I understand the point this article is making but I still think there’s a world of difference between the developers of small games like Gloomwood, Backpack Hero and Hydroneer replying to a negative review to explain they’re working to fix the issues the player faced to fucking Bethesda replying to say “ackshually our constant loading screens are justified because our world is just too big 🤓☝️” and I say this as someone who likes Starfield
It’s an interesting article and worth a read. I feel like a majority of it was about how different publishers view and handle responding to reviews rather than about Bethesda and Starfield
Sounds like in Bethesda’s case it’s a vain corporate attempt to manage the games reputation. Having a mixed rating definitely hurts their sales; it gives you pause before deciding to spend $90 on a game. You’d hope that the next step for them would be to retrospect on why people are finding the game meh, but that rarely seems to happen.
“Am I out of touch? No, it’s the players who should enjoy landing on an empty planet.”
If steam were owned by anyone other than Valve (not to say they’re perfect), I’d be expecting reviews to soon go the same way that dislikes did on YouTube for similar nonsensical reasons.
Just comparing the look and feel of Cyberpunk now to this game is wild. I can’t understand how one of the biggest game studios churns out something like this.
The game sucks, and they can’t fix it by just replying bad reviews… what a joke… they need to add vehicles, less loading screens and better role-play immersion, with interactions that make sense. Now it’s too late to “fix it” after charging 70 euros for standard edition and calling it “next gen game”.
I think I caught Oxhorn play the 2nd or 3rd day, and I was super unimpressed. I had high hopes for it, but knew who was developing it so had no interest in buying it new or anything, but wow. Maybe it just looks really nice while playing and crap while being streamed? Not a chance I’m buying it before it 75% off, or more
This comes up a lot with Bethesda games and I don’t understand it in a lot of ways. You (maybe not you personally but someone) paid full AAA game price for this boring game and you didn’t enjoy it. Why would mods bring you back to something you didn’t enjoy when there are actually great games out there waiting to be played instead for far less money and don’t require mods to make it bearable?
I enjoyed a lot with Skyrim, the mods made it even better, and I replayed the game with many mods which adds more skills and realism, smarter NPC… I will wait now for a Starfield sale to be less than 20 euros and if the mods fixed the boring shit then I will buy it, but like an India game, this can’t be called AAA when it’s worse than 10 years old games.
Like, If they are planning on getting into the Console Market not really, If they are planning on taking EA improving on it and keeping Insomniac doing the spider-man / marvel based games I'm all in, it would be nice to see some really good Disney based games (I don't play star wars jedi but I can see it's a really good game).
@Razzazzika Maybe it would make them take it a little more seriously, as at the moment they seem to just sell the rights to EA and other companies. Simpsons Tapped Out (That has been with EA for a few years now) is filled with Micro Translations as it's a mobile game created by EA but if Disney buys EA maybe they will create Simpsons: Hit and Run Remastered as that's one game that people have been crying out for, for years now.
They are about as hardcore of protecting their properties, up to and including the quality of the product, as Nintendo was in the 80’s after they brought the industry back from the dead after Atari fucked it up. Or… They used to be. All of the recent live action remakes have given me some doubts.
it would be nice to see some really good Disney based games (I don’t play star wars jedi but I can see it’s a really good game).
Nah man. I was open minded with their star wars/marvel shows but they are all the same at this point. The look and feel has become so homogenized. Mando/Andor/Loki are basically the only things with any style of their own at this point and even they still 80% overlap (Andor less so) with Disney’s style executed in all their other shows.
I really lost faith after Obi Wan. Man that show looked and felt so cheap. The story was so boring. What a waste.
I’d add Wandavision to the list of shows with their own style. Mando kind of turned generic after the first season too. Obi Wan was very generic, but had some cool scenes. It could have been so much more, but honestly I didn’t really see the need for the show at all. Same with Book of Boba Fett.
As far as games go, Fallen Order was great. Need to play Jedi Survivor, but I’ve heard they improved a lot of stuff in it. With how they’ve removed creative focus on most of their properties, I don’t think a Disney run studio would have put out Fallen Order or Survivor though.
FPS games are in dire straits if you like the kind of stuff we got 10-20 years ago, but so many other genres are thriving right now. Give it 5 years, and the indie scene will likely up the FPS market that AAA forgot; right now, they're chasing late 90s arena shooters rather than the slightly-slower, somewhat-grounded-in-some-sort-of-reality action blockbusters we got in the early 2000s through the 2010s.
And Halo Infinite's multiplayer was almost what I wanted out of a Halo game. Better than what Halo had between 3 and 5.
The name ALDI literally stood for “Albrecht’s Discount”. It was part of their concept from the start. We can bicker about quality, but if you don’t have the luxury of choice, their prices are generally good here in Germany too.
Albrecht has owned it for most of its existence. The first TJ was opened '67, Albrecht owned the chain since '79, so out of itd 56 years, 48 have been in possession of himself or his family.
But why? Disney has made several attempts before to break into gaming, none of which have worked out well. The best Disney games have all been licensed games by Square Enix, BioWare, Capcom, etc.
Also, Disney doesn’t have the cash to buy EA, so buying EA would involve them going deeply into debt. With today’s interest rates, that would be too risky.
The big publishers' moneymaking franchises have plateaued or declined without anything to replace them, and they're looking to sell their companies before those franchises stop making money. EA and Disney have a partnership via Star Wars that could work out toward making an acquisition or merger more affordable. Disney would probably have a hard time growing by acquiring more television or movie studios, but video games are in a different industry. Disney might see acquiring a giant like EA to be acquiring "experts" at how to actually run a video game business compared to Disney's failed past efforts.
Those are the reasons I can think of. EA was rumored to have hit up every enormous company like this to buy them out, including Apple and Amazon, so it doesn't surprise me that Disney was on that list.
@OfficialThunderbolt@Jinxyface it's ashamed more countries & gov't are to fiscally driven to legally prevent monopolies when they've been known to be destructive
Video games aren't in danger of becoming a monopoly, but that kind of measure seems more aimed at preventing foreigners from having too much influence.
Video games aren't in danger of becoming a monopoly,
Microsoft, a trillion dollar tech conglomerate, has just purchased multiple of the entire video game's largest publishers. It is entirely in danger of becoming a monopoly
How many games came out in 2023? How many of those do Microsoft own? How much do you think that second number changes over the next 10 years? There are so, so, so many video game companies out there that Microsoft doesn't own.
It's not about how many Microsoft owns. It's how large the ones they own are. Microsoft has essentially made long time huge third party developers/publishers part of their company now, that's corporate consolidation and should never be defended or justified in any way.
Microsoft has trillions of dollars. They have the capital, workforce, and time to build up their own studios. If the only way a trillion dollar company can "compete" in a space is to consolidate that space by applying anti consumer tactics like buying out longstanding publishers, that's stupid and a lie.
Hard disagree. Sony's in a dominant position specifically because of anti consumer tactics like exclusives. These games can take 5+ years to make, so the only way Microsoft catches up at all during this console generation is via acquisitions (of companies looking to sell, mind you). The only way their trillions of dollars (of market cap, not cash on hand) helps them anytime soon is acquisitions. And also remember that these acquisitions came up in response to Sony seeking further exclusivity of things like Starfield and Call of Duty.
And once again, there's just so much to the video game market that neither of those companies own. Video games are an international industry made up of many, many, many participants, and even Microsoft is nowhere close to having a majority of it.
Sony being in a "dominant" position doesn't mean the answer is to just let Microsoft buy out a nice chunk of the larger industry as a whole.
Microsoft has money, they can use that to create and invest and build up studios themselves. Corporate consolidation never helps anyone but the company buying out the other company.
Microsoft buying out Betheda and ActiBlizz will not benefit consumers in any way
Sony being in that dominant position puts them in something much closer to a monopoly of their segment of the market than Microsoft is post-acquisition. Building up studios takes a lot of time, which would translate to Sony further running away with their market position. I'm not exactly pro-acquisition; I'm just not anti-this-acquisition, especially when there are a lot of games and IPs from the past that Activision has no incentive to revive but Microsoft does. That is something about this acquisition that benefits customers and not just Microsoft.
That is something about this acquisition that benefits customers and not just Microsoft.
Yeah, but only the customers that Microsoft allows to play that product. What about Bethesda games being longstanding multi platform IPs that are now locked to Xbox consoles and Playstation users who might have been playing them on their consoles since Oblivion now get fucked.
Acquisitions like this are fine UNLESS it's a multi trillion dollar conglomerate gobbling up the industry's largest players. That is not beneficial to anyone. And there is no way to justify it is
me.ign.com
Hot