A lot of people are really good at justifying the problems by completely missing the point as well. i.e people going “Oh you can just disable/hide/remove xyz” when the issue is that xyz shouldn’t be there at all or be opt in, rather than opt out.
Then there’s the people that listen to these justifications without a second thought or even parroting them, giving them extra legitimacy to other people that come across these takes.
Ron*
It wouldn’t surprise me if this was a way to avoid typical launch day server issues either.
Rather than have everyone dumped into their servers as once, they let things ramp up.
Though that could be giving too much credit considering it’s in alpha. Aloha would suggest its still far from release, probably too early to bother stress test the servers or w/e.
Except we have a few ACs that work with proton. battleye and EAC being the notable examples.
https://areweanticheatyet.com/
The issue isn’t that the ACs can’t work. It’s that they don’t run at the kernel level under linux and so some developers have concerns that the ACs wont be as secure.
Though given how things have been lately with MP games. You have to wonder if theyre even secure to begin with.
obnoxiously long animation, and that animation being set in stone once you trigger it. There is no aborting a sword-swing midway through to dodge or block.
The whole point of the animations being set in stone is to force the player to be mindful of their actions. Don’t commit to an attack unless you’re sure it’s safe to do so. Otherwise you’re going to get caught out.
The slow animations are a deliberate drawback to the more powerful weapons. Being able to swing an UGS around like it’s nothing would make for a fairly unbalanced weapon. If you want a weapon with quicker animations you probably want something more DEX focused. Just look at the Falcion’s animations compared to the Zweihander’s animations in Dark Souls for example. Zweihander puts out bigger damage numbers and thus attacks slower. Pretty basic balancing concept to have thing that does big damage be slower.
The lack of being able to abort moves is simply a way for the game to punish poor decisions. If you get caught out by a slow animation then you probably need to work on picking when to attack. A big part of the game is that it teaches the player through punishing mistakes. That’s why it forces you to commit to actions.
These only come across as clunky if you’re not learning from your mistakes and working around these deliberate limitations. Pick different weapons or pick better moments to attack/use an item so you don’t commit to something at the wrong moment.
The input queue is another thing that lines up with this. I believe the whole point is to, again, push the user into being careful. Dark Souls isn’t a hack and slash like DMC. You don’t want to go into fights button mashing. The game wants you to take your time. The button queue kind of reinforces that by punishing button mashing and being too hasty. I do also find it useful in queuing certain actions like attacking straight out of a roll or following item usage.
All the things you describe as clunky each have a purpose. The game expects you to work with those limitations and when you do you get a better experience. Going against them is when you run into issues. Since youre attempting to doing things the game is trying to discourage. Like button mashing (input queue) and getting too greedy with attacks (Being locked to actions/Longer animations).
It doesn’t take that much to go and find out about games like AC:Unity and Arkham Knight that predate NMS. In fact I’m pretty sure Ubisoft and EA are the two companies most notorious for “Release broken fix later” to give you a head start on looking into things.
Discourse surrounding broken game launches/Release Broken Fix Later has been around a bit longer than NMS.
Cyberpunk 2077 was a really ambitious game, with a lot of new mechanics and incredible graphics. Beasts like that are really difficult to optimize for a large range of computers with different specs, so at first it ran poorly on some.
What about all the other “Ambitious games” that we’ve had over the years that come out just fine? A game being ambitious does not excuse a company releasing the game in what is blatantly an unfinished state. This isn’t the case of a game having a few performance hiccups here and there but rather egregious bugs and severe performance issues across the board. This is stuff that is all over youtube, reddit, twitter and so on. It’s pretty well documented how bad the game was.
The most notably buggy release was the PS4 one. And rightfully so. They were trying to run a truly next gen game on a console which was more than a decade old. They not only had to optimize the game, but they basically made a completely different game, with different assets and engines, which was really difficult to do. Still, it was too much for the console, especially old PS4s that were full of dust or had old fans and were overheating.
Again, this really isn’t an excuse. They had the power the can the next gen versions of the game if it was so difficult to pull off. They also had the power to delay the game in order to make sure that it was ready for launch. They could have done so many things such that the last gen versions of the day would either never see the light of day or be ready for launch. CDPR are a big enough studio to pull something like this off. They’re not a small indie studio.
Another important fact is that users were also pressuring CDPR into releasing Cyberpunk 2077. It was delayed at least once (maybe twice, I don’t remember), and people wanted to play the game. They probably had to choose between delaying it another time or releasing it without polishing it that much.
Yes, there may have been pressure. But no, the consumer base does not have anywhere near enough power over corporations like you’re trying to imply. Games aren’t just released early because “Oh no the consumers are getting angy”. Though once again this was their fault due to them giving the consumer a completely unrealistic initial release date that they obviously could not hit, considering the absolute state of the game at launch.
The most likely explanation is that they were simply trying to get the game out as soon as possible to cash in and they absolutely did not want to miss a major sales period such as Christmas. They were simply trying to drop a minimal viable product with plans to fix it later. Turns out they dropped a less than minimally viable product in their rush to make some dosh. Knowingly too if you look into the allegations that I’ll link later.
I believe it was Cyberpunk 2077 that started the trend of “release now fix later” games.
No. “Release broken fix later” has been a thing for maybe the last decade. Do people not remember shitshows like AC:Unity? Cyberpunk is most definitely not the first game to be “Release broken, fix later”.
However, I don’t think they really did it on purpose.
I don’t think it was dropped broken on purpose. But I do think it was an attempt to drop the usual bare minimum product. Just so happens that they miscalculated and dropped something less than minimal. It’s still gross incompetence and shows the consumer they’re more than willing to drop something bare minimum with the promise of fixing it later. Rather than dropping a complete game.
The game was too ambitious for its own good, and having to develop, optimize and test two basically different versions of it was too big of a task for a studio that in today’s terms wasn’t even that big.
Again, not an excuse. They’re a massive studio, big enough to have people that know how to plan a project like this, people that understand their limitations and what is or isn’t achievable. It’s standard project planning practice.
But even then there are allegations that people in the company were aware that the game was not ready to launch.
And yet they still dropped the game.
There is no excuse for the launch of CP2077.
The rest of the AAA producers just realized that CDPR still won loads of money at launch, and decided to release incomplete games on purpose, after seeing that CDPR could make profits that way.
The industry learned this about a decade ago. We’ve been plagued by half baked launched for so long at this point that you don’t have to go far to find out about it.
But must importantly, CDPR did an amazing job at fixing the game, unlike many other studios releasing broken AAAs.
In this case I think it’s less fixing the game and more finishing the development of the game, all things considered. The thing they should have done before releasing the game as if it was a finished product when, in fact, it clearly wasn’t.
There’s fixing a game and there’s what CDPR had to do to CP2077.
Yes, a lot of companies don’t fix their games. But at the same time most of these companies don’t release their games in such a state that they start getting into legal trouble over the launch of their game.
https://www.nme.com/news/cyberpunk-2077-investigated-polish-consumer-protection-agency-2855205
Cyberpunk was such a massive disaster that they didn’t really have much choice other than to finish working on their game. To repair the massive hit to their PR as well as other issues such as the class action and the whole debacle with Sony kicking the game of the PS Store.
Even though it took a while, they still delivered the game they promised to their buyers.
Yes, it’s good that they stuck with the game and did more than the bare minimum to bring it to a better state. But it’s not exactly something to praise them over. It took them ~2 years to bring the game to a state that it should have been in at launch. Instead of launching the game in a finished state, they knowingly dropped the game in an unfinished state. They also put out a review embargo preventing reviewers from informing the consumer about said issues, they actively worked to mislead the consumer about the state of their game.
What CDPR did is absolutely not excusable under any circumstances.
Their next projects should absolutely be scrutinised until they prove that they have learned from their mistakes.
I wouldn’t trust CDPR so easily yet after how diabolical the launch of CP2077 was.
deleted by creator
Surely it should be possible to expose friends lists to games while also allowing friends lists to remain private on profiles.
There’s a “Real Name” section on your profile as well. Though there isn’t a hard requirement to have your real name there.
Agreed. People need to stop treating a companies track record as if it’s a guarantee.
Especially not after seeing so many previously beloved companies go shit/drop a big stinker or two over the years. Like CDPR, Bioware and Arkane.
Companies are ran by people and people can either just make mistakes or otherwise try to chase some extra pennies.
Local man cannot handle favourite game being criticised. Burns own money in protest.
I’m defending it because of disingenuous trogs like you trying to suggest that it’s somehow harming the quality of the game by having a neutered redundant MTX system.
Microtransactions do harm the quality of a game. Especially a fucking $70 single player game.
Again, it’s full priced. DD2 does not need microtransactions.
I’m defending it because you’re trying to suggest that them removing MTX from an already failed title is anything but proof CAPCOM wasn’t interested in putting any investment in the franchise.
They were interested enough in doing a re-release. If you’re interested enough in doing that then you would also be interested enough in slipping in those MTX if they were successful otherwise you’d be missing out on cash. Cash being the one thing companies love the most and would not think twice about getting more. It’d be fucking stupid for them to leave successful MTX out of a game like that.
On the topic of interest, don’t forget as well that DD2 would have come sooner if it weren’t for the director choosing to go for DMC V first.
So it’s not exactly a complete lack of interest. Otherwise the DD2 wouldn’t have come at all.
So again, no, the MTX was likely left out of DA because it just wasn’t successful enough to warrant the time to put it in.
I’m defending it because to call this predatory is like calling a Shih Tzu a predator.
It is predatory.
Again, there’s no reason for it to be in there.
They’re not starved for cash.
It’s a 70$ game so fat stacks going their way.
I’d bet my cock and balls that the MTX is just lining pockets as MTX often does.
I’m defending it because microtransactions aren’t as bad as you’re making them out to be.
Except they are. Were you not around back before MTX kicked off? Back when you could just get shit by playing the game normally without having to bust out your wallet for an extra character or a shiny .png When MTX become the main focus games suffer.
Some of the best games to exist; exist because of the microtransactions that are in them.
“MUH FAVORITE GAME! NO CRITICIZE!”
Kind of knew that the argument was going in that direction. No one in their right mind defends something that has no benefit to themselves like this.
MTX can’t be bad because then that would be something against your favorite games and your favorite games can’t possibly be bad, right?
Other than that, why don’t you go and list off some of those games because I think there may be a pattern. Other than “Muh games”.
Also, some of the best games ever exist do so without needing micro-transactions. Shit, games survived without them for decades before the internet allowed for MTX to exist.
Almost like MTX aren’t actually needed and a good product will make good money on it’s own merit.
There’s also a better way to further monetize a game post-release. It’s called releasing expansions. You know, like what Elden Ring is about to come out. A decent to good sized chunk of content that (hopefully) has had a good amount of care and attention put into it. Rather than selling a fucking JPEG for £15 and calling it a day, selling something that you would have unlocked in a better game by just being good at the game or just preying on people with poor impulse control.
I wholeheartedly support microtransaction systems like this
Stockholm syndrome is some wack shit, I tell ya.
I think the devs have done an incredible job with the game
Bro, you do realize you can enjoy a game and at the same time recognize any problems it has, right? Enjoying a game does not mean you’re obliged in any way to blindly defend a game, downplay it’s issues and only talk good about it.
There’s just no reason for a full priced game by a cash strapped, big ass AAA publishing company, to have micro-transactions.
They’re not a cash starved indie company. But even while Indie games having MTX is a little more understandable, it’s still a bit dubious even there.
I’m almost tempted to buy some of these literally worthless microtransactions simply as a fuck you to all the virtue signalling losers fixating on the game.
Ah yes, waste your own money and let a group of people live rent free in your head. Pretty good way to spite them. While they’re sat there not wasting their money, you’re just throwing yours away. They’ll literally won’t know what hit them. Probably because they’ll have no idea you’re doing it. But still, you go dude. Burn that money! By the way, ever heard of the phrase “Cutting off your nose just to spite your face”?
Dragon’s Dogma 1 had the exact same monetization scheme, minus fast travel. Everything you could buy on the store was easy to earn in game (it is the exact same way in Dragon’s Dogma 2). Dragon’s Dogma 1 was also a failure in Western markets.
The MTX in DD1 were taken out of the game on later releases. Only the original 360 and PS3 releases had them. So as a matter of fact things improved for DD1 before getting worse again for DD2. Likely because the MTX weren’t successful enough to consider for the re-release. After all, why else would they not have them in a later release.
So tell me, if the game was a success in Japanese markets and had this monetization scheme: why would it not have a more aggressive microtransaction scheme for the second game if what you’re saying is to be believed?
A game being successful doesn’t necessarily mean the MTX are also successful. Companies can see where the money is coming from. If they see that the game is selling loads but the MTX isn’t selling much. They’ll probably not bother to put the effort into the MTX for a later title or at least until they think that things have changed and people may be more receptive. Which is likely what we’re seeing here. As above, they took out the MTX for the later releases/DD:DA. Possibly because the MTX in the original release wasn’t all that successful. It’s been a hot few moments since then so they’re trying it again for DD2. That’s why DD2 isn’t worse.
The game is very fun and not once did I think of paying anything beyond 3 dollars on MTX, and that was because I’m impatient. It literally would have been a waste of money, as the game opens up every fast travel point you would need in the post game. It also gives you nigh infinite fast travel items. There is no drop in quality for the game.
Not being personally affected by it doesn’t really change how good/bad the MTX is. It’s predatory on those with poor impulse control.
It doesn’t matter how much items the game gives to you. The MTX just shouldn’t be in the game as a matter of principle.
It’s a fucking £65/$70 single player game. Why are you defending this shit?
You can claim you “pay attention” all you want, but all you’ve done is prove how little you understand what you’re talking about.
You don’t seem to understand. Considering you forgot about the fact that Dark Arisen doesn’t have those MTXs and the implications that brings.
I’ve explicitly detailed how you’re wrong, and you turned around and literally said exactly what I said you would. “BuT iT iS a SlIpPeRy SlOpE”.
Yes, that’s because it is a slippery slope. You haven’t elaborated on how it isn’t beyond “BuT oThEr GaMeS”
Fact is, it is a slippery slope. I’ve explained how but you didn’t seem to get it. So let me explain it again for you.
Yes P2W exists. But that’s not the slippery slope.
The slippery slope is how MTX is introduced to games/series. They often don’t come out of the gate fully stocked with P2W bullshit.
A series often starts by putting it’s best foot forward so as to not immediately piss everyone off. Then as things progress. So, a series gets new games or a live service starts to establish itself that’s when the monetization starts to creep in. The Devs/Pubs start to push the envelope to see what they can get away with and keep going. That’s the slippery slope.
Gacha is a bit of an exception, because Gacha is straight up defined by it’s gambling mechanics. The whole thing is about replicating the gachapon machine experience.
For DD2 it’s the shit it has now. But DD3 may be worse if they see their monetization was effective and that people are willing to buy that shit. For DD3 they may include the same monetization but make the items much harder to obtain, making more of a push to pay for it.
That’s the slippery slope.
That’s the whole point of complaining. To identify a problem before it becomes too bad.
Yes, other games might have P2W, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s no point in complaining because it’s a per-game/series thing.
If it were exactly as you described then every game would just be coming out with P2W. DD2 would be worse than it is because fuck it other games have P2W, so why not DD2 or literally every other game. Since your logic is that we’re at the bottom already because P2W exists.
But that’s not how it is, is it?
What is happening is that games/series undergo a decline. Start off small, ease people in.
A relatively common tactic now is to do something like this: Increase the cost of something from 100 to 1000. Let people get angry. Then “Apologise” and dial it back to 500. That way people get their “We did it reddit / OMG company really listens to the players!” moment while also not realizing they’re still worse off.
I know what’s going on. I actually pay attention and I’ve noticed the patterns as to how this shit goes down.
Claims I don’t understand
Doesn’t elaborate
Leaves
Nice cop out. I think I’ll give it a 9/10.
The problem that everyone seems to be missing with this “slippery slope” bullshit is that you all acknowledge that there are MTX systems worse than this one. That worse one likely being P2W MTX, because that is undeniably the worst form.
Yeah there are worse MTX systems out there. I think that makes a pretty good case for calling out bullshit when you see it no matter how you see it. If a company sees people accepting it, they’ll push it further. Therefore I’d say there’s a pretty good point in complaining about DD2.
The RE4 remake literally had P2W. You could buy the weapon upgrade items for real money. DD2s MTX are in no way P2W.
RE4 having shitty monetization doesn’t make DD2’s monetization not bad. Both can be bad, this isn’t a mutually exclusive thing.
DD2’s MTX issue is still bad regardless of worse things being out there.
Again, call it out early. So that, if they made another DD game then they don’t try to push it further. Like you said it’s already bad for RE4. So if there’s no push back for DD2 then don’t be surprised if the next DD game has something worse. Call it out before it gets all fucked up, you know? Don’t just go “Oh but other game bad so this one is actually ok!”.
Everyone wants to avoid P2W because it’s a bad sign for games. P2W is the reason why gatcha is the way that it is.
The Resident Evil 4 remake (oh you know, Capcoms biggest franchise) had a P2W system (that thing we just established as being the worst form of MTX).
DD2 has an MTX system so functionally worthless that I’m about to beat the game and the only reason I’ve even considered spending money is because I’m lazy. You actually get more out of spending your money on gatcha games (on literal fucking P2W scams).
DD2’s MTX system is basically preying on people with poor impulse control. You might see it as useless but you can bet there’s people out there that’ll buy that shit even if they don’t need it.
We reach this conversation, where you’re suggesting that “It’S a SlIpPeRy SlOpE”.
Yeah that’s because it is a slippery slope. We didn’t get to this point just like that did we? It started out small, with companies slowly pushing things to see how far they could go. Turns out, gamers are largely a masochistic lot that just let it roll in. Ball started rolling and here we are.
In this case we’re seeing Capcom start out small by pushing an MTX to a specific series that seems small in comparison to other systems. Just because they could do P2W to RE doesn’t necessarily mean they can get away with it in DD2, difference audiences and other factors. Making it small in comparison also has the benefit of getting some people to react like you’re doing, rolling over and giving up because “Oh we’re already at the bottom.”
Yes, we already have P2W in some games. But I don’t think that necessarily means that were are absolute rock bottom. Companies still give treat franchises with some level of individuality. While they might do something with one series, like MTX with RE4, they might think twice about trying it with another series if it gets push-back. Especially if that series is a big deal for them. That’s why capcom doesn’t have P2W in all of their games.
There’s still a chance to keep bullshit out of stuff that hasn’t yet been coated in it. So yeah I think it’s pretty worth to make a point about it. It’s certainly better than giving up and going “Guys things are already bad therefore it’s stupid to try and change things for the better”. If you want to roll over then go for it. Just don’t try to bring other people down with that defeatist bullshit. Like what’s the point of your reply? To say that things are bad so we shouldn’t try to push people to do better?
My comfort food is charcoal