Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RubberJohnny

  1. Bosman's take is very good, and goes past a lot of the takes in here that see everything in terms of "company X destroyed Y", the same blood-soaked rhetoric of 'killer' apps and so on that pervades industry talk.
  2. Maybe they should actually complete the games before they launch them:
  3. I'll also go back to this post from Gorf King, I don't think it makes much difference honestly. I mean the most popular loot game is Diablo, which has just always been kind of a crap series with nothing going for it than "look at all this loot!" Particularly in the mid-00s there were loads of crap low-budget loot games like Hellgate or Space Siege, but you'll still get loads of people saying how great they were and how they loved them (even before the nostalgia pandemic) because y'know - it did the brain stimulation reward thing well. It's basically what led me to write that genre off, I used to joke that it was pointless doing a review for loot games because all the stuff you'd write about the UI or AI or graphics or level design didn't matter, the only bit people really cared about was "does this do the brain stimulation bit? Yes/No" Obviously since Diablo 3 there's been a bit of a resurgence, loot games are higher budget and mainstream in a way they kind of weren't, but does this make them any different really? Like is that stuff in Destiny the core of the appeal or is it just that you got hooked on the loot skinner box because it came in a form you enjoyed - a shooter by Bungie, rather than the somewhat lame top down clicker form of Diablo? Basically everyone said with the original Destiny that no one would play a game with that limited content for the thousands of hours they did without the loot component, and I think that's true, although obviously I can only comment from the outside and I can't trust the view of someone on the inside for the same reason a gambling addict or gacha whale will always deny he has a problem, so we probably won't agree. For the record I think clickers are really dumb and gamers lost the ability to gatekeep what "a real game" is the moment they started playing and enjoying them, but it's daft to pretend they're not just a boiled down version of classic gamer stuff when that was literally their origin (Progress Quest was from 2002 and was made by an MMO developer as a parody). That would fit perfectly with my point above that they get good reviews because "did the brain stimulation thing", it's literally just bars that fill up and numbers that go up with no intervention for the player, but is a good game, apparently.
  4. I actually think it'll go the other way, the model of gaming servers as just big gaming PCs is kind of outdated, every other form of media (like online video) exploded only after they were able to deliver content using regular web-servers which were a fraction of the cost. It is technically feasible for games to use a lot of the web tech developed in the last couple of decades to do the things game servers do now much more efficiently and at scale, S&dbox had an experimental proof of concept: Hardware is increasingly becoming a commodity and most games that aren't super AAA behemoths will be multiplatform with mobile as well this gen, so you don't need stuff like that.
  5. Why you making nostalgia arguments as if they're gonna convince me man? I hate that shit. The argument is should Rare be able to do interesting new stuff which they want to do or forced into being a nostalgia factory for sad dads (it's the first one). Anyway, onto Sony's possible counter-move: Netflix Datamine Could Suggest a Partnership With PlayStation
  6. This is utter rubbish, Rare have been way more successful and creative doing their own thing and making new IPs than they ever were making sub-par knockoffs of Nintendo franchises back in the day. The only reason people say otherwise is because they don't actually want that, they don't want to play Sea of Thieves, they want to play Banjo, stop making games for kids, make them for meeeeee..... pander to meee... and all the other dads. Sad shit.
  7. I think there is a grain of truth in your post HarMGM, but kind of undermined by the only standard you set for a "good" entertainment company is whether they do enough nostalgia pandering. I don't think that's what makes a good entertainment company, and personally I think it's great that Rare, for instance, have no interest in being a nostalgia factory, are vocal about wanting to make new games and are supported in doing so, no matter how much it makes the 40 year olds on here whine endlessly about wanting a new Banjo Kazooie.
  8. Wordle 216 3/6 Chose it as a laugh as I had one vowel left, didn't expect it to win
  9. LOL these guys are useless, multiplayer modes still broken after two months and a permanent save corruption bug in the game since launch.
  10. Sony have enough innate popularity to be fine, but them piling their big strategy on appearing like a luxury product with gold and diamond style adverts and £70 price tags does seem a bit misjudged now inflation is starting to really kick up (and I think, will go higher and stay that way for at least a couple of years).
  11. Ah, it's the "stand on one leg and denounce it!" approach. Good to see I was right.
  12. Anyway, no one answered me about this so I did some more hunting, and yes you literally could have picked up Take Two during the time they were putting out a billion seller every other year for about $2 billion in 2006. They were a bit of a mess at that time though, or at least run by chancers in that way that 90s videogame companies kinda were, they had an SEC investigation around that time and one of the founders went to jail for some creative accounting, and all the shareholders took over the company and forced them out and were looking for buyers. Seems crazy that none of the platform holders considered it back then, it's not even that out there a concept as there were an awful lot of mergers and acquisitions in the 360 era. But I guess there was just much less money floating around in general. Or maybe those're the sane valuations and ours are the crazy ones.
  13. Yes, it's like asking why GTA Online is popular again, when it never stopped being popular.
  14. The "on MLK day!" thing is the most reaching complaint I've ever seen, surely? The interview would have been weeks and months ago, the interview subject has no control over when it's run. Except that's not what happened, Fisher criticised the guy endlessly for like six months, he's asked about it here and you immediately say his defense is "hitting out at a young actor to damage his career". How are you ever supposed to meaningfully respond to things then? It feels like exactly the sort of trap we see with spurious anti-semitism accusations in the UK where defense is treated as further proof.
  15. I really thought Switch would be #1 and both next-gens would be bringing up the rear. You've changed, rllmuk.
  16. It's not like games are a finite quantity though, if the market is growing (which it is, dramatically) there will be an ever growing number of developers and publishers to meet that demand, it's just that they're generally in areas that 40-something gamers don't care about like indies, mobile, South Korea and China. Like I'm looking forwards to whatever Mihoyo and Pearl Abyss do next, but I'm probably the only one on here. Is the complaint really that there are less, or is it that they're buying up the only franchises you have nostalgia for? Because I don't think the latter is an argument deserving of respect, really. It's a bit like the specious argument that Disney might have "a monopoly on superheroes" as if creating sticking '-man' on the end of various animal references was some lost technology.
  17. I do get why people are laughing even if it is a bit immature, the complaint all through the last gen was Microsoft had no games, they bought some games and got a "meh, it's just indies", so they brought some AAAs and got a "meh" and so bought some more. Like at no point can you say your complaint wasn't addressed, thoroughly even, it's just that y'know those complaints were coming from a fanboy perspective and they kind of didn't want them to be addressed, they just wanted the complaint as justification.
  18. Someone pointed out an angle I hadn’t considered, with inflation soaring companies kind of want to get rid of cash for assets. A lot of these companies are also ready to sell cause they may never be worth as much as they are right now. Imagine how much an Apple, Amazon or Google would have available to spend if they got serious about gaming. We’re peasants sat outside our shepherds huts trying to discern the motives of Gods at this point.
  19. I think they definitely didn’t get the traction with the first wave of indie studios that they hoped - buying devs like Compulsion looks a bit weird in hindsight, especially as their game was crap. I think some of it was just making sure the processes worked on smaller companies first and they weren’t going to end up with more 343’s for all their money and effort. I wouldn’t say Bethesda hasn’t worked, Game Pass was 11 million when they bought it, it’s 25 now, and that’s without them launching any exclusive games yet.
  20. To be honest, if I had 70 bil to spend, looking at the list and knowing the Japanese ones are off the table I’d probably go for EA and Take Two instead, you get more popular franchises in areas they’re weak than another shooter, GTA still prints money, and they just brought Zynga. Activision $64.1b Electronic Arts: $38.88b Take Two Interactive: $18.23b Nexon: $15.52b Bandai Namco: $15.44b Netmarble $7.46b Ubisoft: $6.58b Konami: $6.09b Square Enix: $5.59b Capcom: $4.60b Sega: $3.73b
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.