Episode 5 in a series of games podcasts produced by Blasteroid.co.uk. This week: Destiny Alpha, Fallout: New Vegas and Dragon's Crown.
A former Halo and Destiny executive producer has said the live service model is "so much better for developers and players" than the one-off $60 purchase model.
Alan Wake 2, BG3, Tears of the Kingdom, Elden Ring, GoW Ragnarok, Hades, Returnal, Fallout 4, Dishonored, It Takes Two, Untitled Goose Game, Breath of the Wild, both of The Last of Us, Ghost of Tsushima, Sekiro, Psychonauts 2, Control, Celeste, Super Mario Odyssey, Bloodborne, The Outer Wilds, The Witcher 3, Dragon Age: Inquisition, Cocoon, The Dredge, and more and more and more.
Up against Overwatch and Destiny as far as critical acclaim and recognition as 'better' for players.
And, let me be honest, even 'for developers' is a lie. Want to know why? Because it's only good for people who can pump out graphics constantly and not overall quest designers, coders, engine devs, etc.
What this guy means is "we can give a lot of cosmetic content to players, who we think players like more because people spend money on it, and it's best for us because we don't have to pay for a full team to create a new game and just the people to pump out new graphics from one season to another." In no way is his comment a true reflection of what is 'better for players' let alone 'better for the industry stability over longer periods of time.'
This is more investor mindset focusing on maximizing profits by getting consumers to buy less for more while they spend less making it. That's it.
You know what's best for players? Newer, better, and more content that is good and not just cosmetic. Live service isn't that unless you pay $60 a year to them to add more for it (like Destiny and CoD do). Then you might get some improvements and new content. Even then? Not usually.
In terms of player feedback/awards yes but the list you made are all nothing in terms of profit.
Call of duty mobile alone laughs at that list that game is a billion dollar money making machine.
Toss in your apex/mmo/rivals/fortnight/robl ox/minecraft monoploy go or back to console with elder scrolls fallout 76.
Basically there is alot more live service style games that hit or go above the billion dollar mark than your list and that is what the people at top want cold hard cash. Heck alot fo them make a billion + a year
Gta 5 single player profit vs gtao profit as a example now that ps5/series has gtao as a free standalone with gta + there printing cash like its going out of style over there.
Being more profitable isn't better for the consumer or developers. That's better for executives in suits.
@Christopher
Umm exactly who do you think pay's the bill's and hands out the games budgets?
They have 0 care about a games award's/feedback its all profit driven some use to care like sony back in the day now its profit first.
0 likes shows how many are still on copium thinking the big publishers care about them
Well the Poll on the website is suggesting he is massively wrong and out of touch.
A big majority of the vote going to "I prefer one off purchases with paid expansions"
Couldn't agree more.
I'll always think the concept is awesome. Back during the PS3 era I pictured a Spider-Man game that would be the traditional open world swinging playground that they typically are but every comic issue would be turned into dlc. It'd be the entirety of the Amazing line, 2 to 3 issues at a time, turnt to dlc until the entire Amazing line is told in form of a game. That concept eventually made it to the industry and they have consistently fk'd it up with every game that has been made as a "service".
There is nothing like sitting down , popping in a great single player game and blocking out the world.
Sometimes I like to log into Fortnite and Call of Duty and just sit and listen to 12 years call me a n*****, f**, m***** f***** just so I can remember why I like to play single player games.
BLG writes, "Some of the most popular games have had a rough start, with some of them being downright unplayable.
Despite that, developers have managed to turn it around for them and make their game worth playing. Here are some games that had a rough start but were pretty great."
Sea of Thieves... I'm not disagreeing that the game has improved in terms of content. But I feel that the most significant change between now and its release is actually the public perception. Nowadays, most people are aware that the game is a multiplayer PvP-focused experience first and foremost, and not "Black Flag made by Rare". Consequently, people dismissing the whole experience because the single-player aspect is lacking or the story is plain are much less common.
Several years ago, i submitted an idea to Rare that would change up the mechanics of battling opponents in the game. whereby if you died in battle, you turned into a skeleton warrior and had to fight your way back to the land of the living. It was an interesting twist on respawning and would allow the player to experience both sides of a battle.
I keep hoping to see something like that get added to the game.
It's sad that this quick retort is more often than not true... The industry's acceptance of release and patch has gone too far.
Days gone! By the end of the game I couldn't drop it down! I went around so many hours killing zombies! It was addictive by the end.
I don't know, I got it abit late, and struggled for a few days, and then all of a sudden it just got good!!
The Fallout Anthology Edition is coming to PC very soon, and is packaged with some very S.P.E.C.I.A.L. bonuses.
It’s an awful downgrade to the last one they did
They included physical disc back then
I would love the classic fallout games on console. Closest I could find was atom rpg, I liked that one a lot
