My only obligations are my job, so I can pretty much waste all my time on games if i want to. I play one at a time, maybe add in three rounds of CS2 per week to get the drops. What would really drain time is an mmo but I’ve been clean of that for a while.
I guess games just don’t excite me anymore as they used to so I just pick out the ones that do and stick to them. When there’s nothing on the release horizon, I revert back to city builders or racing games till the next release.
Played many over the years and while playing think of how GW2 implemented this specific thing and become nostalgic for GW2 and start playing that again. New world was fun for a while, but I missed magic (literally), so I started gw2 again and went through two expansions over 4 months, burned out and am now 1.5 years MMO sober.
GW2 is cool like that. No subs, respects your time, many players drop in and out every few years. It’s getting old but I hope it never dies. I might start it up again this weekend…
The reality is, deck can handle most games out there in handheld mode. For the latest and greatest games, visual fidelity has to be sacrificed. While the deck has its uses on the TV, it’s not a good choice if that’s all you will be using it for.
My deck, TV docked experiences have been with Mario Kart wii, doom 3, cuphead, SOMA, Scorn, Stray and a bunch of older 2d and 3d titles. I think it handled these games well. Not so sure it would be the same with “AAA latest and greatest”.
All games are like this. You spend real money for items you can only use in game and not be able to get money back. Gray market aside…
Diablo 3 tried a real money auction house and we know how that went. Crypto has potential in bridging macro economies to real world economies but that’s not going so well either.
The ironic thing is, we like it the way it is. Games want to spend money on items they can’t sell back. I dont understand why but it doesn’t matter. I dont partake. You don’t have to either. I play the new pokemon game and don’t spend real money. I get that choice, and for now, I’m happy not giving them anything.
What is interesting is that streaming gaming has not filled this market space and on device processing is still more favorable. If you think about it the ps5 streaming controller thing is already a portable ps5, they just have to move the processing to their servers. If anything, this tells us streaming is just not there yet for the vast majority and portable consoles will continue to do their own processing for the foreseeable future.
When it comes to playing Hades, Balatro or Brotato, I have had zero issues with the deck. It is literally a console experience there. Verified (green) games will just work and are indictive of a console experience. Playable games (yellow) dont represent a console experience. Small text, having to bring up a keyboard manually, launchers… these things arent something you’d see on a console. Unverified games and emulation require the most tinkering and thats when you really get to experience it as a PC.
In its default state, playing only verified games, only in handheld mode, without external controllers - the deck is a fine machine and offers a console experience. Dock it to a TV, start using more controllers, fiddle with yellow games and that experience is gone. I absolutely appreciate I have the option to do so and not be locked out of it - thats why im a Deck person and not a Switch one.
My point is the deck cant replace a switch and the switch cant replace a deck. They complement each other fine.
Because it’s a console, not a portable PC.
The switch offers a console experience. Everything just works and works well.
The deck offers a console-like experience. The majority of PC games work, some may have issues, some may not be suited to the form factor. You can play console games on it but not out of the box.
I say this as someone who doesn’t own a switch and uses their deck every night. I absolutely see the type of person who would buy a switch and the type of person who would buy a deck. They both have valid points for doing so and I’d never recommend the other device to them.
I don’t know how to feel about Nintendo pricing. On one hand, all of their games keep their value long after release, but that also means they are hard to get cheaply. I know when I sold my 8 3DS games a few years ago, I made about 230 eur which was pretty good for some used games. I dont play their games anymore but I’m not sure I’d even want to now since they never drop in price.
From what I gather, you want specifics in an initiative. You are getting ahead of yourself. What this initiative signals is the need for change and legislation in video games. If passed, the next step is sitting down with representatives of both consumers and video game producers where specifics are drawn.
You don’t start an initiative with specifics. If you start an initiative that way, you are presenting a one-sided list of demands where the only representation is the consumer. Unless people start dying over shutdown video games tomorrow, this is the only good shot at actually getting some consumer protections in this industry.
If you want change, you will sign this petition. If you don’t, you won’t. It’s as simple as that.
I mean, if studios are doing it more and more and have been doing it across a whole generation, it probably is generational change. Games take 5+ years dev time to make so high budgets are a given. If uch a game fails, it is more likely to tank a studio now. I think hes just making an observation. Nothing too shocking about that.
What Im observing though is more and more indies filling the void with smaller and cheaper games due to easy access to digital distribution. Not exactly a new take as its been hapening for over 15 years now. Interestingly, Epic seems to not take the same stance as Steam does in this space. Where steam gives pretty much any shovelware the same chances, Epic wants to be super picky about these low budget titles. Where is Epic’s Balatro?
If Tim is so focused on publishing/distributing these overblown budgeted games, Epic will miss out on the secondary gaming market where actual fun games truly live. Imo, the generational change is actually indie titles becoming the norm and AAA taking a step back.
And those “reasons” were plentiful. Most importantly is their market share. From a purely business perspective, if a distributor has 200% more users and charges 100% more while offering the same features, they will be the better choice - purely from en economical perspective. 30% is ok because you will reach a larger audience and if so many publishers disagreed with Steam’s cut, they wouldnt all come crawlin’ back would they? In other words, the market dictates the price and the market has decided that price is 30%. It doesnt matter who does or doesnt defend it. Thats what it is.
Well I guess I’ll just stop buying things then because all Im doing is contributing to some billionaire’s cocaine fund. This is capitalism. I learned to live with it. When the time comes to sieze the means of production and give power back to the proletariat, I’ll be there to help. Until then, I’d rather give Gabe my money so he can shove more ships up his ass than give it to Sweeney because at least Gabe will throw a penny back into linux gaming. Ill take the crumbs if I can get them because Im not a 21 year old student with a burning desire to change the system anymore.
AFAIK it falls to a lower percentage if you sell more copies. As to why I dont mind the fee as a consumer; valve invests its earnings into linux gaming and does cool shit like that. I can’t remember the last time i aplauded ea or ubisoft or epic for doing something like that. Oh yeah… it was never. Id sooner applaud Microsoft for investing into a non lucrative venture like accessible gaming accessories. But they aren’t on the same playing field… so from them, I’d expect it.
If i were a developer, I’d let valve eat the 30%. The amount of customers they bring to the table, deal with chargebacks, host the files. That shit isn’t free. Epic has to take such a low amount because they don’t have as many users and can’t produce such sales numbers and don’t have to deal with as many chargebcks and don’t have to waste as much bandwidth hosting the files.
So heres the thing, people can make bad games sometimes. People can make more than one bad game in a row. People can overpromise and undeliver.
I dont like Molyneux as a person because he overhypes the shit out of his games. I like his past projects though. Populous, Dungeon Keeper, Black and White, Fable are some really fun games he was involved with. Even though he hasnt put out anything worthwhile in 15 years, I have no problem in trying out anything new he does. What do I have to lose anyway?
Forcing you to sell at the same price as on steam when customers will be downloading from steam servers anyway is not sketchy but very fair.
As a developer you could set the game price on steam to a high number and sell keys on your own site for cheaper. Anyone who buys a key then used steam resources to download it. The dev keeps the 30% since its not a sale through steam. Yeah id like free file hosting with terabytes of bandwidth too please.
If you sell the game yourself and provide the files, you can set lower prices. This is fair and valve doesn’t restrict that.
It’s it a box they sprayed some lab made formula in and are presenting it as smell replication for the sake of building up hype to grow their stock, but no new tech involved what so ever?