VGChartz's Evan Norris: "Those that made it onto the Shortlist below are each special in their own way. Alan Wake 2, a long time in the making, dazzled players with its cutting-edge graphics and brilliant narrative. Baldur's Gate III wowed critics and consumers alike with an amazing cast of characters and dizzying gameplay freedom. Final Fantasy XVI impressed with its beautiful cut-scenes and fresh take on action combat. The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, a game under the shadow of impossibly high expectations, invigorated its audience with endless opportunities for experimentation. And Resident Evil 4 riffed on an 18-year-old formula, in some instances improving on one of the best games of all time."
With so many live-service games to choose from it can be incredibly overwhelming to decide what to play these days.
Gta from 2008 can at times have ten times the player count than suicide squad 2024.
gtaiv
https://steamdb.info/app/12...
SS
https://steamdb.info/app/31...
There is a pool of players that want to be milked bdsm style that pool is not growing as fast as the amount of players that are needed to support so many of these live service titles. The limited time crap is also a chore for alot of users like how diablo 4 forces user's to max out a character every 3 months to get the new gear.
I have 300 hours in the game, and while I see why it isn’t for everyone, I never played a game with such freedom and attention to detail. The world feels alive in a way I have personally never experienced.
On a side note, my wife has never liked video games, but I got her to try this one. She now has 150+ hours in the game. It took 17 years, but I can now share one of my favorite hobbies with her. Amazing game!
I think GaaS proves not every game needs to be GaaS. Sony’s finding this out the hard way.
I mean, that’s like picking on the special needs kid. MS hasn’t been doing so hot since they launched that sh*t show of an Xbox One. In their defense their exclusives coming up look a lot hotter than say Concord, Marathon, or whatever that GaaS Heist game Sony has.
My point was less console wars and more that GaaS is the most volatile of all models of games to produce. Jim Ryan made it an initiative to double down on them. I see far more failure than success and yet these scum bags keep pushing it almost out of spite for most of them not being supported. It’s pretty revolting to be honest. There’s literally ONLY one reason GaaS exists and it’s pretty damn greedy reason.
What did Sony find out with the 12 million sales of Helldivers 2? And we didn't even find out yet with Concord as it hasn't released yet.
And is every PS5 exclusive this year GaaS? Check your math on that.
First off, pull your head out of Sony’s ass. There’s no math to check. I said Jim Ryan’s focus on GaaS. So, work on your reading comprehension skills.
While we’re at it, since I know this is going to twist into an Irrational discussion, let’s just table this for when Concord releases. I get that it’ll ruffle fanboys feathers.
I only name dropped Sony because of their GaaS focus and, well you’re on this site quite frequently, let me know the ratio of Concord negativity articles to the positive ones…
I’m also shocked at the support for GaaS. This is why we’re at this point in the industry, though.
@crimson
Who is supporting GaaS?
I'm just pushing back on your statement that "every game is GaaS". Which is obviously brain dead looking at the single player games Sony published or had exclusively released so far this year compared to live service. And after Concord there's Astro Bot and Silent Hill 2.
And Helldivers 2 is clearly the game the devs wanted to make and Firewalk is a self proclaimed multiplayer game studio so they wouldn't have made a game you wanted to play anyways.
So take your head out of your own ass and stop with the hyperbole.
First off, “the every game as GaaS” was staying on the same line as the article title, “proving that not EVERY game needs to be live-service.”
I mean, holy sh*t, why get a wild hare up your a** over that? You saw me mention Sony, which I did over Concord’s reception and the fact that they have plans for more GaaS, and you totally go into defensive fanboy mode.
“Who’s supporting GaaS?”
Literally brings up how successful Helldivers 2 is.
It’s like impossible to discuss anything with fanboys because as soon as they pull away from swallowing Sony’s gravy they’re so out of touch with any negative fact over their precious brand that it just turns into a sh*t show to have any sensible discourse.
Facts: reception to GaaS games are mostly negative than positive.
Facts: More GaaS fail over GaaS games that do succeed.
Facts: Concord is getting poor reception
Facts: Sony has a bunch more GaaS in the pipeline.
So, yea get your head out of Sony’s ass and learn to interpret and comprehend what’s being said instead of losing your sh*t and claiming hyperbole. It’s super f*cking annoying.
You're just a baby that throws tantrums when a game genre comes out that you don't like.
And when you see one be unpopular you claim they all are so they stop making it like a child without considering there are people that like these kind of games and would like new ones. I don't like them. But i'm not a narcissist to go out and demand people stop making that type of game.
You have the same mentality as the executives that closed down Japan studio. "They don't sell, nobody likes them, spread the devs to other studios to make games that people actually like and buy."
Sony had one break records and one that might bomb. That won't stop them from making more. So keep seething.
What? Live service is there to milk money. Even if BG3 had 5 mil concurrent players it still wouldn't generate any extra money, that is the point of live service and for u to not own anything. BG3 being popular will sell more copies sure but this is not the point. And this is one of the best and biggest game in recent history of course it will have good numbers, it is relatively new too. I get what you are getting at but you are kinda brute forcing your point. Kinda of a no brainer take anyway tbh
What dumb sh!t article and thinking is this that concurrent players means a thing worth talking about? It has zero influence on how much lifetime money these companies make. Bg3 sold millions of copies at 60 dollars a pop and made bank. Having a bunch of players later on revisiting the game does little to say anything other than ppl like to play it. If the numbers go down compared to a live service game it makes no difference.
Tldr: concurrent players means nothing for single player games amd this article is a waste of time on what must have been a slow news day
Having spent three and a half decades playing games and the best part of a decade writing about them, Adam Smith embodies a lifelong passion for gaming. His journey led him to Larian Studios during the nascent stages of Baldur’s Gate 3's production, where he now serves as Writing Director. In this exclusive interview, Adam shares profound insights into crafting narratives, balancing rich lore with innovative storytelling, and his vision for the future of interactive narratives in video games.
Amazing game. Glad to see Larian finally being recognized with games like Original Sin and this.
In recent times, the Indie genre has lost its charm by becoming a loose term. There are no borders to decide whether a title is Indie or not.
The defining factor is creative freedom. If you answer to a publisher, and they push ideas, changes and their own vision, then you are not indie. If you have a small publishing agreement that brought in funding, but the publisher's stake in the company or project is not large enough to give them creative reign, then you are still indie bc you still remain independent of control.
It's that easy. Indie means independence of creative control, not independence from funding. Many times small time publishers of indies will take control of only the marketing side of things, which is usually very much appreciated. I've worked in this side of gaming.
*It's the same thing in indie films or indie music really, with varying levels of quality and funding. It's about retaining the creator's original vision without unwanted meddling.
Unfortunately, yes. Indies were originally games that were outside of the main market, created by studios with no ties to publishers or larger companies. Then, at some point, they started to include pretty much every game that looks smallish. And even that went the way of the dodo, and budget size started to be compared, which we often don't know; now it's pretty much whatever you are feeling that day. Some will say that it's about creative freedom, which is also basically impossible to measure in most games and could very well mean that a bunch of smaller projects by Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, etc., are actually indies.
So at the end of the day. It's another label that has very little meaning.
Of course it's Zelda smh.
A copy-paste game over BG3...Gotta get that access.
Star ocean 2 remake. That's easy to answer