Gaming is dying as it is however GGG stands tall.

"

Anonymous1749704 wrote:

I assume you never played FEAR then?

we all know what assuming does now don't we.

You mean tencent stands tall.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

It's an I_NO thread. You really took that seriously? If anything, PC gaming is thriving -- more and more games that would have been console-exclusives are getting solid PC ports and/or simultaneous releases.

I mean, all that really means is that we've successfully made PC porting sufficiently easy for Japanese developers. Which is good, but... I want games like this, that were *made* for PC. The only steam games I've bought since fallout 4 that I'm not obviously supposed to play with a controller have been indie games. Indie games are fun and all, but at this rate, the *next* game I buy that I won't need to use a controller for that isn't an Indie game will be Elder Scrolls 6.

I've always been a hybrid Nintendo/PC gamer, and I do appreciate the additional ports (so for example, I didn't have to wait for the DQ11 definitive edition for switch and just played it on PC), but the distinct lack of good/attractive PC games that are actually PC games and not ports is notable, to me.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

That's fair enough, but if the PC has reached a point where it can effectively function as a console for genres that were traditionally console-only (such as fighting games, certain Japanese games as you noted), then bully for the PC! I remember getting the PC port of Final Fantasy VII back in the day. Holy Jesus was it bad. Unplayably bad half the time.

but that wasn't PC's fault, that was squeenix's fault for not knowing wha they were doing. They've since figured it out. FF7 on PC now is pretty good, and even backs up your saves (against your will...) online, and FF15 always belonged on PC because the load screens aren't 8000 hours long like they were on PS4

games are shit in presentation/dlc/f2p (as well as design/ideas but thats another story - catering to least common denominator) because they want to hard cap the cost to consumer at 60 bucks, exactly as it was 30 years ago

except inflation doesnt work like that, and programmer salaries arent paying for themselves

its quite simple, a lot of games would be better in terms of treating the customer better (less or no paid dlcs, awful bugs on launch, etc) if the games were 150 bucks instead of 60.

"

grepman wrote:

its quite simple, a lot of games would be better in terms of treating the customer better (less or no paid dlcs, awful bugs on launch, etc) if the games were 150 bucks instead of 60.

thats a joke right.
not very comparable, unless the market retained the same amount of buyers today as it did "30 years ago".

gaming industry is multi-billions per year, even at their 60-80 dollar price points. billions. they're doing just fine.

they get away with treating customers they way they do because they still make their billions. to the point where they're basically telling off their customers and still selling their games.

its like gamers are heroine addicts and will do anything for their fix on the next AAA title, including eating that fat D

At least it's not as bad as things over at Activision-Blizzard. AV is totally destroying Blizzard, it's insane.

In my humble opinion GGG did great with POE. Of course people will always have something to complain, which leads to personal opinions. But as a former disappointed hack and slash fan that saw the transition from a GOD like GAME D2 to a shit fest that is D3 I think that POE stands tall to the standards of gaming.

To be able to pull a F2P , that has content released every 3-4 month's , cross platforms and an immersive universe that you might care or not about it's a flavor that games have lost lately.

I returned back to POE after a 3 year break to see the graphics being polished and everything looking neat and god damn it a lot of content that I cannot really wrap my mind around and I really do not know what to do first.

And all of that at the ridiculous price of aesthetic items and quality of life services.

You may argue that it's not up to standards, but I fail to see any other companies reaching the level of GGG in terms of game play with mind breaking funding.

Also the community is pretty helpful and always trows a hand / items at you when you are starting to play the game, which is pretty good since I hate to see great games ruined by toxic communities .

Let's not talk about what someone above said about Activision - Blizzard who are murdering in cold blood every game they have been building for the past years, for the sake of milking every penny out of the customers.

"

grepman wrote:

its quite simple, a lot of games would be better in terms of treating the customer better (less or no paid dlcs, awful bugs on launch, etc) if the games were 150 bucks instead of 60.

Then why do they return record profits all the time? Games are more expensive to develop now (in some ways) but tools and training are more widely available as well. Market exposure is also vastly higher so you can sell your product to more people.

If you let publishers like EA/Activision etc charge 150$ for games nothing will change except you'll be paying 150$, they won't add more value, they won't work harder, developers won't be paid more, their job security won't increase it'll be exactly the same as we are now but the consumers will pay more.

"

Jayburner wrote:

We are payers not players these days.

But you don't have to be.

Don't support shit games. Don't support p2w. Do support good games like PoE as long as it stays non p2w.

I would support PoE in a subscription model if it came to it, but at the first appearance of a lootbox I'm out.