The presentation looks too fluid. I don‘t see any room or reason to use a controller live on stage there other than to pretend. The entire thing looks scripted through and through so why would you even make Ciri controlled live there? Feel free to send me time codes where the camera itself actually looks like it‘s controlled by the guy behind the pult, though. I can‘t see anything. It looks like a normal tech demo with preselected inputs to me and I see no reason why they would give the guy control over anything.
What actually stuck out most to me besides Witcher 4 was their LLM based „Don‘t press the button“ game presentation at the very end of the show. No one is really talking about it because it was really lame but I think it‘s telling how they showed the AI driven stuff after everything else almost to kind of sweep it under the rug because they know most people are already sick of AI but they still had to include it for gullible shareholders or something.
Well damn I know it’s just footage of a tech demo so there is a lot that can happen still and Ciri was definitely not controlled live (as they tried to make us believe if you watched the full event. Like seriously, who’s going to believe you when you slice up a horse and voxelize trees? Holding the controller on stage was just corny, sorry guys) BUT it looks amazing! I especially loved how they showcased some of the technical details. I really didn’t think it would impress me this much because they showed way more about a game that’s probably years away from release than I ever anticipated. And again, a lot can still happen and go wrong but I would lie if I said I wasn’t hyped already. Mission accomplished I guess.
I‘m just going to say that the distinctions between the two you‘re laying out here seem irrelevant to the discussion to me. I am not arguing about a season pass or preservation of games. Again, that is not what this discussion is about. This is about the developing side of games where these things don‘t mean anything. To give an example of what I mean: World of Warcraft employed and paid more people over a longer period of time than most AAA games.
That‘s the critical one. It‘s not about budget or outsourcing or whatever. It comes down to who makes the decisions and why. In a lot of cases it‘s people with a finance background who couldn‘t care less about the medium they‘re working with and that can be a major issue. Gaming being a bigger industry than music and film combined has attracted a lot of people who only think in dollar bills and it shows. Luckily however, there are still a lot of passionate teams with leaders who have a love for games.
I want to believe this is just s straw man argument but sadly I know there are enough jerks out there who absolutely call everything that doesn’t cater precisely to toxic masculinity wOkE.
I think it‘s a bit of a bummer that the ending of Witcher 3 that does make the most sense in-universe isn‘t canon in favor of what I think is pure fan service. I will probably still play the shit out of this though because all of their games have been hitters for me. Even Cyberpunk at launch. Even Witcher 1.
Way to make a truly bad faith argument or perhaps you are lost or something. To clarify: Are you implying it‘s any different for AAA SP games? Because that’s the discussion here.
I mean they also created a ton of jobs and it‘s not like devs working on single player games don‘t face layoffs and bonuses fraud. Besides Overwatch 2 killed Overwatch already.
I‘ll still buy their controller because you can‘t sue Chinese companies either so what‘s the difference? However I‘ll use it for PC gaming. No way I‘m going back to their ecosystem. Those days are gone.