this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
757 points (97.4% liked)
Games
16800 readers
680 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Exactly. Ubisoft is the perfect example of this. Assassin's Creed, Far Cry, Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon, R6. They used to take risks and try to push gaming forward with amazing ideas and design that made my kid brain explode.
Now those IPs are dead or extremely stale. And it's because releasing an AC with microtransactions makes them more money than making an offline single player Splinter Cell. Or releasing a skin for 20 euros for R6 siege makes them a huge profit for the time invested in creating it.
God I wish we'd get a new single player Splinter Cell. Some of my best memories I have as a kid are playing the original Splinter Cell. Even if we do, it'll be riddled with microtransactions and will fail to capture the magic of the original games.
Yup. The go-to example is that Blizzard made more money off of a single $5 mount in World of Warcraft, than it made on the release of Diablo 3. An entire fucking game launch made less money than a $5 microtransaction. Why would a publishing company bother with creating solid self-contained games, when a single micro transaction can make more money for far less dev time?
Players need to stop purchasing shitty games and shitty microtransactions, because it only encourages devs to keep making them.
It's strange though, because Ubisoft on paper should be something I hate, but when I actually play one (and I'm a single player gamer), they've got fun gameplay, and the store, although it is there, generally keeps out the way and when I accidentally press the button in the menu that goes into it, there's nothing I'd ever consider handing over actual money for. The game never points you at it, or makes you feel it's needed.
I don't even know who it's for. Who buys cosmetics in a single player game? It genuinely feels like it's just been put in to appease the beancounters.
That said I don't get excited enough to buy them at full price, and normally wait until they're on PSPlus or something. There's nothing in most of these AAA games to truly love. They're a sea of merely "alright", and they're all way too long.
But why bother with alright when there's thousands of highly regarded indie games out there for a quarter of the price?
Probably same reason people go to McDonald's.
The largest issue with indie games is simply discoverability. I’m sure there are tons of amazing indie games out there. But you need to wade through a sea of complete fucking garbage to get to them. Meanwhile, AAA studios can spend thousands of dollars on marketing. Unless an indie game goes viral, there’s very little chance that I’ll ever hear about it in order to consider buying it.
I don't really get the notion of listening to some marketing department lying through their teeth. It's not like AAA games ever deliver on their marketing promises.
You don't have to go dumpster diving in order to find awesome games, somebody already did. A good starting point is the top rated games list for Steam: https://steamdb.info/stats/gameratings/
90% of them are indies and there is something for everyone on those 3 pages.
That's honestly what astounds me sometimes, but I guess it makes sense. There's heart, soul, and passion in an indie game made by a small team.
AAA games fall victim to the "designed by committee" sameness and just-good-enough gameplay.
Captures Ubisoft's philosophy on one sentence. But it's what makes them money, so they'll keep doing it.
Character creation in single player games is often a big thing and considered in a lot of reviews. I played a lot of midnight suns, and while I would never actually buy any cosmetic stuff, I definitely liked unlocking the skins and had ones I particularly liked. I even changed up once in a while. I would think even in multiplayer games, people aren't generally buying the skins for other people, but because they like to look that way.
It comes as no surprise that single player cosmetics is a source of revenue.
To be honest, Ghost Recon: Breakpoint was the most mid, regular, non-surprising game I've played in years. I know they tried later to make it better, but it was just so empty and repetitive, like The Division 2.
Wildlands surprised me multiple times, Breakpoint only made me ask myself multiple times: why is this not possible?, why do I have to do this all over again?, why do we have vehicles if most of the places can't be reached normally?
Also, The Division 2 was incredibly boring. I really want to like it, but I have to repeat the same things over and over, and you don't even get good rewards, farming is boring and doesn't compensate the time spent, at least not like in The Division 1 and its incursions, you were at least guaranteed something.
I haven't bought any game from Ubisoft after TD2 and Breakpoint. I can already spend time in those games if I want the ubisoft experience. I
Especially as Michael Ironside seems to have gotten over his medical troubles. I know he's 74 now but one last outing as Sam Fisher? Imagine?