-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
PC Gaming ERA | May 2019 - Romance of the Three Storefronts
- Thread starter Uzzy
- Start date
- Status
At the very least, they should commit to a DRM free version that they'll maintain...its the least they can do.
A journalist reports a claim made by another party that they have not verified. The reader then decides whether they will trust what that party claims is true or seek verification themselves. Expecting such verification is unreasonable due to how onerous it is for a short piece like this.
That article is fine. It situates that information within the context of other claims and issues and provides enlightenment as to its value.
The thing i find really anoying about the whole EGS debacle is that it does nothing to fix the underlying problem.
They can claim steam is taking too big a cut (who doesn't like more money in there arse pocket), or they don't like being released alongside hentai games, or shovelware.
But there are just Too Many Games being released.
There are, what, 30 to 40 games released on Steam in a slow week. The eshop has just hit 2,000 games in something like 2 to 3 years.
But the pool of paying customers doesn't appear to be growing at the same rate. People like service games. People are signing up to Origin Access, Xbox Pass and whatever else. There are humble bundles, monthly deals, Xbox Gold and PS Plus. There are so many games being thrown at us that they can't always grab our attention.
EGS paying to have developers and publishers on the store as exclusives does not stop people like me going to steam or uplay or humble and getting games there. Also waiting a year means nothing to someone like me who is probably going to be playing Blood this weekend or Yakuza 0. Who remembers having to wait 6 months to a year for console ports. I am patient.
And thats before getting onto 30 years worth of back catalogue to acces, or emulation.
They can claim steam is taking too big a cut (who doesn't like more money in there arse pocket), or they don't like being released alongside hentai games, or shovelware.
But there are just Too Many Games being released.
There are, what, 30 to 40 games released on Steam in a slow week. The eshop has just hit 2,000 games in something like 2 to 3 years.
But the pool of paying customers doesn't appear to be growing at the same rate. People like service games. People are signing up to Origin Access, Xbox Pass and whatever else. There are humble bundles, monthly deals, Xbox Gold and PS Plus. There are so many games being thrown at us that they can't always grab our attention.
EGS paying to have developers and publishers on the store as exclusives does not stop people like me going to steam or uplay or humble and getting games there. Also waiting a year means nothing to someone like me who is probably going to be playing Blood this weekend or Yakuza 0. Who remembers having to wait 6 months to a year for console ports. I am patient.
And thats before getting onto 30 years worth of back catalogue to acces, or emulation.
This would be good. I've quit backing as much as I used to for now. I'm just going to wait and see how this all plays out.
I hope so too.
Yeah. This is a great point. Everyone is focused on Steam, but GoG / DRM free is losing just as much with this EGS business.
I mean, I don't agree, but I get where you're coming from. *shrugs* :)
Oh nice.
Looks like some kind of free demo with unique side stories.
Will def. check this out to see how it lands.
Thanks for looking out!
Retro developer Mindware is working on a port/remake of the PC-88 game 'Hover Attack'.
Hover Attack was most likely the inspiration for Treasure's 'Bangaioh'.
It'll be interesting to see which direction Mindware goes for the arranged versions.
UPlay has offline mode but you can't play game, game itself requires constant internet connection.
I feel like this is 2012 Diablo 3 levels of confusion. How is this good for the consumers and what is the point? To combat piracy?
You use same character for Story and PvP that is why they want you to be always online. So if you don't care about PvP you are still forced to be always online.
And so data is easier to validate and track. Tracking what players are doing live gives great insights.
Ubisoft already tracked what players do almost in detail since AC Brotherhood or even before without forcing users to be always online. I can't and won't support any singleplayer game that requires online connection.
Engagement metric is more important than ever now. So expect more and more of the big games to go this route.
It's more impressive to show how many are actively engaging live services.
Offline engagement is harder to track. You don't get data until they sync again which could be never, you also have to do way more to validate that data.
Remember it's not just about sales, we need to show increasing numbers in engagement. Not bothering with offline gives you that boost out the gate. Simultaneous users will be at an all time high, etc.
Last edited:
So they can track everything I do in game? That's cool for UbiSoft I guess. But most of these games fail to justify the always online component for me. What do I get out of it? Diablo 3 requiring a connection was a real pain in the ass sometimes.
Playing some Rage for the first time. Pretty good, like a slightly more action-oriented Fallout 4, with vehicles, so far.
Is Steam's download throttling broken at the moment? Setting it to 512 and 768 Kb/s has it act like it's 1 and 1.5 Mb/s respectively.
Having reasons to want your players to be online is understandable. At the same time this is perfectly analogous to the player having reasons for wanting things, such as playing offline.
As someone who's career has been built on representing player and user interest. You need to provide a valid business advantage to offline play.
Bottom line is the more online, the more fully engaged, the more who spend additional money into the service.
It's more development work to setup offline with very little payoff.
All I want is once the game service ends for offline mode to be added in wherever possible for archival purposes. I know some games have done this.
No business cares what you want as a consumer until they can draw the business benefits for themselves from it.
Another thing to note, potentially they have data from wildlands, and only a small percentage of users regularly played offline. Definitely see that as serving potential justification for having offline play be low pri , then eventually it's below the cut line and here we are.
Last edited:
That is why users should fight for it. Remember how PS4 crowd cheered when Tretton said that PS4 won't require online check? Rare are companies today that do something for the customers. But just blindly accepting everything that is served to you and making fun of those who oppose those things is something that i will never understand.
very cool stream happening here
https://store.steampowered.com/sale/ludonarracon
really nice exposition on narrative games
https://store.steampowered.com/sale/ludonarracon
really nice exposition on narrative games
I won't buy online-only single-player games under any circumstances, because I've never yet lived anywhere where the internet connection doesn't disconnect occasionally, and I'm not interested in playing a game that gets interrupted by that. It's a fundamental deal-breaker.
Objects in Space
Hacknet
Sunless Skies
Hypnospace Outlaw
etc.
etc.
Man, there's some legit bangers in there.
Deep discounts too.
It's generally not a dealbreaker for me but Ubisoft has a terrible track record when it comes to supporting their games long term. Just as a recent example, I decided to play through Splinter Cell Conviction and Blacklist and while it's nothing major it's annoying that you can't unlock certain achievements/challenges/rewards (or any at all in the case of Conviction) as well as being locked out of content because their companion app is dead and weekly challenges are long gone.
I mean I accept and understand that the muliplayer part is eventually unavailable/dead, but the singleplayer part shouldn't be affected.
I mean I accept and understand that the muliplayer part is eventually unavailable/dead, but the singleplayer part shouldn't be affected.
Standard disclaimer that kickstarter and similar sites aren't a preordering service and its a gamble that you'll get anything at all.
True enough.
However a project failing isn't the intent of the people developing the game, it is a factor outside of their control. Reneging on promises, via deliberate decisions is a very different thing.
- Status