NowGamer: "MGS 5: Ground Zeroes is just one example of a game that sparked debates around value for money. But does the issue of value for money have any place in videogame reviews?"
With so many games fighting for players' attention and interest losing out over time, time sink games are at risk of eventually losing steam.
It was worrisome to begin with.
It's a niche genre with only a handful of hits that can stand the test of time.
Only a few will catch on. You need a perfect storm to be successful in GaaS and a bit of luck on top of that. But a potential cash cow will keep them trying and some will go out of business because of it.
Helldivers 2 manages just fine…
Keep production costs low… don’t just make custscenes until the mechanics and enemies are perfected first.
Make so much content that you can drip extra content for years, and the game already feels complete without them.
Most importantly: make weapons, enemies, levels, and mechanics that will stand the test of 1000 hours. This might require more devs embracing procedurally generated leveled, which I think separates Helldivers 2 from Destiny’s repetitiveness.
Nameer from eXputer: "Some exceptions aside, I don't think the battle pass is a net positive for gaming with how they're implemented in most live service titles."
I like the way Helldivers 2 does battle passes. It allows you to make purchases on each level of the battle pass and gives you the option of choosing which item to unlock first. The more purchases you make using medals the further you progress. There is no timer and you can earn medals towards purchasing stuff via personal orders and Major orders.
I haven't played much live service games that have battle passes but I remember some games that have battle passes where you progress through it linearly using an exp system. What makes it really bad is that the battle pass will have like 50 or more levels with the cooler stuff being closer to the end. They also have an in-game shop that sells exp boosters so you can reach the end of the pass before it refreshes. Everyone ilse will have to grind their way through.
battle pass in fortnite is perfect; buy one and it buys the rest for every other season as it gives you more money than the first cost. so 8.50 and season ends with you getting 13.00, it pays for the next and you have some pocket change to save up for cash shop. All of which is optional
Sony is taking actions as video by Moore’s Law is Dead, has been issued with a copyright claim.
And people say it's all fake because Sony haven't said anything 😂 conveniently forget the PS4 Pro was only announced 2 months before release.
Just announce it already! I want to preorder one asap. But in reality they don’t want to lessen PS5 sales until Pro is ready to launch so I understand the business part of it. September is probably when they announce it with an early November launch like the PS4 Pro
I would take that video and upload a torrent of it, fuck that copyright bullshit. If your going to do something that has a chance of being taken down, make a torrent first share it. Then Sony or any other company is helpless and you can laugh in their faces, taunting them to try to take it down 🤣
As much as the PS4 Pro didn't represent a major % in the playerbase, announcing a 'better' model will hinder sales from the 'base' model. They are right, business-wise.
Yes.
Yes, games are competing for gamers' time and money. If the game isn't worthy of the price it asks, then it should be mentioned in the review. It's one of the biggest reasons I don't use a traditional number scale for my reviews.
*edit* Take The Elder Scrolls Online for example. I didn't play the game, so I can't speak on personal experience, but most people feel that the game is fairly generic in it's offering as an MMO, and as an Elder Scrolls game, it doesn't really feel like an Elder Scrolls game. It's $60 for the game upfront, and $15 per month after that. That literally directly influences how long you can play the game, especially if you have other responsibilities that take priority over paying that monthly fee. That factor alone warrants mentioning it in the review.
I agree with what this article is saying in regards to how we shouldn't have a checklist of features to refer to when evaluating whether a game is good or not, but to answer the question "Should you buy this game or not?" It kinda has to be a part of the discussion.
Why Kotaku's reviews are designed like they are.
ummmm of course....This is why I like Angry Joes reviews.
No everybody has a different idea on money's value. Sure mention content and longevity, but IMO if a reviewer cannot get the point across on what a game lacks and they need to say "this game is to expensive" they are lazy and should not be a reviewer.