There was a recent update that addressed the back button. Since then, I’ve noticed clicking games in my wishlist and then going back returns me to my scroll position and a few pages that were missing in the back button (like it would back past them) are now there.
Plus, at least from my perspective, Activision-Blizzard was already bad enough that if MS made it worse, it wouldn’t affect me because they were already bad enough that I’d swore off their games. MS owning them was an improvement or at worst more of the same.
That’s absolutely not the case for Valve. They are one of the few large companies that I respect plus they are playing a big role in breaking the windows stranglehold over OSes when you like to play games.
The level of popular opposition to MS acquiring Valve would be on a whole other level than the opposition to the blizzard acquisition. It might even rival the opposition to Nvidia acquiring ARM.
This specific comment by them doesn’t address the PC market directly (though MS is also on PC with game pass and a lot of Sony games are ported to PC these days), but it will either be similar or worse, depending on whether they want to try this with valve, epic, and other PC publishers.
You’re acting like this reflects badly on the console makers when a) they haven’t confirmed they are on board for this and might instead end up being the ones to kill it, and b) if they were on board for this, they still wouldn’t be the bad guys, they’d be helping out devs on their platforms.
I think they even played that plan wrong. All MS has to do is announce that unity games won’t be allowed on game pass anymore and the value of unity will drop. It’s probably already in freefall with few new games from this point onwards targeting it.
Market cap isn’t even really the value of a company. It’s just the last trade price times the number of shares. If someone wanted to buy it, the price would be higher. If someone wanted to sell it, the price would be lower.
This might actually lead to that, depending on what kind of lawsuits arise from this change. Which could mean there will be pressure from others who don’t have a stake in the “unity install fee” game but do have one in the “wants to change terms at a whim” game.
Or maybe it will threaten the “by continuing to use this, you agree” clause instead and open up a path to continue using a previous license agreement if you don’t like a new one.
Could also just be their own tastes evolving. I used to love turn-based combat RPGs and the RTS genre but I’m kinda over both of them now. If game makers lose passion for those kinds of games, then the “it won’t appeal” might even be more of a “I’m not into it, so if I do make it, it won’t be very appealing” than a “no one wants this kind of game”.
Is Zelda a JRPG? I thought one of the defining aspects of the genre was turn- and statistics-based combat. Any Zelda game I’m aware of has real-time combat where hit/miss is based on hit boxes instead of stats.
I realized pretty early on as a developer that my projects motivated because I wanted the thing I was making were far better than projects motivated because I wanted a project to work on.
A lot of the large companies are now run by business majors who are primarily there to make money rather than make video games.
Though you do need the skills and dedication in addition to the vision, because I’ve also got a bunch of projects that started as something I was very interested in but then stalled because I didn’t have the skills or focus to stick with it.