Maniacal Engineer
Mushy Emotionalist
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2014
- Messages
- 45,036
- Reaction score
- 23,006
- Staff
- #3,021
*gives Dylan an F- for liking LGPE at all*
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
EA's glorified casinos sell well, so they keep making glorified casinos.
Bethesda keeps releasing buggy, glitch filled games, but they sell well, so they keep doing it.
Activision releases... Okay, don't even get me started on activision.
The point is, when a big business sees something they do... good or bad... selling like hotcakes (As the saying goes), they'll keep doing it.
Yeah, I'll buy that... Also, I have a talking rock to sell you.Actually Eevee, I'd have to go look for a source (and it's a bit late so I won't x) but It has been confirmed by gamefreak employees that the 2019 game will be closer to a core game experience.
There was a news headline in one of my news readers a couple of days ago. Naturally, I didn't read it.I would also like to know where you got this data from? As Let's Go pre-orders where massively dropped after multiple trailers where shown and Smash Ultimate was announced. Which has been confirmed by amazon earlier this summer.
EA's stock prices have been dropping MASSIVELY. They definitely aren't doing well in the slightest as a company.
Sid Alpha refers to Bethesda breaking their games as "bethesdaing it" and "doing a bethesda".While I believe could've definitely done better in regards to Fallout 76 in a lot of areas, and they rightfully got low review scores across the board. From a game dev's perspective I don't think they tried to "milk the community". I actually think they believed they were doing the right thing, but sadly just failed in the delivery due to short production time and a small budget. The idea of making the fallout experience online multiplayer was interesting, the execution was mediocre at best. Maybe modders & updates will fix the game. But regardless, I think Bethesda has learned their lesson.
We'll see how Skyrim 6 ends up being, will it be a buggy mess? There's a chance. From the small trailer we've had, it at least appears they're using a new engine. If that's the case, old bugs at least won't return. Says nothing about how many bugs we'll have yet. But hey, I'm hopeful. While they're definitely not one of the best studios out there, I have a bit of faith in Bethesda.
Games as a service - WikipediaOh ubisoft... Ubisoft is a weird one. They seemingly seem to want to try, and then I feel somewhere mid development someone just goes at the table "Hey, did we make sure to add some way to piss off our users yet?". Some of my favorite games are Ubisoft games, and a lot of people share that with me. But they are also a very messy company when it comes to so many things. I don't know what you mean exactly with "games as a service" (please elaborate ^^; ) but yeah. I definitely will still be buying their next instalment of Anno if it's any good (which I hope) but that'll be about it.
*snickers & mumbles something while walking out of the room*
The Sims 4 is one of the worst examples of EA's stupidity....EA's best-selling game right now is one with no microtransactions or loot boxes at all. Sure, it has 15 billion DLC packs, but compared to the prior game in that series they're cheap for the amount of content you get.
I'm going to be blunt: This is because of modders. Bethesda figured out years ago the modding community were going to be their best friends and made it a point to buddy up to the modders as closely as possible. To the point they even found a way to make money off the modders while having modders develop official content for them. And it's well-known within the Bethesda modding community that Bethesda will steal the best ideas the modders have for content in the next game, which the modders are perfectly fine with.
Yes, their games are buggy, glitched-filled messes with less-than-stellar graphics. But the modding community allows you to not only fix all of that, but do things like rampage across Skyrim as Bowsette or fight Tomas the Tank Engine.
Square-Enix deserves no respect after Mankind Divided blunder.Activision is like Square-Enix: They're hit-or-miss. For Activision's own products, you tend to get good games like CoD: World War 2 and StarCraft 2 and a popular MMO (World of Warcraft). Then you get bad games like Diablo 3, Call of Duty: Infinity War, and (in my opinion) Destiny 2. Though they at least have the good sense to remaster their greater hits, like Modern Warfare, the original StarCraft, and Warcraft 3.
But it's not how the games industry should work.Well, yes. This is how capitalism works.
The Sims 4 is one of the worst examples of EA's stupidity....
To buy the full Sims 4 experience, would cost £467.74 (599.46 United States Dollar)
How much it costs to buy The Sims 4 and all the DLCs
Square-Enix deserves no respect after Mankind Divided blunder.
As I said, don't even get me started on activision... I'm pretty sure I'd fill the BMGf database servers with it.
But it's not how the games industry should work.
Instead of me trying to explain it, I think I should just refer you to Sid Alpha on Youtube.
Either way, I'm already boycotting EA because of their anti-consumer practices... And I doubt I'd ever buy another Pokemon game again, because they'll all be like Let's Go.
Why shouldn't Square-Enix get respect? Every game developer in existence flubs something major. And Square-Enix has proven willing to listen to its customers, such as how they dealt with the problem with their re-release of Chrono Trigger by patching in the requested graphics. They're also working on the highly-demanded Final Fantasy 7 remake.
Activision doesn't have problems. Activision IS the problem.Activision has had some problems, yes. But, the remakes they released were all requested by their customer base. People wanted an updated Warcraft 3. StarCraft being remastered was a popular request for years prior to its release. Modern Warfare is still one of the most popular CoD entries ever released, and a remaster of it was requested prior to it happening. The entire mobile Diablo reaction shouldn't have surprised them as it did, but hopefully that means we've caught them before they turn into another EA.
Cosmetic microtransactions is one thing... WoW's system is cosmetic done right... Overwatch's (Same company) is it done wrong. WHICH as I noted above, is supported by Belgium law... and the US, Australia and other countries are considering lootbox bans.And, yes, I'm aware of the issue that Activision is currently doing some microtransactions and loot boxes. Unfortunately, at least some of those were requested by the fanbase, such as the pets and mounts for WoW. So they made the mistake of thinking that because the fans wanted some, the fans would be okay with all.
Pokemon was released when games were a product, and an art form.Why shouldn't the industry work that way? If the industry was not working that way, do you honestly think we'd have Pokemon in the first place?
I highly highly doubt it.Watch. They'll go back to the old formula you know and love. Because it sells like hotcakes and they'll keep doing it to rake in the money.
You are comparing legitimate game sales, to exploitation that the industry has become famous for lately. (I'm looking at you, EA and Activision)Stop and think about it: This site exists because Nintendo and Game Freak saw a game where people collect creatures and have them fight was selling like hotcakes, and decided to make another. And another after that. And an anime. And some movies. And some spin-offs.
The games industry was NOT built around shoddy design, and games as a service nonsense.The very thing that you say the game industry shouldn't do is what gave you the beloved franchise you're currently mourning a change to in the first place. If Nintendo and Gamefreak hadn't followed that tactic, there wouldn't be a game franchise for you to see potentially turning into a Let's Go series of games.
Yes, because "augment your experience" was a good system...
Activision doesn't have problems. Activision IS the problem.
Cosmetic microtransactions is one thing... WoW's system is cosmetic done right... Overwatch's (Same company) is it done wrong. WHICH as I noted above, is supported by Belgium law... and the US, Australia and other countries are considering lootbox bans.
Pokemon was released when games were a product, and an art form.
I highly highly doubt it.
It's at that point where I won't even look at anything Pokemon related on the news sites, youtube, etc... I'll just skip over them... and I'll continue to do that well into the future.
You are comparing legitimate game sales, to exploitation that the industry has become famous for lately. (I'm looking at you, EA and Activision)
Either way, as I said, I'm already boycotting EA because of their anti-consumer... and even illegal (Belgium) practices.ME:A was the last straw with them... I just don't want anything to do with that company anymore.
I'm willing to give Ubisoft another chance, as FC5 was bad, sure... but I loved FC3 and 4 (Even with its sound problem... Thanks, Ubisoft)
Bethesda not sure about yet.
Activision? The only game I'll buy from Activision as of now is World of Warcraft, and I might try a couple of Blizzard Entertainment's other games.
And I won't touch any future Pokemon games.
The games industry was NOT built around shoddy design, and games as a service nonsense.
When I played Doom in 1994, it didn't base its entire business model around microtransactions. When I played Pokemon Gold in 2000 (I think), the game was challenging and wasn't dumbed down to the point of "flick your wrist to catch a pokemon"... When I played Knights of the Old Republic in 2003, It didn't have a tacked on multiplayer, with a million lootboxes.
When I played the original Battlefront 2 in 2005, it didn't have characters locked behind a paywall.
In the past, games were about "just play it"... Now they're about milking the consumer for all they're worth.
Maybe this is why I mostly buy indie games lately... Because Indie developers mostly still understand how to make a decent game.
Ok, so I've been quiet for most of this discussion because I don't really play many games outside of my bubble so I really have next to zero context for a lot of this, but I don't think you can call those guys indie. These are all well known to fucking massive companies, which isn't really indie in the slightest. Indie is stuff like Yacht Club and Toby Fox, smaller, relatively unknown teams and people.The four biggest indie developer publishers are EA, Valve, Square-Enix, and Activision. The four companies also most responsible for the games as a service strategy.
Ok, so I've been quiet for most of this discussion because I don't really play many games outside of my bubble so I really have next to zero context for a lot of this, but I don't think you can call those guys indie. These are all well known to fucking massive companies, which isn't really indie in the slightest. Indie is stuff like Yacht Club and Toby Fox, smaller, relatively unknown teams and people.
Ohhh, that makes sense. Fair enough then, carry on.They're not indie developers. But they publish the most indie games that end up the market.
It's... kinda similar to how books work. You have the person or people who make the product (the author or game developer), and the people who bring the product to market (the publisher). With video games, these are sometimes the same people; EA is both a video game developer and a video game publisher. Others, like Valve, tend to rely more heavily on the publishing side and make their money almost purely by taking a cut from the developer's profits; pure publishers tend to publish far more games than developer-publishers in order to keep their profits up.
So EA both publishes its own titles, like Sims 4, and indie titles, like Sea of Solitude. Square-Enix publishes its own titles, like Final Fantasy 15, and indie titles, like Life is Strange. Just to give examples of how developer-publishers work.
Valve, being almost a pure publisher, instead relies on its publishing platform Steam for most of its profit.
Not the worst idea they've had, by far. If you ever want some fun, sit down and chart out the plot of Final Fantasy 8. Let me know if you can manage to come up with a straight timeline that doesn't involve at least one temporal paradox.
Then there was Chrono Cross...
I'll grant that, but they're still the problem.Are they? They're not the best company, but they're also still nowhere near as bad as EA or Ubisoft.
No. I mean Overwatch's slot machines...I think you mean "Heroes of the Storm" with this about lootboxes. The ones for Overwatch are 100% cosmetic; there is nothing you gain from them that will aid playing the game any. Any heroes added are available from the start, and all changes to how they play are purely through patches. You can play that game, not buy a single loot box, and still end up as one of the top ten players.
I think you're confused about what indie means... indie means independent. Not controlled by a publisher.The four biggest indie developer publishers are EA, Valve, Square-Enix, and Activision. The four companies also most responsible for the games as a service strategy.
I won't have any way to even know if you are right.And will you keep your promise about Pokemon games if I am proven right? Or is this a solemn vow upon which rests a soul?
Valve isn't a publisher. They're a distributor. They're a storefront.It's... kinda similar to how books work. You have the person or people who make the product (the author or game developer), and the people who bring the product to market (the publisher). With video games, these are sometimes the same people; EA is both a video game developer and a video game publisher. Others, like Valve, tend to rely more heavily on the publishing side and make their money almost purely by taking a cut from the developer's profits; pure publishers tend to publish far more games than developer-publishers in order to keep their profits up.
Poor Final Fantasy 8...
I think Augment your preorder is still 100% worse than any story plotholes though.
No. I mean Overwatch's slot machines...
I think you're confused about what indie means... indie means independent. Not controlled by a publisher.
Valve isn't a game publisher. They sell games via Steam, but that doesn't count as being a publisher. Steam is like Gamestop. Game stop isn't a publisher either.
I won't have any way to even know if you are right.
Valve isn't a publisher. They're a distributor. They're a storefront.
Indie means independent... The developer is free of the triple a publishers, and sells the game directly on a store, or their own website.
An example would be Minecraft. It started as a small indie game... but now that it is owned and supported by Microsoft Game Studios, it is no longer indie.
Sounds to me like you are saying that I'd be best staying as far away from the games industry as possible... Which I guess is already what I'm doing.
All I want is the old days back... back when games were games, and not... whatever Pokemon Let's Go is... whatever Battlefront 2 EA is.
That's what I'm talking about. They're 100% cosmetic with precisely zero change to gameplay. If you want gameplay you skip them entirely, but if you're heavily into collecting skins and such you're going to fork out some cash.
That's already been in the plans for a while. The moderators are well aware of why I'm leaving, so there isn't much more to say.Are you going to leave this website, then?
You would be missed
Just sad to see the Valve section only lists the games developed by Valve. But, I guess that's to be expected.
I have a feeling I know what you mean, but I just can't recall it off the top of my head.Try a certain campaign involving the Arkham games...
You don't even know that, given it's only been 2-ish weeks since Let's Go came out. Unless, of course, you got inside information directly from Game Freak...they'll all be like Let's Go.
While I highly disagree with the idea of letting your own feelings and nothing else control your decisions, that's all your decision to make, so I won't say a word against it.I highly highly doubt it.
It's at that point where I won't even look at anything Pokemon related on the news sites, youtube, etc... I'll just skip over them... and I'll continue to do that well into the future.
Feelings... especially how you feel about a company and their actions *glares at EA* should always be the factorWhile I highly disagree with the idea of letting your own feelings and nothing else control your decisions, that's all your decision to make, so I won't say a word against it.