449

Always good to see someone in the industry push back on all of these shitty tactics the AAA publishers want to push.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] teft@lemmy.world 113 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I'm at 750 hours in this game which I spent $70 on. More games like this please. Even if they're multi years apart I'd rather play a game like BG3 that has immense replayability than some random looter shooter that is trying to mine my wallet using every dark pattern known to humanity.

[-] Bob_Robertson_IX@discuss.tchncs.de 57 points 10 months ago

I swore off buying 'new' games close to their release dates because I was sick of overpriced, unfinished games that are just trying to squeeze every cent out of me. Then BG3 came out and everyone raved how great it was, but I stuck to my principles and said I'd play it a year or so after its release. Then someone pointed out to me that the game plays well, has no charge for online play, doesn't have microtransactions, and is complete. So I bought it, figuring that this is the type of game we should be rewarding, and I've not been disappointed.

[-] sukhmel@programming.dev 6 points 10 months ago

To be entirely fair, BG3 has its share of bugs and act 3 is not as polished as the first two.

But still, it is by far the most polished AAA game I've seen in a long time, and very satisfying, too. So I'm ok with some roughness

[-] dalekcaan@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

In fairness, pretty much all games have some bugs, even far after launch. The issue is launching games that are clearly not finished.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 8 points 10 months ago

I don't even care about the replayability. I can see myself at some point going for another run at BG3, but that's a big commitment and I think I'm going to play BG1 and 2 before then, and plenty of other games.

I care if it's an interesting and enjoyable experience. I'd gladly play another Outer Wilds, even though it's hardly replayable, because it was such a good and unique experience. I don't care to play yet another Assassin's Creed or whatever other garbage that isn't interesting after you've tried it once and also purposefully wastes your time with stuff that is not designed to improve the experience, only playtime.

[-] thoro@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago

Yeah I sometimes really don't like the "hours of entertainment" argument because it almost overvalues bloated experiences over tight ones.

I've played <=3 hour games that have left more impact than some 200 hour games

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 months ago

I would say 99% of the time if the game took 100+h to play and was a story focused game then it was a waste of time. BG3 is an exception here. From a quick search, RDR2 takes 50h and it isn't a short game. Would you watch a 100+h movie? Of course not. There's almost no way a well told story is taking that long, unless it's some kind of Immersive experience or something.

That said, plenty of non-story games will take much longer. If the focus is good gameplay, there's a near limitless amount of time it can take. If there's story interwoven, it could take any amount of time. I've put far more than 100h into a ton of indie games that do interesting things with their gameplay. You just don't see that experimentation coming from the AAA space normally because it's not guaranteed profit.

[-] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

plenty of non-story games will take much longer

Yup. Satisfactory doesn't have much of a story (although it's still early access) but I think I'm cloae to 1,000 hours on it.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 10 months ago

I like the idea of Satisfactory, but I can't enjoy it for some reason. I've played too much Factorio and it has too many quality of life things that Satisfactory is missing. With the number of overhaul mods, there's no end to how much Factorio can be played either.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

I bought it when the alpha was released.

Like two years of act 1 had me around 200 hours before it even released. Act 1 did seem bigger back then tho, the intro especially.

I've moved from PC to PS5 since and I'm definitely going to rebuy on PS5 eventually. It's the only game I still play on PC these days.

[-] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 months ago

I'm interested. What made you switch recently? Seems like most migrate over to PC from console and not the other way around. For cozy couch play I've gotten myself a 50' hdmi cable and a wireless controller, with an apk on my phone that let's me control the pc so I don't have to go back to it to start a game or anything.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

PS5 controller and missing out on all the PS4 exclusives in addition to this gen.

The controller sounds gimmicky if you haven't tried it, but for racing and shooters it's insanely immersive.

I think there's more support for it on PC now, but I don't know if the haptic triggers work. CoD feels like you're pulling an actual trigger and for racing brake/throttle is realistic in an inexplicabe way.

BG3 is probably the only game I'll double buy tho, and that's just because of how great it is.

[-] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 4 points 10 months ago

people generally dont have the time to go through an rpg, hence why rpgs in general are seen as niche in terms of overall sales as a genre. this includes mmos, where mmos were a lot more plentiful 2 or even a decade ago, compared to now.

[-] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

I have yet to play it, but I can't wait to get my hands on it.

[-] ClaireDeLuna@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Tbh I really enjoy shorter games that are reasonably priced.

I probably only find the time to play 1-2 150+ hr game a year. The rest of my free time is spent socializing, dealing with shit like college, or playing shorter games that I can knock out in multiple 1-2 hour sessions within two weeks

I hate how so many games are demanding of your time today, or feed off that annoying FOMO feeling.

I'm happy that I know Baldurs gate will always be there and I'm really not going to miss out on anything important. Maybe I'll get to it next year lol

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] northendtrooper@lemmy.ca 20 points 10 months ago

He is our man in shining armor........literally.

[-] doublejay1999@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

The problem is it gets polluted by greed and the publishers want it both ways: they want £60 front, for half a game. The second half of the game is sliced into 3 - for an extra £20 a pop.

[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 months ago

You mean £5-20/month for 3 years as a "season pass"

[-] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 10 months ago

Yes, and autobill, which assumes that around 70% of subscribers will forget about it and never use it.

[-] bruhduh@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Sony with Spiderman 3 be like: 50$ part 1, 50$ part 2, 50$ multiplayer, for those out of the loop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UubAtaGfqHE

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Subscriptions need to go down, down, down, down the river.

[-] LunchEnjoyer@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

At this point I'm thinking about buying BG3 even though it's not the typicla game for me, just to support the devs and their good mentality towards gamers 🙏

[-] ratcliff@lemmy.wtf 8 points 10 months ago

I won't subscribe or buy micros, I only want to play fun games

[-] aksdb@feddit.de 5 points 10 months ago

I want freedom. Offer both so everyone can pick the model that best matches their usage pattern. A GamePass+GeForceNow combo is nice if you want to play a diverse library of games without having to install terrabytes of game data. Also if you only want to play stuff a short while (hello ADHD), a subscription might be better than full price.

But again: freedom. I don't want to be forced into subscriptions but neither would I want someone to forbid me from subscribing.

[-] AnonTwo@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago

Subscription games to me are only good when there's nothing good. Something to do in between.

They're never on the same level of quality as a finished product. Even for the high points that are really high, the low points are disappointingly low

[-] sneezycat@sopuli.xyz 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Because games are made subscription-based for profit, so the incentive isn't making a good game or giving the players more content or whatever.

The games that want to give the players more actual content have no subscription, like Terraria, Deep Rock Galactic, Stardew Valley or other fantastic games that keep getting free updates.

Maybe you could exclude early WoW from that statement but current WoW definitely fits in the greedy bag too.

[-] SharkAttak@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago

Aah, you meant that boss.. makes sense.

[-] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 10 months ago

I think I need to buy a certain game juat to support a certain point of view...

[-] foggianism@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Suprisingly human take from a Baldur's Gate 3 boss. Usually, they just wait in a chamber and want to slice you in half.

[-] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Fuck everything about them having like 3 actions while I get one at a 35% hit rate. Goddamn...

[-] StereoTrespasser@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Reevaluate your party and where you're attacking from(height, darkness, etc). I have a couple level 8 or 9 fighters that have multi-attack, so it evens out a bit soon enough. Under some circumstances, with a high initiative, multi-attack, then action surge, my fighters can debilitate an enemy before they even know they're in a fight.

[-] WilloftheWest@feddit.uk 1 points 10 months ago

Are you effectively synergising your party? Martial characters have multiple actions, while casters typically get one.

If you’re frustrated with 35% hit chances then you could focus on using some members of your party to debuff the enemy and buff the hard hitters; this has much better damage output than all 4 party members just slinging attacks with hit chances below 65%. If you want to just blast with all 4 characters then that’s a valid play but it isn’t guaranteed to be viable.

[-] Maeve@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

Spoke to my adult offspring who said yes, he has whatever iteration of PS, but plays single player games, because with work and familial responsibilities, who has money to waste on subscriptions when time is limited?

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

You also can't step away from a multi-player game whenever you want, which is a huge problem when you have kids and a spouse. Your attention will almost always be needed the moment things heat up in your game.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Forcing subscription would probably be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. I have no desire to pay for a gaming subscription. I play one or two games at a time, tops. The excuse that it gives me access to an entire library of games I DGAF about is the same bullshit cable companies did. Give you one or two channels (games) you want and a bunch of shit you don’t want so you have to subscribe to the next service to get the one or two things you want from them.

[-] paddirn@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

He gets me, although oddly enough I have paid for subscriptions in the past for a short while and didn't hate it, but for some reason the idea of paying for a gaming subscription feels like such a rip-off compared to other things like Disney+ and Netflix. Those provide very bite-sized bits of content, just an hour or two of my day to fully take in an individual show or movie. Whereas with a game, it can take me weeks or months to complete something like that with the limited time I have available in a day.

So paying a monthly subscription to only play an hour or two of gaming per day vs only watching an hour or two on a tv just feels so much different. In the space of a month, I might watch dozens of different shows on a streaming service, but if I were paying for a subscription gaming service, I might still be on the same damn game that whole time. It just doesn't feel like it's a good use of my funds.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Love the immediate contrast between this and the dude from Ubisoft where he claimed that people just need to get used to not owning games. Larian is definitely the way to run a company.

[-] prime_number_314159@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

It's already been normalized for music and videos for people to subscribe instead of owning. It may just be a matter of time for video games, or it may be that there are real lasting differences between video games and other types of media.

Of course, there are several sorts of games you can't own already, and many games that are all but inaccessible as abandonware type things, so that process is at least somewhat started.

[-] Kedly@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

The indie scene in Video Gaming is FAR stronger than the Indie Scene for at least movies, which I think will cement the ownership vs subscription in a stronger way than music and videos had. Digital ownership does have its worrying traits, but I still think Video Game ownership will stay strong at least as long as Gaben is alive, past that, if Valve DOES nosedive, well the internet'll still internet

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
449 points (98.1% liked)

PCGaming

6507 readers
66 users here now

Rule 0: Be civil

Rule #1: No spam, porn, or facilitating piracy

Rule #2: No advertisements

Rule #3: No memes, PCMR language, or low-effort posts/comments

Rule #4: No tech support or game help questions

Rule #5: No questions about building/buying computers, hardware, peripherals, furniture, etc.

Rule #6: No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.

Rule #7: No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts

Rule #8: No off-topic posts/comments

Rule #9: Use the original source, no editorialized titles, no duplicates

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS