The year is 2018. Valve have stated they will intervene even less than they did previously in what will be sold via Steam. Everything will be allowed. This year will likely see over 10,000 games released on Steam. The content is coming, and we are powerless to stop it. We must go back.
Blacknut has announced a brand new partnership with Kalypso Media. This will see Kalypso's gaming portfolio arrive on Blacknut.
The partnership will take hold from June 27th with the arrival of a selection of Klaypos Media titles onto the Blacknut cloud gaming platform.
TNS: Expedition 33 was the wake-up call Square Enix needed, telling it turn-based RPGs are still popular, but that shouldn't have been the case.
True, but if it does get it through their thick skulls, then that works.
Although, the Dragon Quest 1 + 2 HD remakes will be turn-based and (the worst kept secret) Final Fantasy IX remake should be turn-based I would imagine. Let's see if any newer games go turn-based too.
DQIII HD Remake was turned based and very successful. Then there was a really obscure turn based game came Balder's Gate 3. I heard it might have done well.
It won't get through to them though, despite E33's success, they still won't risk going fully turn based for their big budget projects simply because they are still in the mindset that it needs to be action combat to appeal to the mainstream audience. I hope I'm wrong but don't underestimate just how stubborn Japanese execs can be
Ya'll are hyping up Expedition 33 too much. Reminder that FF XVI sold 3 million in a week and it took Expedition 33 approximately a month to get to that (33 days to reach 3.3 million).
While it is true that Sqaure Enix has moved away from turn based games compared to how they were in the past, there is a good reason for it.
Older gamers will know this but during the ps2 era, we were flooded with turned based games from Japanese studios and this created a form of fatigue back then going into the next generation.
When Square released FF13, they received heavy criticism for making the game turned based like every other FF game and not doing enough to innovate. This is why they made FF15, FF7 Remake and FF16 have real time combat. It gave the series a fresh spin and has brought in new fans to the series.
I personally would be happy with either turned based FF or the real-time combat version we see today.
Dang wish I saw your post before I made mine because we definitely feel the same way lol
Yeah hit the nail on the head but its like ww2 games we get hundreds of them then a decade of nothing and people start missing them i think we're going to start seeing them return
Claire, dragon quest even yakuza have seen turn based return
Only need to look at their own game DQ 11 approaching 10 million to show there's a market. And that's not as big of a name as FF
Another article about Expedition 33 and Square Enix and turn-based games? This is starting to sound like propaganda.
The game didn't sell because it's a turn-based game; it sold and is enjoyed because it's a really freaking good game that released completed at a good price without gamer drama attached to it. No Mtx, no wait-until-it's-patched, minimal bloat, a self-contained story, no multiplatform BS. Just a solid original game that absolutely nails what it intended to do.
Maybe try actually listening to the fans who have supported the series for decades. This habit of ignoring your core audience just to chase people who were never interested in Final Fantasy in the first place makes no sense. And when that approach fails, doubling down on it is beyond baffling.
The battle system has never been the main reason non-FF or non-JRPG players stayed away. Gutting the series’ identity to chase a broader market doesn’t attract new players. It just alienates the loyal ones.
Keep going down this road and we’ll end up with Final Fantasy Fortnite abomination or a F2P Battle Royale game.. Oh wait…
Mass Damage & Consumer Foundation in the Netherlands has filed a class action against Sony for inflating PlayStation Store prices.
My personal opinion:
Manufacturers and publishers have indeed inflated the industry.
From $700 million development costs for games like Call of Duty, to digital (store) prices for games and DLCs, online multiplayer fees on consoles (why can you play Helldivers 2 online for free on PC but not consoles?) or still preventing sell/lend digitally purchased games.
Sometime in the future, this bubble will collapse.
They should know better, but they just can't help themselves and suck even the last penny out of our wallets.
Because Sony knows people will be forced to pay those prices for single player and multiplayer games, not everyone prefers PC gaming. Sony also has a monopoly on PlayStation digital games. In 2019, they stopped allowing retailers and game key sellers to sell PlayStation digital games, making them available only through the official PlayStation Store
They should be suing the individual publishers increasing the prices to $80 instead of suing the store. There are plenty of publishers still selling game for like $50 with much success (like E33). But this proves that the publishers are the ones setting the prices.... so again nothing changes because they aren't even going after the main offender. How is suing Sony going to make Microsoft not charge $80 for the next COD? Sony being the number one store in the market doesn't mean that publisher have to charge us an arm and a leg. Again the industry is laughing at us because consumers never get real representation. Just these fake platitudes that are meaningless.
"How is suing Sony going to make Microsoft not charge $80 for the next COD"
Because Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly, I can purchase Call of Duty at a huge discount from CDKeys or other gaming retailers. The only way to purchase digital PlayStation games is through the PlayStation Store.
Weird, I swore GoW, Stellar Blade, Horizon Zero Dawn, TLoU, etc. were on the steam store....uh.....
@djI3485
I'm talking about PlayStation games that you can only purchase on PlayStation. I can purchase Steam and Epic games from 3rd party retailers and key stores.
"Sony to stop selling full-game download codes at retailers"
https://www.videogamer.com/...
About time. There is zero fair reason why digitally distributed products that you cannot recoup any value when you want to dispose of them, should be priced higher than that of physical copies that entail all of the costs and the benefits of owning.
Curation for political and ideological reasons (which is why all these journalists are up in arms) is a COMPLETELY SEPARATE issue from curation as a form quality-control.
You can allow panty-sniffing games on your platform while also removing games that are straight-up broken or violate explicit laws, which is the stance Valve has taken. "Broken" games can be reported via Steam's internal systems and required no change to their rules.
Quality-control is being used as an unrelated strawman argument by folks who were actually arguing for censorship.
Forget that! If you dont like it feel free to release your game on a different platform... Oh wait You want what Steam has to offer (its userbase) but dont like the rules. If your game is truly good it will still get noticed, there is plenty of press, other curators, "influencers" etc... stop pretending like your game would have been a huge success but it got lost in the trash heap. Name ONE GAME that this has actually happened too because its bad right now so there should still be one game that would have been as HUGE as Minecraft if not for all the other games that no one saw it..
Imo it means that indie devs who do make quality products will end up just being lumped up with people who make broken games, and unlike AAA companies, they don't have the budget to market their games to rise above all of the trash games, that come along side the quality indies.
I guess ultimately indie devs have consoles as a safer place to launch their games as they have more quality control than Steam does.