RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS - CON SEASON

[HoonDing]

"morally" bankrupt for making a bad game

[Fenixp]

"morally" bankrupt for making a bad game

How else are you going to get all the clicks, tho?

[Hurlshort]

Five bucks a month seems pretty reasonable for access to a bunch of games and online services. I don't have an interest in it myself, but they are offering a service. I am not sure what price point you folks think would be fair.

[Malcador]

 

"morally" bankrupt for making a bad game

How else are you going to get all the clicks, tho?

Say it's a "slap in the face"

[Chilloutman]

Five bucks a month seems pretty reasonable for access to a bunch of games and online services. I don't have an interest in it myself, but they are offering a service. I am not sure what price point you folks think would be fair.

 

considering I am paying my provider for internet access I would say 0. They can keep (well they technically only borrow them to you anyway) their games I am not interested in anyway

[Hurlshort]

There are a few ways Sony (and all these other companies) can recoup the cost of running dedicated servers, since your ISP isn't kicking them any money. They can raise prices on hardware, software, subscription model, or microtransactions. Sub model is usually the best deal for a consumer.

[SonicMage117]

I love the vibe they went for with this..

 

If you loved the first two Darksiders, you'll love this one I'm sure.

[Lexx]

Five bucks a month seems pretty reasonable for access to a bunch of games and online services. I don't have an interest in it myself, but they are offering a service. I am not sure what price point you folks think would be fair.

 

I want to buy a game and then it's mine and I can play it whenever I want. About them servers, just allow people to host their own dedicated servers. It's really not that hard. Works on PC as well. Now if I would feel the mood to play some online game, I'd have to pay for a month. If my motivation is gone already tomorrow or in two hours... I've wasted 30 days.

 

And yeah, I have no interest in most of these games, so it'd be a waste of money either way.

[Hurlshort]

You always want to pay the same price for that game as you did in the 80's, despite the fact development costs and expectations of quality have increased tremendously.

[Lexx]

I want to pay the price once, not every month.

[Hurlshort]

I want to pay the price once, not every month.

Again, either companies look to pull in money via more than just straight sales, or they end up increasing the price of the games. No one wants $250 games, so we end up with all sorts of other expenses. Subs are better than loads of microtransactions and dlc's, in my eyes.

[Lexx]

So what? I don't care. If I feel like the price isn't worth the experience, then I will complain and probably not buy it. It's not my fault that game deving is expensive. I never forced anyone to make new assets for every single game, yadda-yadda. Not sure where we're heading with this conversation right now, though, because I find it all to be kinda captain-obvious level stuff.

 

I'm likely going to try at least one month of RDR2 online, no matter the costs. After that... no idea. I know how much I play online games, so it'll probably end with it then.

[Hurlshort]

Ok, but RDR2 more than delivered the content you would expect for $60. I mean, if it shipped with no online mode, it would still be a great value as a consumer.

 

If it is obvious why they charge for online, why are people complaining about it?

[213374U]

Alien: Blackout Has Been Trademarked by 20th Century Fox

 

Possible reveal soon(ish)?

[Lexx]

Ok, but RDR2 more than delivered the content you would expect for $60. I mean, if it shipped with no online mode, it would still be a great value as a consumer.

 

If it is obvious why they charge for online, why are people complaining about it?

 

Not Rockstar is charging for online, it is Sony with that stupid PS-Plus subscription which you need to play online in the first place. RDR2 Online itself is free and will have micro-transactions to pay for itself. The micro-transactions are a different issue entirely.

 

This PS-Plus bottleneck is completely unnecessary and just a cash grab. Steam doesn't want you to pay for an online mode either, nor any other such (PC) platform.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Lexx

[Hurlshort]

Fair enough, although I don't think it is just Sony. I believe all the consoles charge for online play.

[marelooke]

"morally" bankrupt for making a bad game

 

If you'd actually watched the video you'd have known he doesn't call them morally bankrupt for "making a bad game".

 

 

"morally" bankrupt for making a bad game

How else are you going to get all the clicks, tho?

 

 

By making up something "edgy" the video is supposedly about instead of watching it.

[SonicMage117]

 

So basically the single player game but with real people. You can join a gang, a gang can be up to 7 players, they'll own their own camp. Each player will have their own job and so forth. Hmmm...

[Lexx]

50 seconds video that I could have read through in 15 seconds.

 

/edit: This is so stupid. If you bought the ultimate edition, you can get into the beta tomorrow. People who started playing on release date will get in on the 28th... and on 29th everyone who played on the first release weekend. The plebs will be allowed to enter on the 30th...

 

Sounds like the first release will be pretty basic. You run around in free-roam, can team up with other folks and shoot each other or do whatever you could do in singleplayer already.

 

Won't have time till weekend anyway, so not a big deal. Pretty sure there will be issues plenty, so I won't mind if others have to suffer through them first.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Lexx

[Orogun01]

You always want to pay the same price for that game as you did in the 80's, despite the fact development costs and expectations of quality have increased tremendously.

First, quality is only delivered insofar as to visual elements (as upper management can't **** with that) all the other elements have either stayed the same or deteriorated. Aside from the occasional oddity, AAA games like blockbuster movies, are down to a very sanitized, risk free formula.

 

Also; I don't give a **** if the CEO makes less money (let's not pretend that the lion share of the profits go to the developer or that they won't get fired whenever is convenient) considering how ****ty AAA games are nowadays (subjective, I know) the price tag is too high for me. Specially when I can wait for sales, price drops or giveaways.

[Hurlshort]

 

First, quality is only delivered insofar as to visual elements (as upper management can't **** with that) all the other elements have either stayed the same or deteriorated. Aside from the occasional oddity, AAA games like blockbuster movies, are down to a very sanitized, risk free formula.

 

Also; I don't give a **** if the CEO makes less money (let's not pretend that the lion share of the profits go to the developer or that they won't get fired whenever is convenient) considering how ****ty AAA games are nowadays (subjective, I know) the price tag is too high for me. Specially when I can wait for sales, price drops or giveaways.

 

 

I agree with you on the risk free stuff (although thankfully we've had a real renaissance of indie developers.) But I think you're minimizing the importance of the visual element, given that gaming is by and large a visual medium. I also think you are dismissing the quality of modern game engines, sound, and general stability. There is a lot more going on with the jump from this:

 

 

To this:

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Hurlshot

[InsaneCommander]

First, quality is only delivered insofar as to visual elements (as upper management can't **** with that) all the other elements have either stayed the same or deteriorated. Aside from the occasional oddity, AAA games like blockbuster movies, are down to a very sanitized, risk free formula.

 

Also; I don't give a **** if the CEO makes less money (let's not pretend that the lion share of the profits go to the developer or that they won't get fired whenever is convenient) considering how ****ty AAA games are nowadays (subjective, I know) the price tag is too high for me. Specially when I can wait for sales, price drops or giveaways.

 

I agree with you on the risk free stuff (although thankfully we've had a real renaissance of indie developers.) But I think you're minimizing the importance of the visual element, given that gaming is by and large a visual medium. I also think you are dismissing the quality of modern game engines, sound, and general stability. There is a lot more going on with the jump from this:

 

You showed it really well. Most players will care about the visuals very much and there is nothing wrong with that. But, at least for me, it is not that important. I got a lot more excited for PoE and even pixel art games than for any recent AAA beautiful game.

[Orogun01]

 

 

First, quality is only delivered insofar as to visual elements (as upper management can't **** with that) all the other elements have either stayed the same or deteriorated. Aside from the occasional oddity, AAA games like blockbuster movies, are down to a very sanitized, risk free formula.

 

Also; I don't give a **** if the CEO makes less money (let's not pretend that the lion share of the profits go to the developer or that they won't get fired whenever is convenient) considering how ****ty AAA games are nowadays (subjective, I know) the price tag is too high for me. Specially when I can wait for sales, price drops or giveaways.

 

 

I agree with you on the risk free stuff (although thankfully we've had a real renaissance of indie developers.) But I think you're minimizing the importance of the visual element, given that gaming is by and large a visual medium. I also think you are dismissing the quality of modern game engines, sound, and general stability. There is a lot more going on with the jump from this:

 

 

To this:

 

 

I like to compare games to women; you could have some high maintenance pretty ones that don't know how to please you, or you can go for the homely, interesting girl that will at least try. It really is your choice and I'm getting to that age where I know I can't save people from their own stupidity.

[Hurlshort]

I loved the original King's Quest, but it was high maintenance as all heck. It would be a better comparison to say new games are vapid and easy, whereas old ones are interesting but complicated.

[Orogun01]

I loved the original King's Quest, but it was high maintenance as all heck. It would be a better comparison to say new games are vapid and easy, whereas old ones are interesting but complicated.

Nope, I like vapid and easy girls and we are talking about buying price here not just content. I don't care if my analogy doesn't work for anyone but me.