This specifically is a bit of an open secret afaik. There are a few semi prominent examples of big studios pouring a bunch of money into junk, not advertising it or just skipping theatres entirely, then watching it sink.
I had a conversation with my sister about that recently.
The amount of shows and movies that have $100,000,000+ budgets is rising, yet more and more of them feature very limited sets, small casts of mostly mid range talent, and a dozen executive producers all putting up their own money (this is all especially prominent with big shows on streaming networks, cough Star Trek cough The Acolyte)
Here’s my comparison: a group of 10 investors come out and announce they’re spending a billion dollars to develop a new luxury car. They drum it up as being the next big thing. Then, when it comes out, it’s about as nice and luxurious as a base model Toyota Camry. Fine, but not “a billion dollars” fine. Immediately, everyone would be wondering where the hell that money went? There’s definitely a chance it was just squandered, but you have to wonder. When you have a group of private investors with executive power over the project, what goes on behind closed doors?
For all we know, they’re literally just passing massive checks in a circle to one another to say “yes, it says right here in our bank records that we spent a combined $100,000,000”, meanwhile only 25% actually goes into the production, and they pocket the rest. Then, when the flock of people have to come and check out the new megaproject, all they need to recoup is a few million more than they spent (far less than the perceived budget), and they can run for the hills.
Anywho, crackpot theory time over. But think about it, if my simple brain can think this stuff up, why can’t the hollywood bigwigs, who actually have the capital to make it happen?
Dusk. Quake meets Evil Dead. One of the best games I’ve played in years. It’s definitely more of a straight up shooter than a horror game, but the themes/setting/art style nail the spooktober vibe. I replay it every autumn and always have a great time
I also remember it being in a pretty rough state early on, all the more reason 2 weeks of testing is a joke.
Although, one thing CoD has going for it, each game changes so little they really don’t need a beta. They’re almost like sports games in that regard, they may as well be released as updates instead of new titles.
Right. Fair enough. But, as another user said, I can upgrade that PC. I’ve technically had the “same PC” since like 2015. At this point, there are no pieces of the original left, but I never went out and spend $1000 on a new rig up front.
Also, that still doesn’t make consoles look amy better. Because, when the PS3 became obsolete, and I went and got a PS4, what happened to my PS3 library? It’s still locked to my PS3. Even if we did have to go buy new computers every 7 years, they’s still all run the original Doom as well as newer games, and everything in between. All this, while also being able to file my taxes.
Thats not what’s going on here. CoD has for the past few releases run an open beta for 2 to 3 weeks, a month or two ahead of release. Buying this package lets you into that 2-3 week beta a week early, letting you get 3-4 weeks of playtime. You can still get into this beta for completely free, just wait a week and don’t buy the game.
Not trying to defend Activision here, cause I still think CoD is a shadow of its former self and these “betas” are nothing more than a demo, but people seem to have the wrong idea about how Activision runs them.
I’ve been saying this for years. I remember playing the Planetside 2 beta, it ran for months. It was actually used for bug/stability testing, fixing networking issues, balancing, etc etc etc. It was an incredibly important step in developing a multiplayer game.
These aren’t betas, they’re demos that at most will help them do a limited network stress test. The amount of data they can get from 2 weeks of feedback is nowhere near enough to do any real bug fixes or balance changes.
What’s worse is that now, any game that does have a long alpha or beta period is accused of squatting in early access.
Especially now that there are maybe 2 or 3 “killer apps” per the life cycle of a console at this point. Why would I pay $600 to buy a console, just for 3 exclusives?
If there was an entire panel of awesome exclusives like back in the PS3/360 era, it would make more sense. But as it stands, the amount of good games on PC just dwarfs what’s on any console.
The steam deck is a PC in a handheld form factor. It simply runs Linux and defaults to steams big picture mode (a console esque interface). You can still enter a desktop mode and use firefox and a word processor
Im with you except for the “supported lifetime,” I have a PC that can play the original Doom alongside Cyberpunk 2077 with raytracing, and literally everything in between.
My PS3 can play at most a decade worth of games. It is obsolete.
This is almost exactly my experience, but I stuck it out for more like 30 hours because I really dug that desert setting, which is criminally under used in games.
Also, does anyone remember the Animus Save Editor? Back when Ubisoft Connect was still called UPlay, there was a tab in the in-game overlay that allowed you to change a bunch of parameters of your save game, including disabling enemy leveling, making assassinations insta-kills on any enemy, adjusting DPS for your character as well as NPCs, etc. For some reason though, after Ubisoft rebranded UPlay, they removed the feature. I still have my modified save, but can’t make any further adjustments. It sucks because I was able to make the game feel much closer to the old AC games, and new players can’t.
Thats great to hear. Not surprised about Starfield tbh, but I am surprised they fixed it for F76, considering it relies largely on the same tech as F4, which does have that limitation.