• Another exciting episode of Bulbacast has been uploaded to YouTube. Watch it here.
  • Grookey, Scorbunny or Sobble, which one do you love most? Want to show your support with a cool banner, check out the info here!

The Situation Room 3.0

Ereshkigal

Far too mouthy for my own good.
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
4,759
Reaction score
1,807
EA's glorified casinos sell well, so they keep making glorified casinos.
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.

Bethesda keeps releasing buggy, glitch filled games, but they sell well, so they keep doing it.
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.

Activision releases... Okay, don't even get me started on activision.
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.

Yeah, people tend to forget that Activision and Blizzard are the same company :p Blizzard bought out Activision years ago.

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.
Well, yes. This is how capitalism works.
 

noworry

I like cake
Joined
Sep 16, 2013
Messages
2,348
Reaction score
2,427
The way I see it LGPE is cute side game. It's not really that much different from PMD or Pokémon Ranger.

I do hope they keep walking Pokémon though
 

AussieEevee

Lightspeed Rescue!
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
1,891
Holy [censored], Dylan. Long post first thing in the morning!

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.
Yeah, I'll buy that... Also, I have a talking rock to sell you.

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.
There was a news headline in one of my news readers a couple of days ago. Naturally, I didn't read it.

EA's stock prices have been dropping MASSIVELY. They definitely aren't doing well in the slightest as a company.
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.
Sid Alpha refers to Bethesda breaking their games as "bethesdaing it" and "doing a bethesda".

The fact is that most Bethesda games have been buggy as hell... Skyrim was buggy for example... There was even a bug in Skyrim that caused dragons to fly backwards.

That said, if there was one major publisher I'd have faith in... it probably would be Bethesda.

Oh 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.
Games as a service - Wikipedia

Some games do it right, like World of Warcraft...but most games and companies that try it, just end up Bethesdaing it up. (Yes, I can make a joke at the expense of bethesda :p)

Games as a service is the reason for Far Cry 5 being the disappointing mess that it is, as I'm convinced they put more effort into the service part and less into the game part.

*snickers & mumbles something while walking out of the room* :p
:eek:
LOL *facepalm*
 

AussieEevee

Lightspeed Rescue!
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
1,891
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.
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



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.
Modders are never an acceptable reason to release a buggy mess like Fallout 76 though. I would link Jim Sterling's video on the subject here, but I'm 99% sure he's swearing in half of it.

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.
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.

Well, yes. This is how capitalism works.
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.
 

SoaringDylan

The Sobbley Trainer
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2,050
I agree with many of your points, just not that you have so little faith in nintendo & gamefreak haha
 

Ereshkigal

Far too mouthy for my own good.
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
4,759
Reaction score
1,807
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
That's odd. It's cheaper here.

Base game- $50 for the deluxe
Expansion packs- $40 a pack for 5 packs = $200
Game packs- $16 a pack for 6 packs = $96
Stuff packs- $10 a pack for 14 packs = $140
Total: $486
Total converted: £379


Source: I have Origin up right now and am looking at the full prices. Not the discounted prices for the sale they have going on or the discounted prices for the offered bundles.

That's compared to, back when Sims 3 was at full price, the approximately $1000 you would have to spend to own everything. Even now, you're talking at least $500 just to cover the DLC content in the Sims 3 Store, in addition to what you'd have to pay for both the base game and all expansion and stuff packs by this point.

So either the people who wrote that article are returning nulls, or there is some kind of external price gouging involved that needs to be looked into. Because the prices in that link are way above what I paid.

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.
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 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.

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.

I'm not going to say these companies are the best. But some of them are at least making an effort, even if the effort is not always necessarily the best.

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 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?

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 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.

And, really, let Nintendo have their attempt to do something unique with the series. It's not the first time; remember that game where we road around on a minecart and took pictures of Pokemon? And this one is doing particularly poorly, so I don't see any further Let's Go games coming.

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.
 

AussieEevee

Lightspeed Rescue!
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
1,891
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.
Yes, because "augment your experience" was a good system...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-Vx4_prmvo


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.
Activision doesn't have problems. Activision IS the problem.

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.
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.

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?
Pokemon was released when games were a product, and an art form.

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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
 

Ereshkigal

Far too mouthy for my own good.
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
4,759
Reaction score
1,807
Yes, because "augment your experience" was a good system...
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...

Activision doesn't have problems. Activision IS the problem.
Are they? They're not the best company, but they're also still nowhere near as bad as EA or Ubisoft.

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.
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.

Pokemon was released when games were a product, and an art form.
And there are still developers that hold to that stances. CDProjekt Red, for example. Square-Enix with some of their projects, like Life is Strange. Activision, with a couple of projects they're releasing through the Blizzard label. Nintendo, surprisingly often. EA, with its indie titles (like Sea of Solitude). Owlcat Games. Stardock. inXile. Beamdog. The list goes on.

Games as a product still exist, and there are a number of developers whose attitudes lie elsewhere that still sell games as products as well. And by the looks of many upcoming titles (including those from developers like EA and Activision), the idea of games as products may be about to make a huge comeback in the 2020s.

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.
That is up to you. I know how this kind of bitterness feels. Just, don't sink too far into it. Bitterness comes with a steep price if indulged. Far too steep some days.

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.
I am comparing the two strategies because they are both results from the same logic. As unfortunate as it is, every good thing comes with its dark counterpart, and sometimes that dark counterpart makes the good thing completely unworthy of further effort no matter what benefit it might bring. There are many sciences, practices, and symbols that have fallen into disuse because people could not stomach the other side of them. You cannot do away with video games as a service without removing the base logic that makes the industry exist in the first place.

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?

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.
*giggles* The games industry was very much built upon shoddy design. The entire idea of difficulty levels results from a bug in Space Invaders, for example.

And let's not forget the Playstation exists because Nintendo decided the N64 was a better idea. Or the fact the entire system is descended from Atari and their faulty design strategy.

Or the fact the entire RPG genre has absolutely nothing to do with roleplaying, but is instead built around a specific set of game mechanics.

Super Mario Bros. was rife with bugs, glitches, etc.

What about the entire concept of Nintendo Hard? It is built upon numerous types of shoddy design and artificial difficulty being combined into a video game, sometimes creating games that simply were impossible to beat.

I could go on,

And games as a service? This dates clear back to 1997. What we're seeing now isn't some recent trend, but a result of 21 years. The concept is old enough to legally drink alcohol in the United States now.

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.
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.

So, um, good luck supporting indie games while protesting the games as service market strategy.

On the other hand, you could always try a strategy other than something that was countered before you even had a shot.

The Mafia for the Awards 18 game did two things that gave us a victory: We changed the rules of engagement, in which we had two people counter-claiming each other and one person being obviously scumming to the point that even telling the truth wasn't believed, and we exploited an existing system to our advantage (the codes Elieson set up).

You don't have anywhere near the billions you'd need to change the rules.

Instead, you can exploit the system. Rather than not buying any products at all, buy only products that support your preference and encourage others to do the same. Buy only indie games from EA. Buy only indie games and games as products from Activision. Buy only games as products from Valve. Buy only games as products from Square-Enix. Get people to follow you in that, make it profitable to develop games that way, and watch the industry change.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
7,518
Reaction score
4,463
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.
 

Ereshkigal

Far too mouthy for my own good.
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
4,759
Reaction score
1,807
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.
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.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
7,518
Reaction score
4,463
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.
Ohhh, that makes sense. Fair enough then, carry on.
 

AussieEevee

Lightspeed Rescue!
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
1,891
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...
Poor Final Fantasy 8...

I think Augment your preorder is still 100% worse than any story plotholes though.

Are they? They're not the best company, but they're also still nowhere near as bad as EA or Ubisoft.
I'll grant that, but they're still the problem.

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.
No. I mean Overwatch's slot machines...

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 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.

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?
I won't have any way to even know if you are right.

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.
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.
 

Ereshkigal

Far too mouthy for my own good.
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
4,759
Reaction score
1,807
Poor Final Fantasy 8...

I think Augment your preorder is still 100% worse than any story plotholes though.
Try a certain campaign involving the Arkham games...

No. I mean Overwatch's slot machines...
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.

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.
Not confused at all. EA, Square-Enix, and Activision have all announced or put into place indie publishing programs. Valve has also been publishing indie games via Steam for years; first through their greenlight program, now through their direct publishing service called Steam Direct. Valve announced Steam Direct over a year ago.

So, no, Valve is not like GameStop; Steam is both a publishing platform and a distribution platform. Which Valve has been pretty open about since they first announced it.

So, while indie may have meant that once upon a time, these days? It usually means you go through an indie publishing service, like a program offered by one of the big name studios.

I won't have any way to even know if you are right.
Are you going to leave this website, then? You would be missed, but I understand if that is what you must do.

Valve isn't a publisher. They're a distributor. They're a storefront.
Ironically, I was just checking to see if Valve was still making games and ran across this gem on Steam. If Valve is not a publisher, then I have some questions about that game.

Just sad to see the Valve section only lists the games developed by Valve. But, I guess that's to be expected.

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.
Minecraft, which prior to being purchased by Microsoft was published by Sony. It wasn't Microsoft's purchase that made it stop being an indie game by your definition.

And, I guess you're limited to... Hmm... Let's see... Removing everything greenlit by Steam and part of Steam Direct... I guess you get some sprite games by the publisher Chucklefish? There's not exactly much of the industry left independent under the definition you're using. Which is why it's not the current definition of the category, I suspect.

I mean, you don't even have Beamdog; they publish through Atari. Owlcat publishes through Deep Silver, which while not AAA is also very much not independent. DONTNOD publishes through Square-Enix.

Pretty much, most independent developers these days have publishing deals to keep themselves alive. You might find one or two with deals with an independent publisher, but these are increasingly rare. The indie genre moved on from the idea it does everything by itself.
 

AussieEevee

Lightspeed Rescue!
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
1,891
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.
They're 100% toxic slot machines, and illegal in two countries so far... With Australia, the United States, and other countries taking a serious look at banning them too.

There is a reason why I said WoW's cosmetic - while a little pricey - was the system done right, and Overwatch's was the system done wrong. There is no gambling with WoW... You buy what you want and you're done.

Overwatch's is designed to prey on the addiction and... Go watch Sid Alpha's video on the subject.


Are you going to leave this website, then?
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.

But I do want to finish off the couple of Mafia game series I've been working on. Including the Bonanza series.
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.
The only games they publish is their own games.

Here. View: https://store.steampowered.com/app/9900/Star_Trek_Online/
Star Trek Online, published by Perfect World Entertainment, is sold on Steam.

Steam isn't a publisher. It's a shop.

Star Trek Online is also an example of Games as a Service done almost right... They do have loot crates in the game, but I believe loot crates aren't directly purchasable by the consumer... To get lootcrates, you have to play content, and then buy master keys to unlock the loot boxes... Which is the only part of the game I don't like. Everything else you can buy with real currency is a direct purchase.

World of Warcraft is an example of Games as a Service done right. Yeah, they have micro-transactions... but EVERYTHING in the shop are direct purchases. The game has no loot boxes... And the game is not balanced around stuff you buy in the shop... The ONLY money you spend are on the sub fee, and the purchase of the box.

The only references I can find of Sony publishing Minecraft is in relation to the Sony platforms. I wasn't aware that they did that... but it doesn't change what I said though... Minecraft started as a small indie project before being bought by a large publisher. Probably due to how this random small indie game just exploded in popularity.

Now, to be clear... I'm not a minecraft fan... I like Terraria better (Also an indie project)... I'm just using it as an example of the difference between independent and published.

Looking at the new releases on Steam... there are quite a few games I might like.

Dev_Me looks like an interesting game. It's not designed to milk me for every last cent I have. It's not designed to be dumbed down to the point of flicking your wrist to catch a pokemon, and it's published by a small publisher.

Now, I could be wrong and they could turn out to be dirty devs (Go watch Sid Alpha's dirty devs series for that) but at first sneeze, it looks like the sort of game I want.

Moving on from there, I see stuff like Deep Rock Galactic that... again at first sneeze... looks like a good game. It sounds like a game I might be interested in playing.

Being published isn't the problem... Conducting themselves with objectionable business practices (EA, Ubisoft)... putting no care into the quality of their games (Bethesda, Activision), or just plain dumbing down the game (Nintendo) is the problem.

Coming back to Pokemon, and my hatred of Let's Go for a second... There is a big difference between ORAS (My favourite pokemon games) and Let's Go. ORAS doesn't have all it's complexity removed . Held items, abilities, and wild pokemon battles, just to name a few. ORAS even added more complexity.

Try a certain campaign involving the Arkham games...
I have a feeling I know what you mean, but I just can't recall it off the top of my head.

I do know I am very unimpressed with Batman Arkham Knight.

For those that don't know, Arkham Knight is the game that broke the camel's back and forced Valve to stop being a sleeping giant, and actually create a proper refund system.

I'm told the game actually ran well on consoles...

Seriously, go watch TotalBiscuit (rip), Sid Alpha, or Jim Sterling on youtube. They are (were in TB's case) PC games critics who I share a LOT of opinions with. Not sure Sid or Jim has reached my level of boycott yet, but their jobs may not allow them to.

As I said, I've pretty much given up on EA... I won't buy from them again, and I doubt there is much that could happen that will sway me...

Thankfully, EA is easy to avoid.. as they publish all their games on Origin now... I don't think they've published a game on Steam in years. Steam tells me that the last time they published a game on Steam was 2013.

It is a shame too, as I loved all 4 Mass Effect games, and even defended Andromeda when EA didn't deserve that kind of loyalty. Enjoyed Dragon Age and it's sequels.

Ubisoft and Bethesda will need to convince me, but I might be open to trying TES6, and FC6... Doubtful but maybe.

Nintendo? Eh... Doubtful... I mean, they've been casual focused for years... the gamecube, Wii, and Wii U were all designed with casual in mind... and that's fine for them... but I'm not in that group. I'm not their target audience.

My nintendo switch is now mostly just a youtube player, since they released the youtube app.

Activision? Meh. I can't really think of a recent activision title that I played, let alone liked (Blizzard games don't count as they still manage themselves, rather than be managed from Acti)
 

Max1996

Dusk Wolf Pokémon
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
26,491
Reaction score
22,172
they'll all be like Let's Go.
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...

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.
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.

Regardless, Aussie, let's agree to disagree on this.
 

AussieEevee

Lightspeed Rescue!
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
1,891
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.
Feelings... especially how you feel about a company and their actions *glares at EA* should always be the factor

Either way, I don't see why you're so hurt that I am boycotting this trash. It doesn't harm you in anyway, so why care if I never play another pokemon game?
 

Elementar

The Paragon of Torna
Joined
May 9, 2015
Messages
5,828
Reaction score
2,961
So, just an update for everyone...

I just got back from my end of school trip to the beach, and I have set up half of my new computer's software. I am still lacking Discord and Microsoft WIndows, so unfortunately, I cannot contact anyone on Discord or receive messages on there for a while. Furthermore, I can't access my current mafia projects until the software is downloaded, which should be within a week. So I apologise now for those who have tried to contact me, specifically @Returnofmastercrazyhand. The laptop should be in full operation within the coming week, so I can get back to regular activity from there :)
 
Top