If you play on PC, and you hear the word Denuvo, you'll foam at the mouth.
Your average gamer is still going to buy whatever game in droves Denuvo or not, as they just don't look that hard until they load up their pre-order and see performance issues.
I'm not boycotting, because I don't need to - I always wait until a game gets a bunch of patches and at least a few price cuts before jumping in. Just too many games these days. I think if ...
Funny to me the strong feelings people have on how others bother to complete a game. If the game was still fun, to you, then glad you found a way to enjoy it outside of developer constraints. Games are about fun, why do people feel the need to gate-keep *fun* of all things, suggesting that if you didn't play it their way you didn't really play it at all.
To those being nitpicky, he said he completed it. He didn't say he "beat it". If he saw the end cre...
In regards to the formula Zelda had been following for years, I think we can agree that BotW was quite transformative in comparison.
Kirby from his games was not at that level of transformation in Forgotten Land. It was very linear, bite sized levels akin to 3D World. It was a change, it was an improvement, it was a 2D to 3D Mario kind of jump. I used to say I was hoping K:FL would be his Mario Odyssey moment, but it became clear it was more in line with 3D World.
Yeah, boggles the mind that Sony allowed the....questionably skilled team at Iron Galaxy to handle their premier franchise instead of Nixxes, the premiere PC porting group they bought for...well, I assumed for this kind of thing. But it doesn't seem they even had them give this a good looking over before releasing.
Talk about massive damage to their image on PC. Of all the games, why the heck wouldn't this be the one given the best treatment?
Woah, woah, woah. It was a step-up for sure, something akin to a Super Mario 3D World moment for Kirby, but I don't think it did anything so transformative as to be compared to something like BotW.
As time goes on, everything is going to be digital. This is just a taste of what we're looking at potentially next generation. Physical copies exist for those who truly care, but it also makes some games cost far more than any would spend given scarcity.
Nintendo is one of the wealthiest game companies on the planet. If they can't bother to keep even 1 generation old storefronts up, that's a bad sign. If these companies really want us to embrace an all digital f...
Wow, for that performance penalty? Not even close to worth it. Screen to screen, it looks barely better. Some things look a bit more grounded, but it is also noted it makes the game, on average, darker. The enemies don't need even more hiding places to ambush you from, and a near halving of frame rate isn't going to help input latency to fend that attack off either.
Maybe good for future cards where RT power is much higher, but I also think the visual trade-off has ...
It's pretty clear cut that they have. Sure, you could argue depending on your definition, but this is the definition I'll use here:
"If Microsoft hadn't purchased these publishers/developers, then those games would have come to PlayStation. They were being worked on with the intention of going to PS5. The fact they aren't now is 100% due to new ownership, and that owner saying "no PS5".
I don't think you can really argue...
@jznrpg
Sure, I've played all of those. I said it would be impressive even today if a game looked like that during gameplay. I didn't say no other game even looks this good, even today.
@zhipp
Lots of games look great, and graphics wise I'd say you're right. There's still something about these that I think look a bit more impressive - sometimes - from an animation point of view. Which I think is easier to do when you...
Yes! It was crazy impressive at the time, and would be amazing even today if a game actually game out and looked like that during gameplay.
That said, it's also why I take these tech demos with the largest grain of salt. They look great, as does the Senua one. But it really doesn't mean anything, in any fashion, for what the game will ultimately look like. It's cool, but that's kinda it.
In some ways, I'll agree, it isn't as cut and dry. But in that Kotaku article, Phil did say:
“I find it completely counter to what gaming is about to say that part of that is to lock people away from being able to experience those games."
He is locking games away from PlayStation gamers. That's a hard one to misinterpret.
Phil said, in that Kotaku article:
“I find it completely counter to what gaming is about to say that part of that is to lock people away from being able to experience those games."
He is locking games away from PlayStation gamers. That's a hard one to misinterpret.
I'm a little confused about articles framing games as "forgotten". Most games aren't Minecraft. They have a nice life, and then life goes on. It feels almost as if some people regard a game some level of failure unless it never fades, even for an instant, from the public's consciousness. It's a sin to be forgotten, rather than a boon to simply be remembered fondly.
But this and the Horizon article a week or so ago just feel confusing. R&C came ...
As a pretty big supporter of VR - own a Quest 2, Rift, and PSVR - who happens to also own a PS5 and not PSVR 2, I understand what you mean and where you're coming from. I still disagree with the "nothing you can't find better on cheaper headsets" comment, as I discussed. However, the rest isn't as cut and dry.
If you want an all-in-one, Quest is the only game in town right now. Oculus is trying to get everyone and their mother to buy a Quest, even if t...
I agree that that's the most likely way forward, at least for a while. I also think they may need to test a VR add-on cost. Maybe $10 per title on top of a game purchase. Unless it could be proven that there were extra sales that happened solely because of VR - which I think wouldn't be the norm, honestly - then they'd have to be compensated for the extra development time and effort.
I wouldn't scoff at paying something like $10 to add VR - assuming it was ...
Let's be honest, though, supporting PC is not that straightforward. If they wanted mass adoption, they'd really have no choice but to support Steam - and that wouldn't make them money. If they wanted to get money from game sales, they'd have to have their own PC storefront, and people on PC - and I say this as a primary PC guy myself - bitch & moan every time they hear about another launcher.
Many wouldn't download it out of spite. "No Steam, N...
I'm honestly not sure what the magic bullet is regarding VR content. On average, it seems people don't love spending the same kind of time in HMDs playing a long-form game as they do on TVs. That in mind, I think the single best approach is putting VR into 2D games. It let's people inhabit that world, but also swap back and forth between VR and couch when the mood strikes. Allows these games to reduce risk of selling poorly, while still getting a full production budget.
...
"there's nothing you can't find better on cheaper headsets."
Yeah, agreeing with Babdook here - that's just not correct. This is one of the best value headsets out there, when you take into account its quality. If you mean game-wise, then that's true - there's few games PSVR2 only that you can't play elsewhere. But if you go cheaper, you are certainly paying less while getting a lesser experience.
Until they either have their own storefront to sell to on PC (a thing that, even as a PC guy myself, know most of our ilk would moan endlessly about), or have a massive stable of 1st Party VR games that they could get additional revenue from...simply not going to happen. They have no incentive to do so, and ensuring a good experience on PC would also further cost them extra development time & resources for practically no monetary gain.
It'd be a neat value-add for p...
I don't understand why Valve allows it on their storefront. Their whole motto is that piracy is a service issue. This flies RIGHT in the face of that. I mean, it is actively causing a disruption in service to paying customers.
Valve has so much power in the PC gaming space, that they could pretty much disallow its inclusion and the loss of sales (from any publisher who chose not to sell on Steam because of that) would dwarf whatever the piracy numbers are.
...