Baldur’s Gate 3 was only last year. Metaphor just set records for Atlas’ fastest selling game this year. Even amidst the tremendously troubled launch, Cyberpunk 2077 went on to be one of the best-selling video games of all time, and its DLC did very well too. God of War: Ragnarok sold at least 15 million copies. And these are just a few examples off of the top of my head that don’t fall into gray areas like GTA where they’re also a live service.
I’m expecting the licenses resulted in the money flowing in the other direction. Monster paid Kojima for Death Stranding, not the other way around.
Dislike ratios are fake these days, as it just polls people who use the browser extension. Don’t put too much stock into it. Some segment of people get told that the game is woke because it stars a woman who shaves her head in the opening seconds, so they brigade the video and mash dislike.
I’m not underestimating how much Naughty Dog spends on their games. That stuff all leaked, so we can put an exact number on Last of Us 2. People dig the games that they make though.
Concord selling themselves as having developers who worked on Destiny reminds me of a trend I’ve observed though, though maybe there are outliers that have slipped through the cracks that would prove me wrong. When a new studio pitches its inaugural game as being from developers of X, Y, or Z, it pretty much never goes well, especially if it’s aiming for AAA. Maybe there are difficulties building a game and scaling up to that team size simultaneously. Any of a number of things can be the case, but at this point, it’s a red flag for me. The difference between that and “from the makers of The Last of Us” is that Naughty Dog is still Naughty Dog, and that’s more or less the same band sticking together. The Last of Us didn’t do it for me, and neither did Uncharted 4 honestly, but their games keep seeing the same levels of acclaim and success release after release.
You’re inferring a whole lot from a mock-up of gameplay that isn’t actually gameplay. A single player Naughty Dog game has a huge leg up over Concord in that you can play it regardless of how many other people bought it. Just saying “from the makers of The Last of Us” buys a few million copies sold where Concord didn’t clear 50k. If you want actual candidates for the next Concord, it’s going to be Marathon and, even more likely, Fairgame$.
Well, this is misleading. My mind goes to the likes of Sony first party titles in reading this headline, but the examples that the article uses as a metric for “PlayStation exclusive” are more like the games that either were paid to not go to Xbox or didn’t see the fiscal sense in doing so. It doesn’t rule out first party titles, but that’s far from the most likely. Of Sony’s first party games, the ones most likely to come to Xbox, if at all, are the live service games, and that’s looking increasingly like a strategy that Sony regrets anyway, so why even bother with Xbox when it’s not going to move the needle?
It may very well be, but the impetus in the article of Outer Worlds 2 and Square Enix/Ubisoft’s strategies seem to be the wrong way to draw that conclusion. Square Enix is pivoting because being Sony exclusive wasn’t working. Ubisoft has pretty much always done simultaneous launches, so I’m not sure why they’re even listed here. The first Outer Worlds was third party before Microsoft acquired Obsidian and was published by 2K, so who knows if any agreements had to be honored or were more expensive to break.
Kunitsu-Gami was this year. Like it or not, Exoprimal was last year. And Capcom’s got a ton of IP that would work really well in the modern era and/or deserve compatibility with modern x64 hardware. I’d personally love to see Viewtiful Joe and Darkstalkers come back.
I’m no stranger to this in fighting games. It doesn’t mean you’re a second class citizen per se. It means they don’t want people to hold on to the beta version for months between the beta and the release, and they don’t know how to stop it.
That is a perfectly valid use case for a video game that I paid for though. I do exactly that with games like 007: Agent Under Fire (in split-screen), and I played games like Rainbow Six 3 long after the official servers weren’t there anymore. Agent Under Fire in particular is a lot of fun with all of the modifiers on, like moon gravity, and I wouldn’t mind playing some multiplayer games with friends with cheats like that one on; things that you wouldn’t want on in a ranked queue, but things that I should 100% be able to do with the product that I paid for.
A lot of cheats send completely legitimate information back to the server, and that’s what they’re seeking to stop with the client side implementation; I don’t think it has anything to do with costs. I haven’t heard of any data mining happening, and surely someone would have caught it with wire shark by now, but there are enough things that we know for sure about kernel level anti cheats to make it offensive.
Unless they deviate substantially from how they build games in genres like shooters, server side anti-cheat isn’t going to catch everything that kernel level anti cheat does. However, kernel level anti cheat doesn’t catch hardware cheating anyway, so if cheating is always going to be imperfect, we ought to stop short of the kernel.