Now those online services are supported by digital sales, like on PC storefronts. Digital makes up the majority of console purchases now too, but they still continue to charge for online, so it’s no wonder PC market share grew in the interim.
Gotcha. As I said in the original blurb, I’d prefer some way to play the game LAN that it seems like they’re not doing. V Rising and most survival games, for all that I can tell, preserve all of those elements of MMOs or MMO lites, and it exposes how unnecessary it is to take away the ability for the player to host their own servers. Even in a best-case scenario where the game is super successful, you can run into things like login queues or server maintenance, so having the ability to play the game no matter what is a must for me. Survival games tend to lean into the use case of people who want to PVP and grief other players, which isn’t for me, and I’d much rather co-op with some friends, but since I control the server, I absolutely have the ability to tune it that way. And since these games account for dozens of players on the same instance (Factorio goes up to 255), you’re capable of replicating all of those random interactions, for as rare as they actually are in a game like Destiny or Warframe, which are my frame of reference for MMO lite games, because they have you spend most of your time in instances for only a few players.
Have you played Wayfinder before to say how much of the game up to this point was built on those larger scale random interactions as opposed to small instances with a few players?
No, I meant things that people would miss. I guess matchmaking fits that bill, but we’ll have to see what it looks like outside of direct invites once this new version exists. Each platform provides free matchmaking services, so I’d be surprised if it didn’t exist at all.
You are asking if it could be same experience as an MMO-lite without being online. Think about it.
No, I’m asking if it could be the same experience without running it on someone else’s machine. V Rising does not have an online requirement, but you can play it online on a server you control, perhaps even the same machine you use to play yourself, with up to like 60 players. Destiny is an MMO lite, is it not? For the most part, you’re only playing that game 3 players at a time too, just like this one. Is there something that this game was already doing that it won’t be able to do now that it’s peer to peer?
FYI, there are a handful of games that put unique spins on the genre out there. Most of the ones I can think of off the top of my head put you in control of a “cursor character” that’s like a commander. It puts a speed limit on APM, which I think gets the genre back to focusing on strategy. There’s also Northgard, which is like a cross between an RTS and a 4X game, and pieces of the map are tile-like, so rather than this unit moving to these coordinates, you’re commanding a unit to move from this tile to the one next to it. Then there’s the Total War series, where the battles are slow paced, and the macro level resources are handled in turn-based strategy.
If you miss that old style of game, that’s fine, but there are probably tons of ways to morph the RTS genre that solves its old problems, finds it more success, and still scratches that itch. I’m quite fond of Cannon Brawl, and Tooth and Tail had its issues but was on the right track.
No, they don’t automatically make a game better, but if I’m choosing between two games that are similar in themes or mechanics, I’m leaning toward the one with voice acting and better presentation. That’s worth extra money to me. It’s far easier to retain story elements when they’re acted out. Production value is still value. Not only did I get a killer RPG for $60 in Baldur’s Gate 3, but I also got some killer performances to help sell it. That extra production value is worth extra money. I could play the previous two Baldur’s Gates for pennies on the dollar, and I did, but I would certainly say I got more value out of the game that costs more. In V Rising’s case, I know of no other action RPG/loot games that have been combined with survival games in this way, playing with independent movement and aiming instead of mouse pointers, so that’s worth the money to see. I think we’re done here, but your sense of value is just very strange.
Again, “more” is often to the detriment to the value of the game, because adding hours is easy. I’m saying that, on a AAA level, games were worth more to me when they were shorter. We’re currently paying less for more. But at below AAA levels, I’m often served extremely well for $35.
Video games are afraid to be only a couple hours because they are afraid of charging less than $10
I would love to live in a world where we get FPS campaigns that are about 8 hours long, are fulfilling, and cost $60. That used to be the norm, and we were happy with that. A Let’s Play is not a substitute.
So if you wanted to get what you’re looking for in this case, Fallout 1 and 2 are $10 each, or you can get a bundle of 1/2 and Brotherhood of Steel for $20 (more like brotherhood of steal amirite).
That assumes I don’t care about things like better resolutions and frame rates, voice acting, modern considerations for how people actually interact with games, etc. I’ve also played Fallout 1 already.