Yep people say that the market is saturated and we don't need "another live service/GaaS game" because everyone is already committed to at least one and doesn't have time for another. Yet when one comes out that betas well and has good word of mouth, people magically forget about the market saturation and how they are already too committed to Hunt: Showdown to try a new game.
Never played it, hated Overwatch so I have no interest in knock offs with even less interesting art direction. But I clearly touched a nerve with you, so maybe you are one of those hypocrites?
Hearing a lot of crickets from the "when will devs learn that the live service multiplayer market is completely saturated" crowd. Same crickets I heard when Helldivers 2 and Marvel Rivals launched.
Lol I didn't say a thing about it being pay-to-win or about the price, so I'm not sure how that's relevant?
If you like it, good for you. You aren't one of those people who comes out every time a live service game fails and declares that no dev should ever make another one because we have enough already. But as a non-moron with eyes who visits this site regularly, you absolutely know those people exist in droves and pop up every time a launch goes poorly. An...
Gamers: "We don't need another live service game loaded with micro transactions and battle passes! When are devs going to learn?"
Also Gamers: "Let's all play ARC Raiders! It's amazing!"
To me Saints Row is one of those series that got a foothold in people's minds because the first game was in the right place at the right time (I'd put Dead Rising in the same category). In 2006 when the original came out, people were desperate for new games to play on the 360, and people were not nearly as burnt out on open world games as they are now. So the first one filled a void and served as a showcase for a new console that people were very excited about at the time.
Lol well at least then it would outsell the Xbox port of FF16.
There is so much cognitive dissonance over Infinite. People say they didn't like it because it was a live service. Yet if you look at what the criticisms of it were at the time it came out and when the playerbase started falling off, the primary issue people had was a lack of updates. In other words, it wasn't enough of a live service.
Which is really an encapsulation of the problem with multiplayer today. So many people think that they want to go back to the "...
Overwrought whining about remasters/remakes has became far more annoying than the remakes themselves. If you are so sick of a lack of originality, come up with original commentary on the games industry, instead of just retreading the exact same criticism people have been making for the last five years.
@SlothLordPootus
Some of them have certainly sold in that range, and there are sources for that, but is there any source showing that IW (the one that directly competed with BF1) got to that mark? Because I'm not really interested in unsupported "everybody knows X" assertions that can't be backed up by any data.
"Always wipes the floor," yet no one ever produces any numbers that compare the 2016 COD (IW) to BF1 (also released in 2016). The only solid piece of evidence I ever see that IW outsold BF1 is that it was one spot higher on the 2016 NPD. Which literally just means it sold better in the US only for the first couple months both games were out. And "wipes the floor" implies a huge gap, not simply outselling, which no one has ever proven. Most estimates have BF1 over twenty mi...
@ocelot07
Yeah I think to have any chance of having this work, they need to select a single hardware partner (seems like Asus is likely) and have limited SKUs of the device.
And yeah that was the issue with Steam Machines. There needed to be at most like 3 steam machines so people could clearly understand what they were and devs could have a specific target (or a few limited targets). The way Valve has handled Steam Deck has been far better, with the mai...
"If that's the case then why be confined to this Xbox PC that may not be able to upgraded. When you can just build a potentially better pc at a cheaper cost."
Clearly MS is betting there is a sizeable group of people who want to get into PC gaming but who are still intimidated by the prospect of building or even selecting the right one with the right specs. Obviously people who have built PCs won't buy this, but there are plenty of people who buy gaming la...
@Christopher
"It's been promoted as multiplatform since it was announced."
You know as well as anyone games are almost always in development before they are announced.
"Microsoft has stuck to the plan of keeping sequels on the platforms for which previous games were released."
Lol the "plan" to do that. Given their approach of the last few years, that's clearly the plan now. But c...
Lol I highly doubt it's option two at this point. It's far more likely option one. This game probably started as an Xbox console exclusive and then the PS5 port got added when MS started giving up on exclusives.
@Piroh
I think the idea is that Steam and PC gaming are bigger than ever, and a much larger percentage of gamers are willing to engage with it compared to ten or especially twenty years ago. However, there's theoretically still a chunk of the "PC curious" who are interested in PC gaming but don't feel confident in selecting a PC with specs that will last and that will also be easy to set up and move in front of a TV, etc. With a $1k Xbox PC that has solid ...
A small install base of a new console that's excited and wants new games will always punch above its weight in terms of share of copies sold compared to a large install base of an old console. This happened again and again with PS4/PS5. Companies kept releasing games for PS4 from 2020-2023 because of the huge install base, but the PS5 versions of those games routinely outsold the PS4 versions, often by a wide margin.
Imagine not understanding the difference between peak concurrent users of a game on a platform and total owners of that game on that platform.
I'll never understand the desire to cheat in a competition that confers neither money nor status. I mean I don't approve of cheating in professional sports, but at least I understand it - an unfair advantage there can theoretically be worth millions of dollars. In an FPS it just removes everything that makes gaming fun.
I don't know why people keep making this a Sony thing. People don't say "I like live service/GasS unless Sony does it." They say "we don't need anymore of this live service slop." Now, people might be more annoyed at Sony because they have such a strong SP identity, but the idea that gamers have been critical of only Sony for pursuing live service is just blatantly wrong.
Also, if you think the trend towards live service games just started th...