun with friends with plenty of crappy old games.
I'm saying the pretense that it was one of the best games ever made and a seminal FPS and that it holds up and it was a great thing one would want to replay any of the times it's been re-released makes zero sense, decoupled from the memories.
Yeah, and I think that's nuance that slowly got eroded. Even at the time I remember the consensus about GoldenEye being "it's a good FPS... for a console". I'm not sure I would rather play it over Alien Trilogy or whatever the competition was in 1996, but that was the argument.
But then the "for a console in 1997" part started getting dropped off after console FPSs stopped being this weird, mismatched exceptional thing and became mainstream and now people don't remember that playing a FPS with a controller was a thing nobody did because it sucked. The N64 took a first stab at making that semi-functional that wouldn't really come together until Halo CE.
See, that's the thing, I'm not even being unfair to console FPSs. I'll play on a controller. Catch me on a good day I'll say it's more fair, since your accuracy isn't dependent on how much you splurged on crazy carbon fiber, 5 gram mice with infinite dpi.
But GoldenEye on a single stick at 15fps still sucked.
I got into the millions with a mid-to-high end CPU and was... fine. I mean, fine at 40-ish fps, not fine at 240 fps.
To me the bigger issues were with balance and broken features that were hard to diagnose because city builders are so opaque by design. I can play a strategy game at 30 fps, been doing that for decades, but I need to have some way to figure out how the game is supposed to work.
In any case, it's less that I'm not "accepting" of games being broken, it's that I think I and everybody else are starting to wise up to the fact that you can just... wait. Why play CS2 at launch if you can give it a year while you do something else and play a better version of it that costs half as much?
Neat. I wasn't able to get into Isolation, it just takes a long time to get going and I don't click super hard with what you do moment to moment, but it looks super cool and a lot of people really liked it, so I'm glad they're getting another shot at it. I'd check it out.
It is the exact opposite of that. Easily the best paced strategy game in years. This thing moves. It flows. If Anno had somehow managed to channel the narrative of Snowpiercer and the compulsive clicky crunch of Clash of Clans it would be this.
It's really, really good.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've promised mutually exclusive things to a bunch of council members and I have to somehow navigate a multi-party system without being forced to use the elderly for food.
Right now I'd say on that continuum it's probably FP2>Against the Storm>FP1, but I need to play more FP2 to know for sure.
I mean, I will give you that Frostpunk does trade off some procedural complexity for the ability to give you narrative scenarios, but that's not a bad thing. I am waaaay past needing every game to be an evergreen forever thing these days.
That said, if anybody is just hearing about Against the Storm now, they should go play Against the Storm. Against the Storm is also good.
I need to spend more time with it, but there is an unexpected level of nuance to that, isn't there? You can drag your feet a LOT, and you can promise a choice on the next law to be enacted or to research a technology without comitting to it actually being deployed. Accurately conveying democracy in a game is pretty much impossible, but I do like how well they let you play the policy delay game.
“Ryan deeply believed in that project and bringing players together through the joy in it,” said one former developer, who said he felt Ellis had poured a great deal of himself into the game, leading to a ton of stress. “Regardless of there being things that could have been done differently throughout development...he’s a good human, and full of heart.”
Sources told Kotaku that Ellis was too emotional to speak at points during a post-launch studio-wide meeting after it had become clear that the game was bombing.
I hate when a PC game is ONLY available on Epic Games store (lemmy.world) angielski
Nothing more disappointing to me than seeing a game I might enjoy… and then it’s only available on PC on Epic Games store. Why can’t it be available on Epic, Xbox game store and Steam? It’s so annoying, like you have no choice but to use Epic… which I would literally do ANYTHING not to use.
Thank me later (lemmy.world) angielski
Prince of Persia: The Lost Crown Team Disbanded After Critically Lauded Platformer Fails to Meet Expectations - Report (www.ign.com) angielski
What more could we possibly ask for? (lemmy.world) angielski
66 hours in, i made a factory that makes 25 motors per minute. [Satisfactory] angielski
Players are now less "accepting" that games will be fixed, say Paradox, after "underestimating" the reaction to Cities: Skylines 2's performance woes (www.rockpapershotgun.com)
Alien: Isolation sequel in early development, with original director returning (www.eurogamer.net) angielski
'Melts our frozen-solid hearts': Frostpunk 2 devs celebrate 350,000 copies sold—covering the production and marketing costs (www.pcgamer.com) angielski
Concord Director Steps Down As Studio Behind Historic PlayStation Flop Waits For Sony's Decision (kotaku.com) angielski