Garvin is right even if from a consumer perspective it is better to wait for a better value proposition. The initial launch period is really what makes or breaks a game(atleast it's financial success). Launch sales and metacritic scores really seem to determine which game will get a sequel. Most games on Plus seem tied to some exclusive contract Sony has with the publisher so most likely some fee is involved. Particularly b/c you also can't play the game when your subscription expires.Days Gone lead says ‘don’t complain if there’s no sequel if you didn’t buy it full price’ | VGC
John Garvin also says his departure from Bend Studio was based on personality…www.videogameschronicle.com
A lot of what John Garvin says on here comes off as arrogant in my opinion. However him mentioning people waiting to it to go on PlayStation plus instead of buying a game full price makes me wonder if Sony has to pay the company a set amount to put their game on plus or how that sort of thing works.
Yeah I was exactly wondering if Netflix kinda works the same way? In either case, I’d suppose the content provider needs really deep pockets for there to be any incentive. Even more so in Microsoft’s case as they’re offering brand new games.Garvin is right even if from a consumer perspective it is better to wait for a better value proposition. The initial launch period is really what makes or breaks a game(atleast it's financial success). Launch sales and metacritic scores really seem to determine which game will get a sequel. Most games on Plus seem tied to some exclusive contract Sony has with the publisher so most likely some fee is involved. Particularly b/c you also can't play the game when your subscription expires.
One issue I have with subscription services like Gamepass which doesn't rely on launch sales at all; why would any developer invest many years and millions of dollars on a single game if it just ends up on a platform which people pay a monthly fee for already regardless of which games are on it? They will simply be content providers for a service that doesn't depend on the success of a single game. It kind of reminds me of netflix. In the beginning it was awesome because you had all these old and newer movies in a single place but then it exploded in popularity and people obviously want more content b/c they pay their monthly fee so eventually you end up with a literal trash heap of low effort movies and TV shows.
Yep, deep pockets or some lucrative licensing deal. Which basically makes them no more than Gamepass content providers. It's the reason why M$ is buying all these studios.Yeah I was exactly wondering if Netflix kinda works the same way? In either case, I’d suppose the content provider needs really deep pockets for there to be any incentive. Even more so in Microsoft’s case as they’re offering brand new games.
I mean, developers are still businesses and we already know how they generally feel about paying higher taxes, so one can only imagine how they’d feel about stunted revenue streams on top of that.
The counter arguement of course is:Days Gone lead says ‘don’t complain if there’s no sequel if you didn’t buy it full price’ | VGC
John Garvin also says his departure from Bend Studio was based on personality…www.videogameschronicle.com
A lot of what John Garvin says on here comes off as arrogant in my opinion. However him mentioning people waiting to it to go on PlayStation plus instead of buying a game full price makes me wonder if Sony has to pay the company a set amount to put their game on plus or how that sort of thing works.
We called that maneuver blaming the target audience. I kind of get where he's coming from, but not everybody has the price to pay $60 on something. That's why I don't bother with those big triple A games to begin with. I buy something I know I'm going to play.Days Gone lead says ‘don’t complain if there’s no sequel if you didn’t buy it full price’ | VGC
John Garvin also says his departure from Bend Studio was based on personality…www.videogameschronicle.com
A lot of what John Garvin says on here comes off as arrogant in my opinion. However him mentioning people waiting to it to go on PlayStation plus instead of buying a game full price makes me wonder if Sony has to pay the company a set amount to put their game on plus or how that sort of thing works.
Kind of crazy that most AAA publishers didn't follow any of that or make things worse down the line. I used to like Cracked, but I stopped reading them around 2010-2011. They got really far up their own ass, and the articles just weren't funny by that point.A blast from the past I haven’t seen before -
Kinda funny and sad to read now.
Honestly I think my main issue was his wording in general, he makes a point that is valid (if a product doesn’t make money said product won’t be made anymore). But the way he states that just comes off as arrogant.We called that maneuver blaming the target audience. I kind of get where he's coming from, but not everybody has the price to pay $60 on something. That's why I don't bother with those big triple A games to begin with. I buy something I know I'm going to play.
They had the combat designer of God of War 4 work on Avengers, so you tell me.Marvel’s Avengers director has left to re-join Naughty Dog | VGC
Shaun Escayg was previously the director of Uncharted: The Lost Legacy…www.videogameschronicle.com
My question is, how does someone go from directing Lost Legacy (right up there with 2 as the best Uncharted game IMO) to the boody Avengers game. I’ll just chalk it up as mostly involving bad external influences from the suits.
Also,
Hitman 2: Silent Assassin was the birth of everything that makes the series great
It's not much fun to play today, but it's the start of the series at its best.www.pcgamer.com
How do people even jump to that conclusion?! I don't care much for the game, but even I know that is not true.who haven't played it still say it's awful and bad "toxic masculinity" etc etc etc
Literally because of the scene with Sarah riding on the bike (note in Elijah's article) and because it's part of a biker gang.How do people even jump to that conclusion?! I don't care much for the game, but even I know that is not true.
This may have been in the article and I just missed it, but I wonder if part of the bad press came from it being one of the more recognized big games coming out that year and it being exclusive to PlayStation (until this year) kind of set it up to be on the chopping block for some people.Weird amount of bad press for this game over things that weren't there or explained in the game itself.