I’m not asking you to stop liking a studio you like, but I am asking you to take them off of the pedestal you put them on. If you care about the SKG campaign, that new shooter of theirs is at odds with it.
I’m not asking you to stop liking a studio you like, but I am asking you to take them off of the pedestal you put them on. If you care about the SKG campaign, that new shooter of theirs is at odds with it.
Whether it’s any more exploitative than any other game, it’s still got all of the same baggage. It’s always online and will one day be unplayable, and it’s relying on continual revenue to support it rather than just selling it for an up front price and letting it rock, which both encourage exploitative monetization anyway.
I know, but this past year in particular, there wasn’t much contention over what the game of the year was.
If I buy the game on Epic, I’m given no assurance that the game will continue to work for me on Linux. Others will have different issues with the service that Epic offers. I’m not going to buy from Epic just because Valve has reached some threshold of market saturation.
Not with how unanimous BG3’s award was at basically every outlet.
Didn’t they just announce a live service shooter? Isn’t that caving into current money-making models?
Probably not, unless Remedy buys the publishing rights back from Epic, which they did for Alan Wake 1, from Microsoft.
Well, we’ve seen gameplay of this one already, and it’s got more in common with Dishonored than it does Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines. I’ll happily be pleasantly surprised, even if that means they made a really good vampire version of Dishonored, but I also know The Chinese Room’s track record, so it would be really wild if this was somehow the game that Bloodlines fans wanted.
I don’t think there’s any modding community that will make Bloodlines 2 an acceptable sequel to Bloodlines 1.
It does prevent Linux compatibility, but even if it didn’t, it’s a computer security problem, for those who care. You’re essentially allowing different game companies to install a rootkit on your computer so you can play a video game.
I think they’re already running out of people who want to buy the latest PlayStation, and Sony clearly can’t afford to throw hundreds of millions of dollars after this level of graphics anymore, because it’s not resulting in equivalent growth of console sales to make up for it.
Just checking, but you’re aware this is GameSpot the video game website and not GameStop the brick and mortar retail establishment, right?
That’s one way to do it, but I worry less about those things by not supporting them with my time and money.
And it’s worth noting that trusting the game developer isn’t really enough. Far too many of them have been hacked, so who’s to say it’s always your favorite game developer behind the wheel?
They can prevent you from running cheats that other anti-cheats can’t detect. For instance, they could modify the value in memory so that your calculated hash always succeeds even when it’s modified. This doesn’t stop cheating though; it just means cheaters have to use cheat hardware that exists at a layer that even kernel anti-cheat can’t detect.
I think we’re seeing that that’s no longer true. Minecraft is the best-selling game ever, for instance. If you want to build the photo realistic experience, maybe aim for a smaller scope of video game, like the more linear action games we used to get, because otherwise, the industry ends up in the state it’s in.
Uncharted 2, from Sony Group Corp’s Naughty Dog, was released in 2009 and had a budget of $20 million. The studio’s latest game, The Last of Us: Part 2, cost more than $200 million.
So, uh…why can’t we do that anymore? Even if you account for salary increases and avoiding crunch and such, $40M-$50M for a game as good as Uncharted 2 sounds great!
There’s also Trail Out.
Yeah, last year was not a weak year. There was a new highly-regarded Zelda game as well, which is easy to forget when Baldur’s Gate 3 won every award so unanimously.