I hope that if regulations clamp down that the average consumer can understand the ramifications as well. It wouldn’t be as possible for AAA games to be as fancy and bleeding edge with the same degree of scope if they lose significant funding, most likely.
I fantasize about a renaissance of limitation where the game design gets stronger to compensate for the lack of sheer powering through by financially afforded scope and breadth, but I know that falls apart the second the consumer feels like they’re getting anything less than the best. You already see that now with people complaining about Starfield being ugly and things of that nature.
The perspective of what’s “good” graphically continues heightening, and I’d hope we can understand that we’re at a point where games look more than good enough and we should be worried about what is happening in them, or what those graphics are being used to show us, especially with the possibility that bleeding whales dry to keep the outsourced high fidelity graphics going might not always be the way.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
I hope that if regulations clamp down that the average consumer can understand the ramifications as well. It wouldn’t be as possible for AAA games to be as fancy and bleeding edge with the same degree of scope if they lose significant funding, most likely.
I fantasize about a renaissance of limitation where the game design gets stronger to compensate for the lack of sheer powering through by financially afforded scope and breadth, but I know that falls apart the second the consumer feels like they’re getting anything less than the best. You already see that now with people complaining about Starfield being ugly and things of that nature.
The perspective of what’s “good” graphically continues heightening, and I’d hope we can understand that we’re at a point where games look more than good enough and we should be worried about what is happening in them, or what those graphics are being used to show us, especially with the possibility that bleeding whales dry to keep the outsourced high fidelity graphics going might not always be the way.
Based on what?
They’re not spending most of their money on development. They’re spending it on ads to promote their addiction mechanics.
Based on my uninformed, unprofessional wild speculation