As the end user why should i pay sympathetically for the extended dev time of a product that hasnt tangibly improved for my uses?

Yes the price ceiling of $70 does not do justice to games like KCD 2, but all that matters for the end user is perceived value. If the perceived value of any game isnt going up, then it is difficult to charge consumers an increased amount.

KCD 2 and Elden Ring are great examples of RPGs with content that fans perceive as a great value, but only AFTER playing.

Maybe KCD 3 or Elden Ring 2 can push their perceived value beyond $70, but the simple fact is that the majority of AAA games DO NOT offer an amount or quality of content that gamers would consider to be worth $70, especially with the tiering off of content with various editions, passes and DLC.

It is just subjective that you and i disagree about the amount of games that cross the value threshold of $70, but the evidence of a $0 cost increase for full priced games over the past decade or so definitely seems like evidence towards my perspective.

I wish i could pay more money for higher quality games with more content, but the advertising for these products happens within a competitive and reciprocal market, and that market has a mean perceived product value of $70.

KCD 2 and Elden Ring have essentially wasted dev time/cost creating bonus content, although the perceived value towards their brands it has created, plus the positive IP mind share, will pay off for them down the road with units sold i am sure.

I would argue that AAA full priced gaming space is not where that innovation has been happening in recent years, it has mostly been with lower priced indies.

The value of a game’s Quantity is directly proportionate to its Quality though, starfield and its 1000s of repetitive planets are the perfect example of this. Would any halo fan rather play 20 hours of infinite or 20 hours of halo 2…?

Yes there have been outliers of increased quality and quantity over the last decade, but in the full priced AAA space nowadays, that is the exception not the rule.

Yes both very subjective. Accessibility and streamlining gameplay has seemed to be the focus. Developing unique, novel but also enjoyable new gameplay experiences? (the reason i believe most people game) That more or less ended with the Wii, Ps3 and 360 era of consoles.

The quality of games did not improve, in fact game quality and diversity has deteriorated. The quantity of content has dropped off as well. Graphics fidelity and production costs have skyrocketed though.

Graphics are so superficial when it comes to games anyhow, why would anyone pay more for a pretty waste of time?

Edit: i am talking about AAA games here, obv there has been an extreme proliferation of indie titles

Yeah this is just a defence of deep-rooted anti-consumer practices thats generalizing the issue.

There are multiple types of online-dependent games, so i will do the world a favor and categorize them here, along with viable solutions to prevent their current inevitable unplayability(sticking to PC games for simplicity):

1. Single player games (no continuous server dependence, but launching the game has online-only DRM).

-The dev baked in this online requirement solely to prevent piracy. There is no necessary data being exchanged with a server in order for the game to continuously operate, other than the anti-piracy measures. This means that all a developer needs to do is patch the launcher/game files to not require the online connection, and the game will work fine. Some examples of this anti-piracy software are Denuvo, or Games for Windows Live. In the case of GFWL, anyone who owned a game that required that software to play, can no longer do so as the service has shut down. When denuvo shuts down their servers, those games will be unplayable also.

The solution so far has been to pirate. The community has made their own patches, simple or not, to continue to play games without unnecessary server dependence. This effort should be on the developers.

-Examples -DRM: —GTA V -rockstar game launcher —Diablo 2 Resurrected -Blizzard launcher —Resident Evil 4 Remake -Denuvo —Gears of War(2009 PC) -GFWL (now unplayable without modifying software) —Chronicles of Riddick, AoDA -TAGES (now unplayable without modifying software)

2. Multiplayer games with dedicated servers.

-Most of these games have no option to host a local server, and playing matches alone, split screen or with a friend on your network requires connection to an online server. This has been an intentional design choice for the passed decade or so. Multiplayer games used to come with local or private server hosting baked in, which required no dev-hosted online server connection to continue playing indefinitely.

The solution is more locally/privately host-able servers for multiplayer games. This needs to become the norm again, and has to be implemented as a choice by developers. These games dont need to be redesigned from the ground up for this to work usually either

-Examples -server type: —Halo CE -private/lan servers 👍 —Halo MCC -Dedicated servers, lan requires online connection 👎 —Battlefield 3,4,1,5,2042 -dedicated servers, bf3 was just sunset 👎 —Battlefield 2/1942/Vietnam -Lan AND bots in servers offline 👍 —Call of Duty’s -up until MW2019 they all had robust offline modes that allowed offline lan play, many had bots and zombies modes too 👍 but MW2019 and after have such egregious Blizzard DRM and the game content is an absolute mess, even pirates have a hard time cracking them 👎 —Quake 1-3, CS 1.6/Source, Unreal Tournaments - the quintessential multiplayer format with private lan servers, these came out in the golden era of multiplayer games 👍

3. Server dependent games. (Service games usually)

-This category clumps in MMO, Service, PvP and PvE games together. Data must be passed between players and servers in order for the game to operate properly. Again, this is merely a design choice and not the only way that game could ever be developed in many scenarios, but there are games whose data/processing cannot be hosted locally because of their complexity, such as some MMO’s. This server dependence is prevalent in Service games today because the servers tell the account/game what items they have purchased with real money, all of that is tracked and regulated by the developers in order to, you guessed it, continue to make more money.

There are 2 solutions here… Either design the game so it can also be played without server dependence from the beginning(which in many cases is entirely feasable, but devs prefer you to be always connected to their store to be able to buy more microtransactions)… Or when the game is not financially viable to justify server upkeep, a version of the game or server is released to the public. Yes yes devs dont want to give out their source code and this option requires the most development time, but it prevents people who paid for/into a game from loosing access to it forever.

-Examples -Fixes: —Shatterline -singleplayer version released on steam after online service was sunset 👍 (not free) —Spellbreak -devs released files so players could run their own server once their servers were closed 👍 (free) —World of Warcraft -they would have to do the same as spellbreak, if this game ever shuts down —Anthem -sunset happening in a month or so, no plan to make playable offline/without EA servers, needs dev time👎 —Battleborn -servers taken offline after 4.5 years and i have missed it ever since, needed dev time to work offline 👎 —The Crew -sparked the Stop Killing Games movement with its end, Ubisoft has no plans for an offline patch 👎 (although they do with The Crew 2 👍)

It is important to remember that most(almost all) PC games today bought via Steam, Epic, Microsoft, Ubisoft, Rockstar or EA stores all require an online account to be able to play the games youve bought there, whether or not the games are then playable offline after purchase. Those games are dependent on those online stores in order to access those games if you alter your hardware or software and need to redownload those games, you will need to go through those launcher’s DRM. Some of those launchers won’t let games launch offline ever, as i mentioned in section 1.

GOG and a few DRM free Steam games are some of the only ways to purchase games that have no online dependence once downloaded.

The takeaway here is that many online-only requirements function at best as a means to preserve a distributor’s bottom line and at worst as a form of planned obsolescence that eventually takes away a good you paid for, leaving you with the option of buying the remake, sequel, or another game entirely(like the devs/publishers want).

Here’s to hoping the EU is going to take consumer interests seriously and impose some new rules around game preservation on these money focused companies.

1. Yes, in order to download your “Game Keycard” games, you must get the game data from nintendo online services. This is why banning online services is considered effectively bricking the console, at least for all 3rd party games on keycards.

2. If an account is banned, another one can be made for free and the user can keep utilizing their online services… Nintendo obviously looks at that like a burden, and wants to financially punish that user, making them have to buy another switch. This in turn benefits them.

Not that this is what youre looking for, but Olauncher has done a great job of keeping me from being too distracted by my phone. All apps are in a text list, no colorful icons or red dots to grab your attention when they shouldnt.

Its surprisingly intuitive to use too.

The comparison is more akin to how they have actually restored the mona lisa with chemical and color correction as a means to make it withstand the test of time. Thats essentially what has happened with the remastered version of this game.

I understand that in other instances, remasters and remakes might as well be a different game, but if you have played crysis, this is barely the case.

Im not saying its fine to lose access to original data. All im saying is in this particular case, there isnt much loss to be outraged about. The publishers havent un-alived the IP. We have just lost access to some historical data.

I am all for preservation. I dont want to underplay the detriments of lost data. I just want to subjectively quantify this loss.

If there was no alternative, and debatably superior, version of the game currently available then this might be an issue. But there is, so the preservation of the IP is hardly jeopardized.

Theyre way behind the power curve with this one. GOG has had better multi-store integration for a while. I am surprised that steam is even lacking on this.

Microsoft needs to make it so i never need to go into the steam app or the GOG app, and so i never want to, to play all my games. Thats the way to win and become number 1.

Really if Play anywhere expands retroactively like 360 backwards compatibility did… They will have another great PR boom that brings users like myself back to their storefronts.

I have to stop holding my breath for the xbox console library to gain cross compatibility though. Theres no way the Play anywhere program comes close to compensating for all of the classics locked to their consoles. If cross compatibility never happens i will feel slighted as a previous xbox user with a huge library of games.

I know i want to buy/play this so bad… But denuvo.

Offline play with bots, not server dependent… Its a multiplayer game with mtx. Its not an Online-Only service game.

You could consider it a service game of sorts, but it isnt the toxic sludge that Destiny 2 and Marathon are/could have been.

Agreed. I would love it if they took all the assets and the engine and made a great campaign actually grounded in the marathon universe. Thats what i would pay for.

Tbh, its probably too late for bungie. All that company is, is a name.

What they need is to make a completely different game.

Destiny was successful because it was the first real fps service game, it didnt push mtx, and had competent pve, pvp and a story(debatably). Bungie cant chase that dragon anymore. Its been done a million times now.

Players know all service games want is to milk them with mtx. No player wants to get into a new service game especially when its nothing unique.

Just make a good single and multiplayer shooter with a somewhat interesting story, then people will buy and play it.

It seems so easy, but AAA pubs and devs cant pull their heads out of their own asses to see what players want. They just see what investors want.

There, dead horse kicked again.

Im very glad they are… But this effort just negates their last push for backwards compatibility on the xbox console.

I am sure they see the value in merging that library into their PC library. Tbh they will probably choose the lazy route and stick to streaming xbox-only games to PC because it requires no extra planning. Even the streaming process is a convoluted mess though with only certain games/publishers giving their games permission to stream. I am never allowed to stream every game i want for arbitrary reasons, and i dont like that when i have already bought the game.

Xbox wants to move away from local processing anyhow because it funnels users into their beloved subscription model.

I see your point with the millions that play those specific games, maybe i am just disappointed by microsoft only doing the bare minimum when they are forced to.

This is at least progress

Oh and about the potential for native Xbox games running on PC handhelds… God i hope youre right.

Is it good enough for you? Is that why you will get it? Where are these people you speak of…?

I highly doubt there are enough people that want that super particular use case to make this particular handheld stand out at all, especially ones that didnt meet their needs with another handheld already.

What a weak sell then, i understand your point, i just wish Xbox came out swinging with a compatibility layer for the Xbox game library. A portable device with that capability would have the potential to put them back on top.

Instead we get a less bad version of windows, that will likely be inferior to its direct competitor(steamOS) anyways, sans the ability to play a few multiplayer games.

I see no reason to believe it wont be.

I think i speak for most gamers when i say i have a steam game library, but would not touch the Microsoft PC game store with a 10ft pole.

I am an xbox user, i have a vast digital(and physical) xbox library that can almost drink alcohol. This is the library and store i want on an Xbox handheld. Xbox not pursuing compatibility with that library is what will kill the brand IMO.

Xbox Play Anywhere was a nice program that gave people some double purchases on the MS game store for no extra cost… But it was too sparse to make the barebones MS game store seem worthwhile compared to steam.

If people bother to buy this generic PC handheld with an Xbox sticker on it, they might be slightly more inclined to buy games on the MS same store, but im certain the majority will just use Steam and Gamepass.

They can already do this on all other PC handhelds though, so why would anyone buy this one?!?

Its not that i dont prefer the PC library, its that there are already dozens of other handhelds that play PC games already.

So then the UI is the sole reason people should want this device?

I see no reason why this UI shouldnt also work on the plethora of other windows handhelds in the market currently. This leaves nothing new for this device to offer… Unless its really cheap.

This will likely only play pc games… And that is the big disappointment.

Who cares? We already have pc gaming handhelds. Unless this is subsidized to hell so it beats all other pricepoints… why should anyone care?

If my xbox library was made mobile… That would be something new and worthwhile. NO, I DONT WANT TO STREAM. I cant always stream on a handheld either. I want to possess my games!(As much as i can anyways)

Xbox will be disappointed by the sales of this handheld and might give up on their own that could play the xbox library locally. If they do that their next generation is screwed. Lets see how this plays out.

It blows my mind that this game gets multiplayer but nightdive completely leaves it out of Turok 3, and charges the same amount for both games.

I mean im not upset about having it here but this is an immersive sim where people only care about the campaign. Turok 3 was a fun arena shooter with a doodoo campaign…

🙃

Can you sell me on Night in the Woods and Lil Gator Game?

As long as they remake the original Witcher(and maybe the 2nd one too) so i can experience it in a similarly cinematic way to The Witcher 3… I will be happy and excited to see what a Ciri-based game or even trilogy would look like.

Will definitely miss the masculine indulgences of TW3 in the Ciri game though…

New stuff is for new IPs… Fans want a G-man that operates within his original concept.

It could go either way, the new blood writing for an old IP might be too scared to expand it in any meaningful way - see the newest starwars trilogy for the perfect example.

Fans dont want more of the same though, they want to be even more immersed with expanding lore, and they want it to be meaningful and worthwhile. But when it comes to characters they dont necessarily want them to change. Its the plot that needs to be driven forward.

Investors that want to milk an IP dont care if the property is expanded upon, they dilute the IP in search of profits.

I hope HL3 gives us something worthwhile. I believe GabeN will make sure that happens.

Setting an $80 standard for games just means nintendo and MS are telling gamers if they want to play on release, AAA game publishers have their blessing to charge more… Not that they couldnt before.

I really feel like nothing will change. Companies like EA and Ubisoft will continue to tier off content until a full game actually costs $120 on release. They’ve been doing that for years at this point. Sure that includes dlc thats released after launch, but these games are essentially released before they are feature complete, with the DLC beginning development before the game even releases. This content is intentionally tiered off to create the system that seemingly justifies charging $120+ for all of the game’s content.

Games that are feature complete can justify whatever price with whatever their perceived value is. The market levels itself out this way, and games will eventually be on sale for their actual value. Example - Ubisofts Avatar complete edition game is on sale for $20 a year or 2 after release.

Patient gamers here will always benefit, although it is possible we might feel the price floor rise slightly along with the ceiling. That alone is enough to be irritated about…

But at the end of the day, what you will hear everyone say is the same thing we have heard 1000 times: vote with your wallet.

The original psychonauts was a cult classic though that got great reviews.

Starfield is in the opposite boat, it doesnt seem to have been a commercial failure, but fan sentiment is really low with the starfield franchise to the point that the hype around a sequel would be nowhere near what it was for psychonauts 2… But this is all my assumption, difficult to find/trust empirical data on fan interest.

Can you think of another commercial failure IP that ever got a sequel? I honestly want to know if this ever happens.

I have to look back and see if Red Dead Revolver was as disappointing as Starfield.

Great point. I agree that people would likely forgive all of the technical and environmental shortcomings(loading screens and bland environments) if the game had even a slightly interesting story. Anything worth experiencing at all. Unfortunately it fails all 3 of those fronts.

The places where it excels (1st person gameplay compared to other B* games, ship building, and graphics imo) are not enough to make it a game worth experiencing.

It honestly should have had another 2 years in the oven to make the lore and universe more interesting. No way Bethesda wastes another 5-8 years on a sequel with the negative reception Starfield received.

Brothers: tale of two sons

As opposed to paying actual real-world currency to respec a character… Like in monster hunter wilds 🙃

People are upset they arent getting the same type of game the IP is known for. Unfortunately the IP is being used to push a different type of product. I do think people are justified to be upset about that.

As a gamer who wants more to play and wants to pay less, i am ok with this particular IP(which i dont particularly care about) becoming ftp, even if it degrades the overall experience. If this was happening to another IP i enjoy, I might be more upset about this.

Hot take: If its a free to play online multiplayer game, its not very upsetting.

Yeah, fans want another skate in the vein of the trilogy and it sucks we wont get that… But if i dont have to buy this game then idc if it will hit a premature death when it stops being supported. Yeah its a waste of development resources and i wish online-only games didnt exist for the sake of preservation, but i wont be upset if i get to play this game and dont have to pay a dime.

Im not entirely sure itll be ftp though, so this take can be completely void.

Looks like a lower budget Scorn ripoff

We will see what the aaaactual gameplay looks like. If the hit detection and subsequent damage effects are at least at Doom’s level, it could be a good game. This video might as well be a mock up.

The article ignores the elephant(s) in the room… Negligible performance improvements year over year, and unavailability of cards at MSRP.

This means the opposite of what the article headline is suggesting. Mainstream PC gaming (on mid tier and/or new hardware) is more out of reach for people than it has been for decades…

Good thing the used market exists and new entry level last gen cards can sometimes be found at msrp. Still alot of people dont want to settle for a sub par experience at PC costs, and console gaming always meets the mark for price to performance.

The only thing “convoluted” about this whole announcement was pricing. The price of the console The price of the games The price of their online services and upgrades…

All of that is gut-wrenching as Nintendo claws at its dedicated fans wallets.

Otherwise the features and games look amazing, i understand why people are willing to pay those prices.

Fingers crossed we luck out with easy jailbreaks and emulators like we did for the Switch 1.

I have one as well that sits docked next to my playstation, its the ideal way to game, if you dont mind dealing with a bit of challenge to get some classics running.