"Since IGN's inception more than a decade ago, we've scored games on a 100-point scale. That changes today.
After many long discussions (and really, this has been going on for years), we've decided to alter our review scale. From today forward, we will score games on a 20-point scale (meaning games score will be 7.0 or 7.5 or 8.0, etc.)."
It's now easier than ever to make "broad incorrect assumptions" about how games work.
yes
when i said "how is it easier" i was referring to the thing that was called easier
congrats
People parroting AI responses without actually knowing about the subject to be able to tell if its accurate or within context
Constant rise of media/youtubers chasing negativity as it generates more views
Continued increase of independent “media” that rarely seems to care about fact checking or context (linked to point above)
More and more people using said youtubers/streamers/tik tokers as their news/opinion consumption and then just repeating everything (even more so when dealing with streamers that basically seem to have cults for a fanbase)
Making up fake news, information, files, etc and making them viral being easier than ever thanks to AI and social media explosion of provocative topics
I mean… it shouldn’t really need that much explaining why he is right in saying its easier than ever, all those same points right now apply to pretty much every topic out there, not just games
I'm just gonna say, the PS YouTubers that I watch don't do that. You want to know what YouTubers do, do that? One guess. You got it 😅
Because people can just say random crap and get upvoted. It reinforces them to think what they say has validity.
Stop releasing broken games that need 6-12 months of patches/updates and while waiting for those patches/updates if gamers complain we are lecturer by game developers and community managers on how we don't understand how hard development is. First of all we are gamers we don't need to understand we are paying money to play a game and at the very least we expect a working product
Games cost 80 now and in few years will be 90 and within 10 years will be $100. So is it really asking for a lot to say please release games when they are in a stable playable state? Release now fix it later, release it now get some criticism but later when we will fix it gamers will praise us and call us great and our game sales will rise again. It's the same cycle. Just look at cyberpunk 2077 and how developers hid the actual console footage and reviews were using footage provided by CDPR and gamers were mad and now many of those same gamers praise CDPR for the job well done. This is why gaming is where it is today and developers know they can release unfinished games
Who do you think chooses the release date? The in the chair developer or their "I've never played a video game and never coded one" CEOs?
For as much as we blame the CEO's we shouldn't be so naive to always guce free pass to high ups in the studios. Concord developers are prime example of that, Sony didn't need to force them they were make dumb decisions as is
You do know when a game makes back it's development costs there are 6 to 7 figure bonuses /royalties
It would be awesome if every game made had no major issues and didn’t require any patches from day one. Unfortunately, with the complexity of [most] games these days, that’s an unrealistic expectation.
There’s not a dev out there who wouldn’t like more time to work on their baby. But, outside of self-published, they’re not the ones who are setting a release date. Eventually the bean counters, sitting in their luxurious offices, decide that enough time and money has been spent creating the product and its high time they started to see a return on their investment.
Arguing with these people that you need another 12 to 18 months to iron out some of the problems gets you precisely nowhere. They don't give a damn about the developers, or the games really, that care about one thing and one thing only. Profit!
Telling them that releasing a game which isn’t fully finished and will affect the profit margin by association of a poor product also gets you nowhere, they simply say ship it, then fix it.
There are exceptions to the rule of course, as there always is, but those are fewer and far between these days.
Sadly what you are saying is true too. Gaming has become too big to where now those who have zero interest want to invest in it
I agree and that’s why accountability is key. Of course game development is a lot that requires a village to get it done, but all us gamers want is a finish product that works, so we can keep coming back for more via sequels. And when it comes to retail the customer is always right.
It’s bad when the game developers develop unnecessary things like too much microtransactions, from an already $80 plus game, when we just want the finish product, not too many paywall from one $80 - $100 game!
Most drivers don’t know how cars are made, but still expect the car to be good quality and reliable.
The thing is that when you dont understand something, the judgement of quality becomes affected. People will see a giant open world game with infinite variables and say “why is this buggy?” The one who understands will say “it has to be buggy, thats the trade-off.”
Most gamers understand that. Bethesda essentially build their games that way. What we don’t understand is, you can buy the car now at full price and the wheels will arrive in a few months-like many games tend to be.
I’m using the car industry as an example, but they are just as bad sometimes. Such as paying for features that are already included in the car. Oh, you want sports mode? Pay more! It’s the same engine and transmission! It’s just a mode that is locked away.
@franwex
Maybe you do, but alot of them dont understand. I see the discourse around it constantly.
@MDTUNKOWN
Apply this to yourself next time you f up. Or better yet, feel free to go and develop a bethesda style game. Tell me how that works out.
Armageddon, oblivion remaster is not a new game, its remaster of almost 20 year old game and the game has fps issues on a ps5 pro. Because of guys like you, devs think they can release unfinished products and now also increase the price.
It doesn't matter. I don't know how a good risotto is made, but I know when it tastes like sh$%.
It is impossible to understand everything in today's modern world, but despite this we can still say a product is sh$% while not understanding the process. If we are not allowed to do this, we would be forced suck up any sh%& people give us and say it's good because, "we don't understand the process". This is the height of stupidity.
Why do we need to understand anything? I'm a consumer i dont care how its made or what it takes to make a game, i buy it if I think it looks good this just sounds like victimhood 101
If this games turns out to be shit do we give them a pass because reasons?
@anast
Just because you can do a thing, doesnt mean you should. If a person does not like a game, fine. But people cast a domain expansion so large with their opinion, it starts to effect others adversely. Just because a game is crap for one, doesnt mean thats the case for everyone, and that is something many dont….understand….
@cockney
You need to understand because it makes things better…including for yourself. If you understand the true nature of why a game does not resonate with you, if you understand that its not objectively bad just because it doesn’t resonate with you, it can make your own experiences better. It will definitely make things better for other people because they have a habit of acting based upon the opinions of others. If people had an opinion from a place of understanding, more people will be able to make better informed decisions. Understanding will definitely help the devs. They wont be left in a confused stupor as to what happened that caused such unnecessary outrage against their hard worked game *Cough cough dragon age
Lack of mastery will come back and bite you in the rear end, when you have no games to play because vitriolic feedback broke all of the pillars holding up gaming.
Vapourware can end up being the stuff of legend, like Rockstar's Agent, Star Wars 1313, or StarCraft: Ghost. Without ever seeing the light of day, these games never risked the possibility of being played and forgotten, and instead live on forever as the subjects of lengthy YouTube essays.
Still, Molyneux's most notable lost game (or tech demo, depending on who you asked at the time) was arguably Project Milo.
I can see the potential of the kinect hardware... its rather impressive tech, but it was just not meant to be for gaming. If anything, MS had a huge missed opportunity to have used it for the AR/VR projects.
You can use the Kinect as an SLS camera for paranormal investigations. So it wasn’t a complete failure.
Remember Star Wars Kinect announcement? Biggest laughable acting seen
"Unfortunately, as we were developing Milo, so the Kinect device was being developed. And they realised that the device that Alex Kipman first showed off would cost $5,000 for consumers to buy.
"So they cost-reduced that device down to such a point, where the field-of-view...I think it was a minuscule field-of-view. In other words, it could only just see what's straight in front of you."
Hmm, exactly what tech was in it, that was cut, affected the development? It was only ever interpreting visual and audio inputs right? The xbox was processing those inputs.
Nor do I see how the field of view thing is relevant to the discussion.
Exactly! Tf kinda BS statement was that? i don't really see how fov is relevant at all, since when do you move all around a room while talking/interacting to someone?
This is entirely untrue. There was never a 5000 dollar Kinect prototype that could somehow use a wider field of view to scan and import generated in-game items and advance AI by over a decade. Anybody that fell for this was a stupid moron child, myself included. Anybody that falls for this lie now is a stupid moron child who doesn't realize that these people *only* know how to lie.
The FTC has officially dropped its case against Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard.
"The sweet smell of tax dollars burning"
They never stood a chance. It was a lost cause from the start. And yet, still, they´d decided to go ahead and double down on their bs to bleed the taxpayer even more.
@slate: “ The sweet smell of tax dollars burning “
The smell of political donations endorsements under the table.
There I fixed it it for you
We all knew Microsoft plan of “10 years of all systems publishing “ and some of its supporters happy that after all the games would be “exclusive to Xbox “ now that things have changed and Microsoft got humbled by the lost of money from CoD going down from OVER A BILLI🤑N to
MILLI😩NS the sales failing of games that would released on PlayStation and be forced by INVESTORS asking for their M🤑NEY to grow faster than the next 10 years it is obvious that it would be a waste of money to continue this litigation.
Edit:@obscured: “ They never stood a chance. It was a lost cause from the start “
Same as your grievance stages.
Have you passed the bargaining stage yet ? Or are you still on the anger stage 🤣
I think they're convinced now that MS won't (and can't) withhold releases from conpeting platforms. MS on the street corner now like, "Who wants a taste?!"
That's how it always starts, "I'll just work this street corner for a short while until I get caught up on my bills..."
Oh yeah, they're totally gonna make Xbox exclusives again, with the hardware they're totally committed to selling and making available lol
As far as I'm aware, the only 'deal' that was discussed was for Call of Duty. Xbox had no obligation to make any of their other games multiplatform. They did that of their own accord.
**btw, I'm talking about street food vendors, just in case there's any confusion!
https://external-content.du...
I've seen videos and talk a online speculating MS long game. Some think that MS multiplat move is use to appease the FTC so they can buy more and is somehow a move that could get Sony to open up their platform. In other words them going third party and letting their games go everywhere. MS possible scheme and ulterior motives, speculated by Jeff Grubb is that putting Xbox store on PS via regulation Which would hurt PS buissness very badly because that 30% cut would be even less or not a cut at all. MS buys more because they're "playing nice" by opening up its platform to Epic store and steam which would force Apple and Sony to open up their ecosystem to other stores like MS.
If that's the case that'll mean as I said before, PS fans buying Cod on PS via MS store would give 100% maybe even 90% of the money being pocketed by MS while Sony's store front wanes when it comes to third party because guess what? MS is buying more third party and preying off the extreme ignorance of the FTC. Manipulation of the FTC and MS overtaking the PS store and customers
My thing is this. I know it's a opinion and speculation but why does Sony have to open up its store or force them to go multiplat? If they still believe in selling their freakin console then let them do it. If they want to provide the best games and the best content for its fans then let them do it!? Why because the competition is trash at selling games and consoles for 14 years now Sony has to change? MS using the ignorance of the FTC to overtake gaming as we know it?
Again it's just talk and opinion but man this seems very, very possible imo.
Well, at the time, I actually did think the FTC and CMA did a poor job in court. But also the judge.
Having said that - it is what it is.
If 75bn mergers in any industry ain't a threshold to deny them, then I don't know what is.
As far as your thoughts about other 3rd parties getting taken over in the future go:
I think publisher buyouts are off the list now. I think it would be reeeeally difficult for MS to win another trial try taking over any other publisher.
But smaller studios ... maybe.
However, right now I can't see studios out there advocating for a buyout from Microsoft.
That isn't to say an announcement of such couldn't drop on Monday already. Because we today know that Microsoft had approached a plethora of other studios in 2018 to 2021, such as IOI, CD Project, etc.
We'll see. And we can't do anything about it. It's up to trade commissions and then probably courts to decide.
"I think publisher buyouts are off the list now. I think it would be reeeeally difficult for MS to win another trial try taking over any other publisher."
That's the thing MS is ticking all the boxes by not have anything be exclusive so the CMA/FTC see that they're doing "fair practice" in games and content distribution. Which technically greenlits more aquisions or it makes it easier for acquisitions because MS is a mega publisher now.
"However, right now I can't see studios out there advocating for a buyout from Microsoft."
Hopefully not but them going multiplat could entice Studios to join MS because nothing is not longer exclusive which means more money for them, studio and teams.
We can't do nothing about it but Sony can. They can block xbox games on their console (lose that 30% cut) but Sony won't do that because that's money that will be lost and Sony runs a buissness. That's the only way to hurt or slow down Xbox.
I'm probably over thinking it as I do these things but it's something we shouldn't just ignore and be weary of MS motives here. I'm keeping an eye on them.
The idea that Microsoft is manipulating the FTC and forcing Sony to open its platform is silly and has no evidence to back it up. Microsoft’s multiplatform approach is 100% due to past failures and its laughable position in the gaming industry. Their best attempt was a fluke and a lie, brought on by Sony’s missteps and a poorly made machine that broke down too often.
Sony would never allow themselves to be "forced" to do anything; they control their platform and storefront perfectly fine without the need or desire to add an unnecessary Microsoft storefront. Even if, by some flaw on Sony’s part, Microsoft were able to introduce its store on PlayStation, Sony would adapt rather than collapse. Digital storefront competition already exists (Steam, Epic Games Store, Xbox Store), and PlayStation’s business won’t suddenly "wane."
Also, regulators like the FTC don’t operate on ignorance—they actively assess market behavior to prevent monopolies. Microsoft isn’t secretly overtaking gaming with some ultimate scheme. The industry might be changing or shifting (for the worse, in my opinion), but Sony will continue evolving based on market trends, not because of alleged schemes.
Gaming isn’t about one company "playing nice" or another being "forced" to change—it’s about making money with games, something Microsoft has yet to achieve in 25+ years.
"The idea that Microsoft is manipulating the FTC and forcing Sony to open its platform is silly and has no evidence to back it up."
That's why I said it was all speculation that's what Jeff Grubb opinion. I made that clear several times. You know what's funny? When Jim was in court ppl got mad at the FTC for protecting Jim Ryan instead of the consumer. Maybe he was right to worry about his business. Now look Releasing Xbox games on PS keeps MS studio an a float. Now Xbox games are all over PS now. Maybe Jim was onto something.
MS is still competing with Sony just in a very different way. The FTC back down mainly means they can buy more and MS next steps can proceed. We'll have to see what happens in the future but I wouldn't be so sure on your stance.
@Lightning77
MS putting games everywhere is the most consumer friendly thing I've seen a game company do.
@InUrFox
What does "putting everywhere" actually mean?
This book has so many pages.
• Xbox was dying in revenue
• Regulators put a 10 year deal on CoD
• Microsoft had to give away the streaming
• Spencer himself only offered 3 yrs initially
And most importantly
• Again, Xbox was dying in revenue
Xbox have the benefit of their actual financial situation giving regulators and courts the impression they release games everywhere, what they actually do.
But for reasons they can't be proven guilty of anything in court.
I'm not judging, it's just what it is.
IF the Series generation would have developed differently and was much more successful, I don't hesitate any second to believe in what Spencer had originally planned to do:
• Make everything Xbox exclusive
• We today know that Spencer had also approached Sega, From Software, CD Project, Nintendo, and even Valve was on their list of buyouts.
MS are playing a card here everyone knows why they are doing it.
Putting Doom "everywhere", which even was it already before it got bought, ain't a MS thing.
It would had hurt them in many ways if they'd put it exclusively to Xbox.
But, no matter what - it is what it is.
Xbox bought themselves back into the game. And I think many people just don't have very fond feelings towards this behaviour, wether on corporate nor private levels.
Let's see how they'll run with it.
In 2030, but most importantly after regulations will have expired we will learn better.
Seemed like a lost cause anyway. Microsoft gambled and it paid off big time. That's what you call a big boss move. Sony played a huge part in the success of that acquisition.
Great Graphics 10
Great Soundtrack 10
Great Story 10
Excellent Replay Value
IGN Final Score 9.5
I like this. It will stop the "why 8.9 and not 9.0". Its better for the website and might make scoring more consistent. (but theyre reviews will still be messed up)
I still think giantbomb has the best scale to date...
Looks like they are doing a Gamespot
I like this improvement.