This is number of copies sold. It really did sell that high. And if that blows your mind, wait until you find out Human Fall Flat sold like 40M copies.

Well, I know at least one part of this is pretty out of date. Baldur’s Gate 3 just got confirmed a few weeks ago as having sold over 20M copies. We have so many round numbers here because companies generally only share milestones.

That might be a solid recommendation for others, but speaking for myself, licensed cars and tracks do nothing for me and in most cases will probably put some drag on my enjoyment, because real racing asks you to do things like “not checking the car next to you” that would put real people in harm’s way; and damaging licensed cars in video games is generally frowned upon by the licensors. And also speaking for myself, the store page says it has no local multiplayer, which is my primary use case for a racing game, so its omission is a deal-breaker. Most of the genre has gone this way in recent years, catering to the crowd that likes licensed cars and real tracks, and that’s why I haven’t had as many racing games to play of late. There’s still some stuff for me, though.

The thing is, for a game like Clair Obscur or Elden Ring, I’d echo those same complaints, but I still enjoyed them; in Elden Ring’s case, despite those complaints, I’d still call it one of the best games ever made. You might share those criticisms but still find plenty to love about it.

These probably mostly are the consensus most anticipated games of 2026, but I’ll throw a few of the ones I’m most excited for in here.

If you like fighting games, this is looking to be a great year. We’ve got Marvel Tokon: Fighting Souls, Avatar Legends: The Fighting Game (which may still be a working title?), and the one I’m personally most excited for, Invincible Vs.

I love Batman Arkham combat, and if you do too, you should keep your eye on Dead as Disco.

The FPS genre has largely disappointed me in the past decade, but despite the absence of any multiplayer modes, Mouse: P.I. for Hire looks to be delivering what I haven’t been getting from this genre for years. We should also, finally, presumably, maybe, see a release for Judas.

Similar disappointment has followed racing games, but the indie scene has been trying to pick up the slack, and we’ve got a AA endeavor from racing game veterans that looks cool, complete with a story mode, called Screamer.

In the survival space, both Palworld and Enshrouded are set to leave early access in 2026.

For metroidvanias, I’ve got Bloodstained: The Scarlet Engagement and the beautifully animated The Eternal Life of Goldman on my radar.

And in the RPG space, I’ve got my eye on Warhammer 40,000: Dark Heresy and The Expanse: Osiris Reborn coming up, both from Owlcat. Like The Expanse, Exodus is also planning to fill the Mass Effect void, because it’s unlikely that a new game called “Mass Effect” will do so.

I know how it works. Do you know of a game on GOG with dedicated servers that the company is paying for that also uses GOG’s matchmaking to find those dedicated servers? Because at that point, they may as well run the matchmaking themselves and open up the possibility for cross play, and I can’t imagine what value they’d get from GOG’s services. For instance, I’m pretty sure I’m hitting GOG’s matchmaking servers for the likes of Star Wars Battlefront II, but all that’s doing is registering player-run servers that it then connects me to.

If they’re using GOG matchmaking to find dedicated servers, then those binaries are in our hands already, as far as I know. Feel free to provide a counter example if you know of one. The whole point of using the store’s infrastructure is that the developer doesn’t have to pay for it, and I’ve never heard of a store that offers hosting for bespoke dedicated servers for different games.

I played Clair Obscur, liked it, and it’s in my top 10 for the year out of about 18 games. But man, the reception of that game in the Game Awards and such is wildly out of sync with what I thought of it, and it makes perfect sense to me that it wouldn’t end up in an outlet’s top 20.

And that likely stopped making financial sense once online multiplayer operated at larger scales. On PC, GameSpy servers came with ads. Even downloading patches for games meant going to an ad-supported third party web site.

I feel like a lot of understanding behind the financial decisions around online games could happen if we explained to the kids what GameSpy was. Online was never “free”. Before microtransactions and Steam footing the bill, there were ads. But we had self-hosting as a backup plan back then.

The most benefit-of-the-doubt read on this that I’ve got is that, as a publicly traded company, the small margins GOG operates in might not be worth CDPR’s time when they can get higher margins for the same investment elsewhere. Adding some of my own hopium and conjecture, based on the “Why is Michał Kiciński doing this?” section of the FAQ, I hope this means a semi-near future of closing up the last few gaps in GOG’s DRM-free promise.

One of my biggest pet peeves with GOG is how it handles multiplayer. Some games add a warning when multiplayer is only available via LAN and direct IP connections. I need a warning when the opposite is true, because if it relies on GOG Galaxy or some other server, it’s just DRM by another name. To their credit, this warning is usually there, but I’ve come across a few games’ store pages that left it to the imagination, and I’d have to go to the forums link to find someone complaining about it to be sure. Other games, like Doom 2016, just omit multiplayer from the GOG version entirely, because they can’t even fathom how to make multiplayer work in a self-hosted way.

What I’d like to see (I’m a programmer, but I’m not deep in the world of gaming software engineering) is for GOG to provide a drop-in multiplayer server that can serve as a self-hosted version of GOG Galaxy’s multiplayer functionality, so that even if the developer doesn’t see it as financially viable to ensure their game’s multiplayer lives on, GOG can do that for them and make any online game LAN-able. If that’s possible. In my head, it sure seems possible.

What you can play right now in Star Citizen is arguably better than what Duke Nukem Forever will ever be.

Same (unless they make some drastic changes), but I agree with Cifaldi’s outro here on all the ways that this system was super important to the medium’s history, even the parts like total control over the system’s library that today is nothing short of bad for the consumer.

I’ve enjoyed a survival game here and there, but it doesn’t look like the multiplayer of Grounded survives offline, which is a deal-breaker for me, especially when so many of its peers have it.

Pre-ordering existed for the customer’s benefit back when all games were physical and you wanted to guarantee you’d have a copy available for you at launch. At some point, companies realized that they could use it to forecast success or, more nefariously, entice you to buy a stinker of a game before you’ve had time to hear that it sucks. I haven’t bought physical games in a while now, but when I did, the last time I had a hard time acquiring one at launch was more than 20 years ago (I remember Halo 2 being the mile marker for when companies got to be pretty good at meeting demand). In the digital space, it makes even less sense. They still do pre-order incentives sometimes, for the same reason as above, even when the game is good, but the bonuses are so throwaway anyway that it usually doesn’t matter. Digital storefronts on PC have a pretty good refund policy, so if you’re diligent enough, you can pre-order the day before it comes out, get the bonus, let the dust settle on review scores, and decide if you want to keep the game with the pre-order bonus or just refund it. There’s very little risk in that. Without a pre-order bonus, there’s absolutely no reason to bother, and quite frankly, I don’t feel good about supporting those bonuses in the first place.

I have no issue with early access games, especially if the game lends itself to the model, which would be anything sufficiently sandboxy that can be heavily modified by changing some variables or adding a single mechanic. Larian’s RPGs are very freeform in the ways they let you solve problems and can be upended by different powerful abilities and whatnot; roguelikes are perfect for this model, because you’re replaying them a lot anyway; regardless of genre, the ones that would catch my eye are the ones that are looking for gameplay feedback and not outsourcing QA for finding bugs to a bunch of paid customers. The real problem with early access for me now is that there are so many finished games coming out all the time that look interesting that it’s difficult to justify playing one that’s not done.

Pillars of Eternity II is one of my favorites, if you haven’t played it, and I loved Avowed and Outer Worlds 2 this year. I do consider Avowed to be more of an action game than an RPG though.

It’s probably easier if I just list the titles. I’ve already got them ranked. I enjoyed all of these games, and none of them were stinkers.

1. Kingdom Come: Deliverance II
2. Avowed
3. Split Fiction
4. The Outer Worlds 2
5. The Alters
6. Dispatch
7. Borderlands 4
8. Clair Obscur: Expedition 33
9. Blue Prince
10. Fatal Fury: City of the Wolves
11. StarVaders
12. Indiana Jones and the Great Circle: The Order of Giants DLC
13. Knights in Tight Spaces
14. Rift of the NecroDancer
15. Mafia: The Old Country
16. Duck Detective: The Ghost of Glamping
17. Citizen Sleeper 2: Starward Vector
18. Keep Driving

If it’s anything at all like the recommendation algorithm that Netflix popularized, it’s that they have tags in common (maybe even as simple as “online multiplayer” if they set a threshold on some value too low) and that people who played one had a decent enough overlap with people who played the other.

They have an incentive to put games in front of you that they think you’ll like, so I figure it really just is tough. Their hit rate isn’t so bad for me, and what I hear about console storefronts is that the recommendations are even worse. Regardless of platform, relying on a recommendation engine to get word out about your game strikes me as a bad idea. But speaking for myself, I played 18 games that came out this year and easily left at least that many others behind just because there isn’t enough time to play through them all.

People see Avowed and wish it was Elder Scrolls, or they see Outer Worlds 2 and wish it was bigger or something. I’m not really sure why these people come away with the criticisms they do, but in my opinion, Obsidian made two of the best games this year, and those games were rated in the low 80s on average on Open Critic.

They’re also one of the few studios out there that can manage California salaries, remain a multi-project studio, and not scale up so fast that they’re trying to build games they can’t afford to make.

He’s arguably the best investigative journalist (of a very short list) in video games.

I disagree with your criticism of my comment.

Sounds the same to me. You do lose nuance in brevity, but I didn’t expect someone to see that and think I don’t like video games.

Looks like you put words in my mouth when I was keeping it short.

No, it doesn’t. My problem is that missing a parry, on an animation I haven’t seen before and haven’t been able to learn the tells of yet, which are purposely full of misdirection to make it tricky, was overly punishing during the learning process. Succinctly, it’s that there’s not enough fault tolerance later in the game. The parries feel great. The road up to learning the timings was frustrating the further into the game I went.

If whenever a game says “this is how you play the game” and your response to that is “it shouldn’t be”

That response is what a critique is. Metroid Prime 4 says, “you play the game by collecting these green crystals,” and many critics said, “it shouldn’t be.”

I beat the game on normal difficulty. Believe it or not, you can be good a thing and still dislike it. And I like the game, for the record, but my criticisms of how much weight they give to certain parts of the combat, which changed somewhere around the back half of act 2, mind you, hampered my desire to do more of it in act 3.

My experience was my experience. I’m glad for that person that they found that build. I did not, and I’ll wager most others didn’t either. The last third of my game was spent pumping points into defense and vitality to alleviate the issue, but it was a drop in the bucket. This is like when I vented frustrations with RE2 remake’s scaling difficulty, and someone pulled up, “Well, speedrunners don’t run into this issue, because…” I’m not a speedrunner. I’m a guy playing the game for the first time, and I used the information in front of me to make the best choices I could, and I still came away with criticisms. In CO:E33, it led to situations where the damage was so high and the action economy so constrained that it was faster to throw the fight and reload than it was to take a hit on the first turn and recover from it, and that sucked.

I have a criticism or two about one video game, and you leapt to “gaming isn’t for you”.

Sure do. I got good and still have this criticism.

Good for them. Did they do it without dodging too?

Like that the story is bifurcated and that the combat in the late game is parry or die?

Because the new ones are great. There has been no shortage of bangers for the last few years.

And there’s also the fact that many game releases now suck

I don’t think I’ve ever had more great new game releases, personally.

They tried. They can’t sell movies that the rights holders won’t allow them to, and the studios all kind of unanimously decided not to do this.

We all want things to cost less, but as adults, there are realities to acknowledge as to why they can’t. I never said they’re not making profit on their hardware, but their actions (announcing prices and then raising them above their competitors after tariffs were revealed) indicate that their margins are probably not very high; marketing one price and then changing it is a tangible expense that companies don’t like to do if they don’t have to. This report that we’re commenting on shows that even being the only new console this year is not enough to make it a hot holiday item.

The market was just way smaller back then. Video games weren’t a mainstream hobby yet.

Insider information of what? Increases for memory and GPUs are covered by basically every news outlet that covers tech right now. That $7 to copy a file is exactly why they’d want to get a Switch into your home for cheaper if they could. You get multiple Switches in the same home by making it accessibly priced, and Nintendo knows that. Walled gardens suck, and that’s where their money is made. Right now, Nintendo is absorbing some extra costs above and beyond where they expected (like tariffs) by charging more for accessories rather than raising the price of the base unit, but there’s a good chance they lose their stomach for keeping the Switch 2 price where it is as we run into more of these supply issues.

As far as Disney, don’t care. Unless there is armed security guarding your shit, $175 is just extortion.

Even ignoring the fact that cars and parking them is about the least efficient use of land you can have, the only alternative is that they keep prices low but then there’s a lottery or a waiting list to get in. No secret as to why prices just went up.

The funny thing about Disney, and believe me, I don’t want to defend them here, is that they’ve found ways to admit and fit far more people into the park as demand rose for a thing that inherently has fixed supply. More or less the same thing is happening with GPUs and memory right now as AI demand is sucking up so much supply and they can’t be produced any faster. The supply can’t increase, so the prices go up. They have to. Nintendo and Sony both know they stand to make more money after the fact if they sell you a cheaper console, but they can’t lose $200 per unit either, or there’s very little chance they make a profit on it ever.