I wonder how long it'd take until they take down STEEP. I suppose it's even less popular than The Crew, but I liked it that much I'd pay once more if someone would keep it alive after Ubi does the Ubi thing. Extreme sports are rarely portrayed in games, and for me it would be a huge loss even though I feel like I enjoyed every penny I spent at least thrice.
One exception is CD Project Red.U can buy cyberpunk through their store on gog.com and u will exactly owning it since u will able to download executable installer and game will have no DRM.Pay once own forever,same for witcher 3 and other games which they distribute on gog.com
The launch was terrible, but there are some things that keep them apart from the rest of terrible launches.
Cyberpunk 2077 was a really ambitious game, with a lot of new mechanics and incredible graphics. Beasts like that are really difficult to optimize for a large range of computers with different specs, so at first it ran poorly on some.
The most notably buggy release was the PS4 one. And rightfully so. They were trying to run a truly next gen game on a console which was more than a decade old. They not only had to optimize the game, but they basically made a completely different game, with different assets and engines, which was really difficult to do. Still, it was too much for the console, especially old PS4s that were full of dust or had old fans and were overheating.
Another important fact is that users were also pressuring CDPR into releasing Cyberpunk 2077. It was delayed at least once (maybe twice, I don't remember), and people wanted to play the game. They probably had to choose between delaying it another time or releasing it without polishing it that much.
I believe it was Cyberpunk 2077 that started the trend of "release now fix later" games. However, I don't think they really did it on purpose. The game was too ambitious for its own good, and having to develop, optimize and test two basically different versions of it was too big of a task for a studio that in today's terms wasn't even that big. The rest of the AAA producers just realized that CDPR still won loads of money at launch, and decided to release incomplete games on purpose, after seeing that CDPR could make profits that way.
But must importantly, CDPR did an amazing job at fixing the game, unlike many other studios releasing broken AAAs. They optimized the code, fixed most of the bugs, improved the AI massively and made the game really stable, to the point where I've seen it running at 40 FPS on 10+ year old overheating laptops. Even though it took a while, they still delivered the game they promised to their buyers.
I would argue No Man's Sky started the trend of "release now fix later" but I suppose they are not a big AAA studio. I suppose CDPR wasn't really considered as AAA until the release of Witcher 3.
It doesn't take that much to go and find out about games like AC:Unity and Arkham Knight that predate NMS. In fact I'm pretty sure Ubisoft and EA are the two companies most notorious for "Release broken fix later" to give you a head start on looking into things.
Discourse surrounding broken game launches/Release Broken Fix Later has been around a bit longer than NMS.
Cyberpunk 2077 was a really ambitious game, with a lot of new mechanics and incredible graphics. Beasts like that are really difficult to optimize for a large range of computers with different specs, so at first it ran poorly on some.
What about all the other "Ambitious games" that we've had over the years that come out just fine? A game being ambitious does not excuse a company releasing the game in what is blatantly an unfinished state. This isn't the case of a game having a few performance hiccups here and there but rather egregious bugs and severe performance issues across the board. This is stuff that is all over youtube, reddit, twitter and so on. It's pretty well documented how bad the game was.
The most notably buggy release was the PS4 one. And rightfully so. They were trying to run a truly next gen game on a console which was more than a decade old. They not only had to optimize the game, but they basically made a completely different game, with different assets and engines, which was really difficult to do. Still, it was too much for the console, especially old PS4s that were full of dust or had old fans and were overheating.
Again, this really isn't an excuse. They had the power the can the next gen versions of the game if it was so difficult to pull off. They also had the power to delay the game in order to make sure that it was ready for launch. They could have done so many things such that the last gen versions of the day would either never see the light of day or be ready for launch. CDPR are a big enough studio to pull something like this off. They're not a small indie studio.
Another important fact is that users were also pressuring CDPR into releasing Cyberpunk 2077. It was delayed at least once (maybe twice, I don’t remember), and people wanted to play the game. They probably had to choose between delaying it another time or releasing it without polishing it that much.
Yes, there may have been pressure. But no, the consumer base does not have anywhere near enough power over corporations like you're trying to imply. Games aren't just released early because "Oh no the consumers are getting angy". Though once again this was their fault due to them giving the consumer a completely unrealistic initial release date that they obviously could not hit, considering the absolute state of the game at launch.
The most likely explanation is that they were simply trying to get the game out as soon as possible to cash in and they absolutely did not want to miss a major sales period such as Christmas. They were simply trying to drop a minimal viable product with plans to fix it later. Turns out they dropped a less than minimally viable product in their rush to make some dosh. Knowingly too if you look into the allegations that I'll link later.
I believe it was Cyberpunk 2077 that started the trend of “release now fix later” games.
No. "Release broken fix later" has been a thing for maybe the last decade. Do people not remember shitshows like AC:Unity? Cyberpunk is most definitely not the first game to be "Release broken, fix later".
However, I don’t think they really did it on purpose.
I don't think it was dropped broken on purpose. But I do think it was an attempt to drop the usual bare minimum product. Just so happens that they miscalculated and dropped something less than minimal. It's still gross incompetence and shows the consumer they're more than willing to drop something bare minimum with the promise of fixing it later. Rather than dropping a complete game.
The game was too ambitious for its own good, and having to develop, optimize and test two basically different versions of it was too big of a task for a studio that in today’s terms wasn’t even that big.
Again, not an excuse. They're a massive studio, big enough to have people that know how to plan a project like this, people that understand their limitations and what is or isn't achievable. It's standard project planning practice.
But even then there are allegations that people in the company were aware that the game was not ready to launch.
The rest of the AAA producers just realized that CDPR still won loads of money at launch, and decided to release incomplete games on purpose, after seeing that CDPR could make profits that way.
The industry learned this about a decade ago. We've been plagued by half baked launched for so long at this point that you don't have to go far to find out about it.
But must importantly, CDPR did an amazing job at fixing the game, unlike many other studios releasing broken AAAs.
In this case I think it's less fixing the game and more finishing the development of the game, all things considered. The thing they should have done before releasing the game as if it was a finished product when, in fact, it clearly wasn't.
There's fixing a game and there's what CDPR had to do to CP2077.
Yes, a lot of companies don't fix their games. But at the same time most of these companies don't release their games in such a state that they start getting into legal trouble over the launch of their game.
Cyberpunk was such a massive disaster that they didn't really have much choice other than to finish working on their game. To repair the massive hit to their PR as well as other issues such as the class action and the whole debacle with Sony kicking the game of the PS Store.
Even though it took a while, they still delivered the game they promised to their buyers.
Yes, it's good that they stuck with the game and did more than the bare minimum to bring it to a better state. But it's not exactly something to praise them over. It took them ~2 years to bring the game to a state that it should have been in at launch. Instead of launching the game in a finished state, they knowingly dropped the game in an unfinished state. They also put out a review embargo preventing reviewers from informing the consumer about said issues, they actively worked to mislead the consumer about the state of their game.
What CDPR did is absolutely not excusable under any circumstances.
Their next projects should absolutely be scrutinised until they prove that they have learned from their mistakes.
IMO a fumbled and later recovered launch is different from the enshitification of video games like P2W, MTX in general, lootboxes, releasing what should be patches as paid DLC, invasive DRM and anti-cheat. I'd file all of those under bad design, while a bad launch is more of a bad execution. There can be overlap, like if they fully intended for early players to fill the role of beta testers.
The way I approach it is I try to avoid the bad design stuff entirely but just avoid buying new games at release and definitely never pre-order. I'll also support games in early release if I really like the concept and want to give them a better chance at being able to pull it off, but I go into those with the understanding that it's not complete right now and there's a chance it never will be. But I don't see any reason to hold anything against the games that have messy launches but later recover.
Though I've learned to not jump on the hype train and that makes it much easier to not take any of this stuff personally.
i hate them because they remove anything that makes their games unique and make all their games have the same features until they're all completely interchangable gray sludge.
The depressing thing is that this grey sludge is exactly what most people want. It's the same for any form of entertainment. Pandering to the lowest common denominator is what's most profitable.
Yeah, the problem is that game publishers are trying to reach the broadest audience possible, which means niche games with unique features and gameplay are dying out. Why bother spending millions of dollars on developing a unique game which might not sell well, when you can churn out another open world lite-RPG with grassy stealth spots and counter/parry based combat which you know will sell well.
And lots of gamers praise Microsoft for GamePass, because it’s cheap. When Microsoft’s goal with GamePass is the same as Ubisoft’s. Ms would love that you rent your games from them indefinitely. Wouldn’t surprise me that in 10-15 years you can’t buy the games made by Microsoft anymore only rent through GamePass and the subscription fee would be five times higher than now
The single most problematic thing where you should start to notice how bad gamepass can be is when you unsubscribe and decide to buy one of the games you've played only to have your savegames in gamepass gulag.
It was on PC. See my other reply for the specifics. Very shitty experience and the dealbreaker around game pass since I've managed not finish multiple games before they dropped out of the service.
I tried to get the save game for yakuza like a dragon and first I had to hack myself into getting permission to access the specific folders ON MY PC. When I managed that I saw that the are in some weird format that supposedly doesn't transfer to steam for example.
I'm confused. You tell me you had to "hack into your own PC" for the files (which makes absolute no sense at all), while telling someone else this was all on Xbox. Lol which is it?
If you're not, and you seriously are this unable to (checking notes) move files from one folder to another... You should probably stay on that Xbox you're now saying you don't have.
The poster isnt able to explain themselves but Microsoft encrypts most of the game files for their gamepass games which prevents copy pasting the files elsewhere.
You can move the files but they are useless for any other version, and I believe you can't even copy and paste from gamepass to gamepass either, but I can't say for sure on that.
You are really making a mountain of a mole hill, to get my save from Outer Worlds gamepass to use on steam's version was as easy as just copy pasting the files in another folder
They absolutely are not and you are lucky you were able to get your save game out. The majority of games have their config and save files encrypted and are completely unusable as far as any other platform goes.
There are some exceptions, mainly games that have official mod support tend to have areas you can access but the majority of others won't.
I really don't know what to say, I did this both with Outer Worlds and Code Vein. Just went to PCgamingwiki's entries of the 2 games, saw where the save folders are, and dropped each from the microsoft one to the steam one.
Well you aren't going to be able to pick out a trend with only testing two games. Its enough of a problem that I would double check where the save is before starting a game on gamepass.
The last game I tried to move and failed was snowrunner I believe.
It's already becoming low quality crap. The GamePass model doesn't work well with expensive games since they are going for quantity. Hi Fi Rush's devs have been taken down along with a couple more studios. I wonder if that will make a difference, though. Gamers want it cheap, companies want max profit. I'm imagining shovelware in 5 years and many games taken off of it.
I don't mind paying full price for a game, as long as I own it in the end and that the game is not ridiculously short.
Paying 70 euros for a game with less than 7hrs of playtime to get to the end, and artificially padded with collectibles around a open world is a ripoff especially when the game requires licensing servers to be online to play, even for single-player.
My dream is an "internet archive" for all video games, modded to run offline. If the game becomes unavailable for purchase, the archive opens that game and makes it available for all.
The next step is for this kind of release to become law, and supported by manufacturers.
+1 for Anna’s Archive. It’s an amazing resource for students too, since they keep research papers and textbooks.
And before someone gets up in arms about the research papers, the researchers don’t get paid by the journals for publishing with them. In fact, the researchers need to pay the journal to publish, and then the journal turns around and charges people to read it.
If you ever need to get research for free, you can usually email the researchers directly and they’ll be happy to share it for free; They hate the journals too, (because like I said earlier, they have to pay the journal thousands of dollars,) but feel obligated to use them to publish.
Even worse, that research and journal publishing was often funded by public funds and research grants. So the journal is paywalling research that taxpayers already paid for, and should be free to access.
And before someone gets up in arms about the research papers, the researchers don’t get paid by the journals for publishing with them. In fact, the researchers need to pay the journal to publish, and then the journal turns around and charges people to read it.
What you're describing here is called predatory publishing and is not the norm. It's the "fake news" of scientific journals. I'm not "up in arms" about the original topic of making info available to the public whatsoever, just wanted to correct this part.
What you're describing here is called predatory publishing and is not the norm.
No, predatory publishing "is an exploitative academic publishing business model that involves charging publication fees to authors while only superficially checking articles for quality and legitimacy" without real peer review. For context reviewers aren't paid by high impact journals either.
That sounds like a great plan for all types of media. We would better document our history and make so much human creativity accessible to those who cannot afford to indulge in what’s currently for sale.
Why do we not do this? Oh wait, it’s MONEY? Pfft, it will never happen.
Translations of big text from left to right: "Our country should be most educated and cultural country", "Study and work! Work and study!", "To have more you should produce more, to produce more you should know more".
I wish people were THAT passionate about REAL life/world problems/ injustices and make fun of the real people in power, who allow Ubisoft to do such things…
The third item, while it fits the narrative, was a quote directed more towards the option of subscription services. It wasn’t really directed to gamers, but to shareholders to explain low Ubisoft+ numbers, basically saying people may need time to warm up to the idea.
Considering how many interesting indies I’ve played on Game Pass (and, ever since Tango was murdered, PS+) I think there’s merit to that (just not on Ubisoft’s platform). There’s probably dozens of old PS1 classics we never would have tried out if our local Blockbuster hadn’t had them available for rent. I mean heck, $60 was a LOT back then for those polygons.
They know people are making a private server so revoked everyone's license so that even when they finish it, everyone will have to pirate their own game to play it.
Ubisoft has been trash for a long time now. It’s a shame that they control some good IP, but the company’s too far gone to ever be trustworthy. Save your time and money and just play something else imo.
