A deep-dive into the future of subscription gaming(eurogamer.net)
eurogamer.net
A deep-dive into the future of subscription gaming
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2021-02-17-is-xbox-game-pass-too-good-to-be-true
134 comments
You really don't see the benefit of paying USA $60 to rent 24 high quality games a year indefinitely? I mean really? thats almost a $1000 value.
I mean literally, you will get more games (and AAA ones too) for pennies. I have PS plus, and they throw games at you. It's a problem because it probably suppresses people's desire to buy new games; like why buy control at launch when chances are it hits plus later?
I mean literally, you will get more games (and AAA ones too) for pennies. I have PS plus, and they throw games at you. It's a problem because it probably suppresses people's desire to buy new games; like why buy control at launch when chances are it hits plus later?
I agree here, everyone seems to just be on some rabid rampage talking about the if's, what's and maybe's.
I couldn't access my Xbox for 2 months, I got it setup over the weekend. Downloaded 5 new games thanks to Game Pass, there's a lot more there as well but I need to play them and all for basically nothing.
Netflix - everyone pays $5 per month for the pleasure of scrolling. Add in Amazon, Hulu and everything else and you have over $50 worth of scrolling to do to watch the same movies and TV shows that was watched many times over.
I couldn't access my Xbox for 2 months, I got it setup over the weekend. Downloaded 5 new games thanks to Game Pass, there's a lot more there as well but I need to play them and all for basically nothing.
Netflix - everyone pays $5 per month for the pleasure of scrolling. Add in Amazon, Hulu and everything else and you have over $50 worth of scrolling to do to watch the same movies and TV shows that was watched many times over.
People on these forums just can't fathom the idea that they aren't the "average" consumer. They think because game passes don't make sense for THEM, that it's a bad idea.
Therefore any decision made by game developers are awful, they are all idiots, people who spend time on niche tech/gaming forums are all geniuses who understand their market better etc. etc.
Therefore any decision made by game developers are awful, they are all idiots, people who spend time on niche tech/gaming forums are all geniuses who understand their market better etc. etc.
Yeah, to be fair you are right. It's amazing when you speak to non-tech people about some of the subjects discussed in HN and they honestly wouldn't care or know what anything is about.
Never miss a chance to namedrop that infamous Dropbox comment.
My son only plays same 3 games but I have to get the Plus for the online features. I think you are lucky if you enjoy 20% of the games on the Plus offer that you do not already own.
If they really want my money each month then OK, fine but let me chose(put my money in the wallet and I buy what I want or put a giant list of games so I have some kind of choice).
to be fair, they are making this change somewhat. on PS5, Ps Plus members have access to the “PS Plus Collection” which is I believe 15-20 of the best PS4 games, and one free PS5 game a month in addition to the usual PS Plus offerings.
I did not researched the PS5 collection so maybe that is worth it. The thing that really irritates me a lot is that Sony made Plus required for multiplayer and it was not like that in the PS3 days, so it is a downgrade in my opinion. But because my son spends his time in games like Little Big Planet and recently Dreams I can't consider an xbox or PC.
Also if you are a fan of Tomb Raider , Final Fantasy or other good game you will buy it and not wait years for it to appear on Plus.
Also if you are a fan of Tomb Raider , Final Fantasy or other good game you will buy it and not wait years for it to appear on Plus.
Why would I give a hoot about that $1000 value. It only exists in the heads of corporate people who are trying to hook me up. The only thing that matters to me would be do I like games X,Y,Z and how much am I willing to pay for it.
You pay less with plus for most of the games. Like I paid $60 for the PS4 Final Fantasy 7 remake, when I could have waited and paid what works out to be $2. They threw it on PS plus. Like I literally at one point got 6 games a month from it, since they gave them away for ps3, ps4, and ps vita. You literally pay the cost of one AAA game to get access to 24 for a year or more.
If you think it's not a value, you're mistaken.
If you think it's not a value, you're mistaken.
If you're the kind of person who wants to play the entire PlayStation catalog, I can see the value. For me, I paid for PS plus just to play Battlefield One. I downloaded the plus games every month (when I remembered to) and most of them didn't really interest me (e.g. Just Cause and Batman I just didn't enjoy after giving them a shot).
Looking at my PS Plus library.
Read only 2064 memories
Amnesia Collection
Absolver
All three Bioshock games
Bloodborne
Cities: Skyline
Conan Exiles
Control
Day of the Tentacle
Dead by Daylight
Fall Guys
God of war 3
Guacamelee
Metal Gear Solid V
Nioh
Rise of the Tomb Raider
Soma
Uncharted 4
What remains of edith finch
Yakuza Kiwami
If I wasnt already conditioned to buy physical games i'd legit not need to buy one ever. It's not like they throw junk at you.
Read only 2064 memories
Amnesia Collection
Absolver
All three Bioshock games
Bloodborne
Cities: Skyline
Conan Exiles
Control
Day of the Tentacle
Dead by Daylight
Fall Guys
God of war 3
Guacamelee
Metal Gear Solid V
Nioh
Rise of the Tomb Raider
Soma
Uncharted 4
What remains of edith finch
Yakuza Kiwami
If I wasnt already conditioned to buy physical games i'd legit not need to buy one ever. It's not like they throw junk at you.
Every game I’ve played on this list is amazing. I could add a few more if I booted my console.
I understand the frustration of having to pay to play online, but Sony has definitely made great steps towards making PS Plus a value beyond that.
I understand the frustration of having to pay to play online, but Sony has definitely made great steps towards making PS Plus a value beyond that.
>"If you think it's not a value, you're mistaken."
I am not mistaken. I do what I want how I want where possible and that alone is of great value to me. And they would not be squeezing me later when they think that there are enough people on the hook and the alternatives are few so lets raise the price.
I am not mistaken. I do what I want how I want where possible and that alone is of great value to me. And they would not be squeezing me later when they think that there are enough people on the hook and the alternatives are few so lets raise the price.
What value is gained from being forced to pay for internet access that you've already paid for? What value comes from owning $1000 worth of games I don't care about?
The value is what you make of it. For me, its worth it. For you, only you can tell.
It's not my job to convince haters to like something, but at the same time, just because you don't enjoy it doesn't mean that millions can't either.
For many of us, Xbox Game Pass is a serious bargain. Going forward we don't need to buy Microsoft studio titles, which the game pass makes super affordable and as for historical games, having 100s to play on Xbox or PC is super nice.
It's not my job to convince haters to like something, but at the same time, just because you don't enjoy it doesn't mean that millions can't either.
For many of us, Xbox Game Pass is a serious bargain. Going forward we don't need to buy Microsoft studio titles, which the game pass makes super affordable and as for historical games, having 100s to play on Xbox or PC is super nice.
> $1000 value
No, it's $60 value. That's what you paid for it, that's what it's worth. You cannot compare it to a different ownership model, because that is not a fair comparison.
No, it's $60 value. That's what you paid for it, that's what it's worth. You cannot compare it to a different ownership model, because that is not a fair comparison.
I've always been a PC gamer, on Linux mostly (Steam enables so much).
After enjoying a SNES mini for a while, I considered maybe it could simplify life by getting a dedicated modern console rather than use PC, for playing the latest games.
However, then reading about how modern consoles are online connected and let you wait while they auto-download updates, makes it look exactly like PC, so not adding any value. So PC gamer I stay :)
After enjoying a SNES mini for a while, I considered maybe it could simplify life by getting a dedicated modern console rather than use PC, for playing the latest games.
However, then reading about how modern consoles are online connected and let you wait while they auto-download updates, makes it look exactly like PC, so not adding any value. So PC gamer I stay :)
>> so not adding any value.
Adding nothing and removing much. I have yet to see a console that can handle mods properly. There is no greater sin for a console developer than to allowing the player to edit game files. That road leads to cheating and piracy. I don't think Minecraft would have become what it did without mods, without the creativity displayed by PC gamers.
Adding nothing and removing much. I have yet to see a console that can handle mods properly. There is no greater sin for a console developer than to allowing the player to edit game files. That road leads to cheating and piracy. I don't think Minecraft would have become what it did without mods, without the creativity displayed by PC gamers.
Also, historically consoles promised high quality technical experience - no major bugs and consistent high FPS, while currently it's no longer guaranteed. It's basically PC gaming without the hassle of GPU driver incompatibilities.
When was that? I spent quite a bit of time on PS1, then PS3, and then PS4, and enjoyed my share of that sweet 24 FPS "cinematic" experience. That heavy post-processing as an attempt to hide the (sometimes extremely) low texture resolution. The atrocious load times.
Never again.
Never again.
The pre-3d era (SNES etc.) was perfect. Meanwhile on PC you were fighting IRQ conflicts and HIMEM.SYS etc.
The good news is that you have about 3 decades worth of great games (1990 to 2020 roughly) to enjoy for the rest of your life
Totally agree with this. There are a huge number of good old games with great re-playability. There are lots of great new games too, but sometimes it is worth diving into the old stuff to find an oldie-but-goodie. I played Gothic 2 for the first time a couple years ago and loved it.
Long live the nameless hero fellow Piranha Bytes customer!
As a counterpoint I got an Xbox Series X because the cost of building a decent gaming computer has become ridiculous.
Just the GPU would cost me as much as the whole console and as my desktop PC has an ancient motherboard, RAM, CPU etc. I'd have to replace everything.
The Game Pass has been a pretty good deal so far, but I agree that having to pay just for online multiplayer is ridiculous and of course they could jack up the Game Pass price tomorrow and I'd have little recourse.
Quick Resume and being able to play on the sofa is decent as well when I don't have much time.
The main thing I miss is all the smaller games like Valheim etc. especially since AAA games have become less appealing as they just seem like time-sinks aimed to optimise "engagement".
Just the GPU would cost me as much as the whole console and as my desktop PC has an ancient motherboard, RAM, CPU etc. I'd have to replace everything.
The Game Pass has been a pretty good deal so far, but I agree that having to pay just for online multiplayer is ridiculous and of course they could jack up the Game Pass price tomorrow and I'd have little recourse.
Quick Resume and being able to play on the sofa is decent as well when I don't have much time.
The main thing I miss is all the smaller games like Valheim etc. especially since AAA games have become less appealing as they just seem like time-sinks aimed to optimise "engagement".
For me the cost of gaming on PC is just whatever I need to add on top of a standard workstation, which is mostly just a bumped up graphics card. Only late last year did I finally upgrade the bones of a PC I've been running since 2009, which is a hell of a cycle.
If you're chasing top performance and regular upgrade cycles I agree, it can be a pit of (up to) infinity monies.
The current situation with GPU prices and coin mining etc does make things especially tricky right now if you're not already set up with a gaming rig from the past ~5 years.
If you're chasing top performance and regular upgrade cycles I agree, it can be a pit of (up to) infinity monies.
The current situation with GPU prices and coin mining etc does make things especially tricky right now if you're not already set up with a gaming rig from the past ~5 years.
Yeah, my PC is from 2015 (and it wasn't state of the art then..) so it's quite a pain to replace.
Also I have an Ultrawide monitor which perhaps isn't the best for gaming, but is far superior for work.
Also I have an Ultrawide monitor which perhaps isn't the best for gaming, but is far superior for work.
To be fair we're in one of the worst chip shortages in a long time, GPUs are supposed to be like 3-600 for low to early high range. Still one of the most expensive parts for sure but right now is especially atypical.
>To be fair we're in one of the worst chip shortages in a long time, GPUs are supposed to be like 3-600 for low to early high range.
What's your point exactly? The recently released PS5 and Xbox Series X had launch prices of $400-$500 in the U.S.
So, even without the chip shortage, GP's point about the GPU alone costing more than a console still stands.
What's your point exactly? The recently released PS5 and Xbox Series X had launch prices of $400-$500 in the U.S.
So, even without the chip shortage, GP's point about the GPU alone costing more than a console still stands.
At even $600 a GPU will last you longer than the quality of a similar gaming device like that. I guarantee the games on the console begin to look dated and lose out on features much sooner than building your rig.
If a console is $500 and lasts 3 years your $600 gpu, and overall build (mine is about $1200 new but has features that I splurged on for work and could be 300 cheaper for just gaming) will last at least double if not a little more than double that time. At least that's been my experience.
I would say looking at lifetime value building your own rig is much more cost effective and has a much higher lifetime on graphical features that are added.
As an example my 1070 that I only replaced this year and only because I felt like it was easily still getting me 80+ fps in modern games and supporting new features like DLSS.
I could have easily kept using it and been fine for a few more years with new features and updates all the time.
If a console is $500 and lasts 3 years your $600 gpu, and overall build (mine is about $1200 new but has features that I splurged on for work and could be 300 cheaper for just gaming) will last at least double if not a little more than double that time. At least that's been my experience.
I would say looking at lifetime value building your own rig is much more cost effective and has a much higher lifetime on graphical features that are added.
As an example my 1070 that I only replaced this year and only because I felt like it was easily still getting me 80+ fps in modern games and supporting new features like DLSS.
I could have easily kept using it and been fine for a few more years with new features and updates all the time.
What $600 GPU is going to look like a PS5 though? The new consoles run games at 60fps/120hz on top of the line screens, that's a lot of performance for a budget PC.
No, no it wouldn't. A 600 dollar GPU these days is a 3060ti which is rather unfortunate.
The Xbox Series X and PS5 are phenomenal pieces of hardware that are pushing the limits of consumer goods. Both support 4k 120hz and HDMI 2.1, free sync and much more.
Instant on, fast resume, keyboard/mouse, controllers, they're a hell of a bargain.
The Xbox One is older than the 1070 and cost much less and still is supported to this day.
The Xbox Series X and PS5 are phenomenal pieces of hardware that are pushing the limits of consumer goods. Both support 4k 120hz and HDMI 2.1, free sync and much more.
Instant on, fast resume, keyboard/mouse, controllers, they're a hell of a bargain.
The Xbox One is older than the 1070 and cost much less and still is supported to this day.
Are those running max setting 4k 120hz? Because a 3060ti even now under the rather ridiculous prices can handle that at medium on a lot of games. I'm legitimately asking, I'll probably pick up a PS5 when the world is more sane so I haven't looked into the latest generation just comparing my experience with the previous generation of consoles vs my pc.
Yes...
I have the Xbox Series X and just got a LG OLED 55" tv and it's all running at 120hz with freesync, HDR and looks beautiful.
I have a regular 3060 i scored from newegg and it can't keep up with with the XSX does... my 3060 cost 499 and my XSX cost 499...
PS5/XSX is extreme value right now... and to be honest, the 0% pay 31/month deal is stupid easy and affordable to jump in - much easier than paying scalping rates or hoping for lotto slots from vendors just to buy a video card.
I got a PS5 through playstation direct as well when they do their lottos, but i'm a fan of gamepass so i sold the ps5 to a friend at retail cost.
I have the Xbox Series X and just got a LG OLED 55" tv and it's all running at 120hz with freesync, HDR and looks beautiful.
I have a regular 3060 i scored from newegg and it can't keep up with with the XSX does... my 3060 cost 499 and my XSX cost 499...
PS5/XSX is extreme value right now... and to be honest, the 0% pay 31/month deal is stupid easy and affordable to jump in - much easier than paying scalping rates or hoping for lotto slots from vendors just to buy a video card.
I got a PS5 through playstation direct as well when they do their lottos, but i'm a fan of gamepass so i sold the ps5 to a friend at retail cost.
why would a console last 3 years (barring failure obv.)? Typical generation is 5-7 years.
Generation yes but I don't remember a whole lot of fidelity updates occurring to my xbox 360 or my xbox one past the first couple years is what I was trying to say. Where as my NVIDIA cards get regular tweaks and improvements for much longer. I'm mainly a PC gamer though so I could be wrong here.
Game developers love consoles, because the hardware is known for the whole generation.
Whatever tricks your NVidia card can pull, aren't reflected on someone's else GPU card, let alone everything else on the computer.
Whatever tricks your NVidia card can pull, aren't reflected on someone's else GPU card, let alone everything else on the computer.
I don't know if I care what game developers like, I do care what's better for consumers like myself though. Unless you're saying that devs being able to pull more tricks result in either better graphical fidelity or performance for the consumer, otherwise I don't really think what you said contradicts my point.
Anyone is free to chose what they think is best for themselves, game consoles culture is not the same as PCs.
Additionally, game development culture is definitely not in line with the FOSS culture that is usually discussed in sites like HN.
Additionally, game development culture is definitely not in line with the FOSS culture that is usually discussed in sites like HN.
You don't need a beefy rig to play games. The majority of developers are already struggling to produce art assets that can put a strain on top-tier hardware. The PS5 launch was dominated by two games: Demon's Souls, a jaw-droppingly beautiful game that made great use of the hardware, and Bugsnax, whose graphics looked like it could have been a Gamecube game (don't take this as a denigration). The hyped PC game of the past two weeks has been Valheim (having the fifth most-simultaneous players of any Steam game ever), whose graphics compare favorably to Tribes 2, a game from 2001. A select number of AAA studios have the resources to invest in pushing the graphical envelope; everyone else can get by just fine on five year-old hardware.
Valheim is very poorly optimised right now, graphics aside. I am not sure how well it works on older hardware but on my RTX2060 and corresponding CPU I get frame drops all the time and global locks when it decides to save the world state in combat or I walk towards somewhere new. I'd imagine it's worse on an older computer, it'll run but it might not be as enjoyable at sub-30-FPS.
Hardware creep inevitabily leads to optimisation decisions about how much effort to spend getting things to run well.
I do agree that PC hardware tends to last around 5 years now though unless you run the latest AAA games, and there is a wealth of older games. Just the stuff I missed since 2000 would be enough to keep me busy for at least a decade.
Hardware creep inevitabily leads to optimisation decisions about how much effort to spend getting things to run well.
I do agree that PC hardware tends to last around 5 years now though unless you run the latest AAA games, and there is a wealth of older games. Just the stuff I missed since 2000 would be enough to keep me busy for at least a decade.
i5-4XXX + R7 260X (a very bad and old card) works well at 1080p low settings. 3800X + 1080Ti gets you 58 fps at 4k.
YMMV but be sure to put the window in fullscreen, that helps with the frame drops.
YMMV but be sure to put the window in fullscreen, that helps with the frame drops.
I play sufficiently modern games virtualized (VFIO) on an i5-2500. If FullHD is fine for you, old hardware is still extremely good.
And, of course, the Demon Souls game you touted as the graphically impressive one, originally played well on a PS3.
The new version makes full use of the GPU on the PS5, visually it's far more impressive. Not having played either I have no idea whether the gameplay differs between the two!
1. You don't need a $300 GPU to play modern games on a gaming PC.
2. Sony and Microsoft subsidize the cost of the hardware. They lose money on every console that goes out the door and make their cash on online passes, accessories and individual games. After a couple years the cost to produce goes down and they start to make some margin on them.
This is the way they've been doing it for several console generations now.
This is the way they've been doing it for several console generations now.
I have a memory of reading that the strategy Nintendo have used from the n64 days, was always make a slight loss on each console but make big profit on games and developer licences, so that they start making profit after the third or fourth game sold per console
Edit: looked for proof but for the life of me I can't find evidence amongst all the results for articles and blog posts reminiscing about old games and consoles!
Edit: looked for proof but for the life of me I can't find evidence amongst all the results for articles and blog posts reminiscing about old games and consoles!
Nintendo is the exception where the hardware are *not* sold at loss, but rather alight profit.
See https://www.google.com/amp/s/venturebeat.com/2016/10/26/nint...
See https://www.google.com/amp/s/venturebeat.com/2016/10/26/nint...
People will say "you don't need a $500 card to play PC games", but they'll never acknowledge the caveat that a budget card won't run games anywhere near as nice as a PS5/XSX.
>the cost of building a decent gaming computer has become ridiculous
I don't know, I have a GTX 980ti and an overclocked Sandybridge Core i7 2600k in my gaming computer, both bought many years ago, and I haven't had any problem playing new games. I'm sure there may be some stuff it would struggle with but Doom Eternal, the latest Deus Ex, Far Cry 5, etc. play perfectly well as far as I can tell.
I don't know, I have a GTX 980ti and an overclocked Sandybridge Core i7 2600k in my gaming computer, both bought many years ago, and I haven't had any problem playing new games. I'm sure there may be some stuff it would struggle with but Doom Eternal, the latest Deus Ex, Far Cry 5, etc. play perfectly well as far as I can tell.
There's some cards which lasted a while (1080 Ti, or the Titan cards, probably the high end 3x series and AMD's equivalent), but consoles are made obsolete pretty regularly. It's more worthwhile if you haven't already bought a work/life non-gaming PC though or need to upgrade that. If you don't have a good TV for the console, that might be an additional cost.
Can't beat the ergonomics of chilling on your couch with a controller, but you could set that up with a PC if you really wanted to.
Can't beat the ergonomics of chilling on your couch with a controller, but you could set that up with a PC if you really wanted to.
How much did your PC cost? What games do you play?
They say in the article:
> For Xbox this coming generation is about "going beyond the console," as Ahmad says, "and really trying to reach as many people on mobile and PC" as possible.
ugh
> For Xbox this coming generation is about "going beyond the console," as Ahmad says, "and really trying to reach as many people on mobile and PC" as possible.
ugh
I have nothing but good things to say about the Xbox game pass but I absolutely loathe the recent push for Xbox (and even Steam) to become some sort of social media platform. Sure, sometimes its fun to play with friends but quite often I just want to be left alone while I play and recently that seems to be (intentionally) more and more difficult.
All products evolve to contain a social network, or are replaced by those that can.
Newell's corollary to Zawinski's Law?
Counterpoint: I bought a Xbox Series S for 380$CAD and 3 years of Game Pass Ultimate for 240$, both before taxes.
I could have paid 400$ for a Switch and then buy 3 games at 80$ and play the same games all the time and I'd be bored in less than a year.
I used to love renting games as a child. My family wasn't well off and if it wasn't for renting games I would have missed many gems.
Now with Gamepass I have almost 300 great games to play, I finished 3 games already and I'm currently playing Hollow Knight. After that, I'll play FF7 original and then all the Kingdom Hearts.
I won't have to spend a penny on games for the next 34 months, legally.
I could have paid 400$ for a Switch and then buy 3 games at 80$ and play the same games all the time and I'd be bored in less than a year.
I used to love renting games as a child. My family wasn't well off and if it wasn't for renting games I would have missed many gems.
Now with Gamepass I have almost 300 great games to play, I finished 3 games already and I'm currently playing Hollow Knight. After that, I'll play FF7 original and then all the Kingdom Hearts.
I won't have to spend a penny on games for the next 34 months, legally.
I’m also enjoying Gamepass, especially when the alternate trend that’s been making buckets of money for the industry is microtransactions. Yes, I absolutely wish that the model of just making a really good game and selling it directly was the standard. But hey, we live in an economic system that demands unlimited revenue growth and out of all the options that preserve the creation of games that I like to play, subscriptions are by far the best option. If you don’t like it, take it up with capitalism.
Yeah, you get it. I'm a Stallman fanboy, all about GNU, ownership etc... but I'm also pragmatic.
You will buy Stadia. You will purchase temporary licenses for limited access to games (one per platform). You will own nothing and be happy.
This is why I like GeForce NOW or ShadowPC. You own the licenses to the games but rent the hardware.
I discovered cloud gaming through Stadia but I now direct all of my attention towards GFN and, for the lack of availability of Shadow and equivalent, to G4dn instances on AWS with Parsec.
It's definitely great to be able to get games on sale on various platforms and then rent hardware to play it on my laptop. Even with pretty heavy costs on AWS I'm still very satisfied (spot instances + one ebs-backed snapshot for the AMI + bandwidth out costs = about 1 CAD/hr played with about $10 of fixed costs). Even if I played a hundred hours per month on AWS, it would barely reach the cost of a basic desktop by the end of a year, let alone anything that has RTX cards. And I'd have to do it all over again soon as specs requirements increase.
I appreciate the ease of use of Stadia but I definitely hope that in this fight it's the generic cloud-computing crowd that wins.
It's definitely great to be able to get games on sale on various platforms and then rent hardware to play it on my laptop. Even with pretty heavy costs on AWS I'm still very satisfied (spot instances + one ebs-backed snapshot for the AMI + bandwidth out costs = about 1 CAD/hr played with about $10 of fixed costs). Even if I played a hundred hours per month on AWS, it would barely reach the cost of a basic desktop by the end of a year, let alone anything that has RTX cards. And I'd have to do it all over again soon as specs requirements increase.
I appreciate the ease of use of Stadia but I definitely hope that in this fight it's the generic cloud-computing crowd that wins.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd recommend GFN to literally everyone I know if they stopped limiting what games I can play on it. It's really very nice for what it actually works for.
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not but I completely agree. It’s ridiculous that for housing and cars (the most important assets), leasing and renting is quite common but it’s suddenly taboo when it comes to something almost just as important like my video games. Also less wasteful for the environment to rent and play from a central supercomputer than have to buy my own computer and buy games.
So whenever people express the point you were mocking, I just tell them about the environmental impact and they agree.
So whenever people express the point you were mocking, I just tell them about the environmental impact and they agree.
I can afford to buy the latest 7nm components, with TDP no more than I need, undervolt them to my performance specifications, use them their entire functional lifetime or sell them to someone. Either way, these are components fully utilised and easy to run on green energy (500W is enough for a beast gaming rig, 250W for most people). There is minimal waste and no overhead to speak of.
Compare this to generations old server farms that require maintenance, extreme cooling solutions, run virtualisation layers on top of virtualisation layers, necessitate 5G equipment and increasingly high internet costs and middlemen, on top of a user device in the first place.
My computer can also be used as charity for Folding At Home, run my homeservers, and train my AI models. All this instead of purchasing different subscriptions for different servers. In effect, I can optimise the hardware exactly to my needs and use it efficiently to its full extent, reducing waste completely.
Not to mention game streaming will never look as good as native rendering, and "negative latency" is physically impossible. I also don't lease cars.
Compare this to generations old server farms that require maintenance, extreme cooling solutions, run virtualisation layers on top of virtualisation layers, necessitate 5G equipment and increasingly high internet costs and middlemen, on top of a user device in the first place.
My computer can also be used as charity for Folding At Home, run my homeservers, and train my AI models. All this instead of purchasing different subscriptions for different servers. In effect, I can optimise the hardware exactly to my needs and use it efficiently to its full extent, reducing waste completely.
Not to mention game streaming will never look as good as native rendering, and "negative latency" is physically impossible. I also don't lease cars.
Good points, I completely agree with everything you brought up. Can you try to find data on electrical usage per hour of a series of centralized RDPs vs your computer?
Random result: https://www.dataspan.com/blog/data-center-cooling-costs/
>According to research, anywhere between 30 and 55 percent of a data center’s energy consumption goes into powering its cooling and ventilation systems
Meanwhile the cooling cost for a computer in a home is probably zero.
>According to research, anywhere between 30 and 55 percent of a data center’s energy consumption goes into powering its cooling and ventilation systems
Meanwhile the cooling cost for a computer in a home is probably zero.
That all sounds good. Maybe you personally can make it work. In reality, for most people it's a cycle of buying new big hardware (consoles, desktop, laptop) every few years, using them very sporadically and then turning them to e-waste. I don't see how a centralized solution could be more wasteful than that.
The latency part is true though.
The latency part is true though.
> leasing and renting is quite common
Leasing is common because people don't quite understand they're always worse off with it (though you could make the argument that it saves hassle and could therefore be worth it).
Renting is as common as it is because for a large amount of people it's literally impossible to buy a house where they'd need it (or even at all, without significant moving distance). Renting is always a terrible idea and most people understand this, they just don't have a choice.
Leasing is common because people don't quite understand they're always worse off with it (though you could make the argument that it saves hassle and could therefore be worth it).
Renting is as common as it is because for a large amount of people it's literally impossible to buy a house where they'd need it (or even at all, without significant moving distance). Renting is always a terrible idea and most people understand this, they just don't have a choice.
It's not letting me reply to your second post but you can find me some RDP, and I'll compare it myself.
Housing - I did not have enough money to buy it outright so no choice for me here. For cars I do so would never lease one. As for environmental impact - go preach to bitcoin miners and other heavy users. I would suggest starting with 3 percenters.
Sadly, I believe that this is correct. Look at what happened to music and movies.
The only question is if the tech, and especially people's internet connections will get there. Personally, I much prefer being able to 'own' games and run them on my local hardware. But I think the convenience of not having to download/install/update anything, just hitting "Play" and go will outweigh the disadvantages for most people.
Which is sad, because I think this will make the overall experience worse for everyone, for the sake of just convenience. Everything will be stuck again in walled gardens like Netflix, Spotify & Co are now.
The only question is if the tech, and especially people's internet connections will get there. Personally, I much prefer being able to 'own' games and run them on my local hardware. But I think the convenience of not having to download/install/update anything, just hitting "Play" and go will outweigh the disadvantages for most people.
Which is sad, because I think this will make the overall experience worse for everyone, for the sake of just convenience. Everything will be stuck again in walled gardens like Netflix, Spotify & Co are now.
It's kind of amusing because if you have a good enough internet connection to stream, the "pain" you describe of download/install/updating games is virtually non-existant. It takes 2 clicks to install a game on steam or other platform and updates are automatic.
You're right, the automatic downloads have made things much easier. But it's still not anywhere near instant play. I have very fast internet at home but games can get tens of gigabytes big. If I have half an hour to play a quick game, that's a non-starter.
And let's not even talk about selecting hardware for a pre-built PC or building a gaming PC from scratch. That's just too much to ask for, for most people.
Don't get me wrong, I love all that stuff. But I think most people don't. That's the only way I can explain why anyone would pay the premium for the awful and expensive experience that are modern game consoles.
And let's not even talk about selecting hardware for a pre-built PC or building a gaming PC from scratch. That's just too much to ask for, for most people.
Don't get me wrong, I love all that stuff. But I think most people don't. That's the only way I can explain why anyone would pay the premium for the awful and expensive experience that are modern game consoles.
Sure, if you are playing a new game. I suppose if you like to dabble in huge games that are 10s of gigs in size that might be a problem.
It's a lot more common for me to have a handful of games I am interested in installed and ready to go whenever I have the urge to play.
It's a lot more common for me to have a handful of games I am interested in installed and ready to go whenever I have the urge to play.
As long as you wait for them to stop patching, you'll be fine \s.
I don’t think it was the case on PS4/XB1, but on PS5 I can choose to play a game while it updates. Did last night with Sackboy.
> I think the convenience of not having to download/install/update anything, just hitting "Play" and go will outweigh the disadvantages for most people
> Which is sad, because I think this will make the overall experience worse for everyone, for the sake of just convenience.
I miss the convenience of pushing a physical thing that I own into a slot on a device that I own and hitting a physical button labelled 'play'. Especially when the cheap app running on an expensive tablet that connects my expensive physical speakers to the library of all the music I could possibly want to rent for some reason can't see the speakers, even though I have rebooted my wifi, logged off and back into my streaming service account, re-installed the app, updated the speaker's firmware, etc etc.
> Which is sad, because I think this will make the overall experience worse for everyone, for the sake of just convenience.
I miss the convenience of pushing a physical thing that I own into a slot on a device that I own and hitting a physical button labelled 'play'. Especially when the cheap app running on an expensive tablet that connects my expensive physical speakers to the library of all the music I could possibly want to rent for some reason can't see the speakers, even though I have rebooted my wifi, logged off and back into my streaming service account, re-installed the app, updated the speaker's firmware, etc etc.
Or you can just plug your laptop/tablet into your speakers and play your local music collection.
> and play your local music collection
The local collection that I stopped expanding three years ago because I was now paying for a streaming service.
Clearly, it's a trade-off. I don't miss paying vast amounts for a CD that might at best have one or two tracks that I really like plus a load of fillers. I've discovered a lot of music that I wouldn't have found otherwise thanks to streaming. But I worry for some of my older relatives who can barely navigate a smartphone interface, and for whom setting up the streaming on a modern device is a hit and miss affair.
The local collection that I stopped expanding three years ago because I was now paying for a streaming service.
Clearly, it's a trade-off. I don't miss paying vast amounts for a CD that might at best have one or two tracks that I really like plus a load of fillers. I've discovered a lot of music that I wouldn't have found otherwise thanks to streaming. But I worry for some of my older relatives who can barely navigate a smartphone interface, and for whom setting up the streaming on a modern device is a hit and miss affair.
> The local collection that I stopped expanding three years ago because I was now paying for a streaming service.
I know that feeling. When what.cd went down it was a tragedy but I was able to continue mostly as normal. I even "slimmed down" my collection to make it more portable, which was a mistake because all of the classics on streaming services are fucking remasters. God, I miss those days of music forums.
My music discovery hasn't had half the same intensity or wonder since those years. Now what, Spotify playlists? Their shitty nerfed "radio" playlists?
I miss music forums and trackers dearly. There's reddit but it's not quite the same.
I know that feeling. When what.cd went down it was a tragedy but I was able to continue mostly as normal. I even "slimmed down" my collection to make it more portable, which was a mistake because all of the classics on streaming services are fucking remasters. God, I miss those days of music forums.
My music discovery hasn't had half the same intensity or wonder since those years. Now what, Spotify playlists? Their shitty nerfed "radio" playlists?
I miss music forums and trackers dearly. There's reddit but it's not quite the same.
As soon as subscription is the dominant way, consumers will be squeezed hard. The same thing will happen that happened with for example the cable television: initially paying for it made sense because it did away with commercials and offered a more diverse selection. Now? You pay and also there are commercials, and the selection is quantity over quality.
>"As soon as subscription is the dominant way, consumers will be squeezed hard"
Can't talk about all consumers but in my case I got rid of all TV services some 15 years ago because I felt bein had. Maybe longer, just do not remember exactly. So no they will not be squeezing me hard. I'll just find something else to do with my money.
Can't talk about all consumers but in my case I got rid of all TV services some 15 years ago because I felt bein had. Maybe longer, just do not remember exactly. So no they will not be squeezing me hard. I'll just find something else to do with my money.
You've received some downvotes (perhaps because this read as being too flippant?) but I feel like you've covered it perfectly. The era where cable TV became truly heinous (nothing interesting to see, way too many ads, etc) was also the era where it just wasn't necessary anymore. While you have it it feels like it'd be hard to replace, but let's be honest: It'll take maybe a week of getting used to it and after that you won't miss it.
If subscription gaming gets this bad, it'll go the same way. In thirty years it'll be dying a slow death because fewer and fewer people use it and most people will have moved on to whatever replaces it. After they've spent another ten years dying there'll be the inevitable Netflix (i.e. streaming TV) moment, but for streaming games. Wonderful, but ultimately just the same thing but with time rolled back fifty years.
I guess what I'm trying to say is it might (probably will) go wrong, but nobody will really suffer for it and it'll fix itself given a little patience.
If subscription gaming gets this bad, it'll go the same way. In thirty years it'll be dying a slow death because fewer and fewer people use it and most people will have moved on to whatever replaces it. After they've spent another ten years dying there'll be the inevitable Netflix (i.e. streaming TV) moment, but for streaming games. Wonderful, but ultimately just the same thing but with time rolled back fifty years.
I guess what I'm trying to say is it might (probably will) go wrong, but nobody will really suffer for it and it'll fix itself given a little patience.
>"You've received some downvotes (perhaps because this read as being too flippant?)"
Thought police. Myself I never downvote and do not give a flying fuck if I get downvoted.
As for the rest of your I totally agree.
Thought police. Myself I never downvote and do not give a flying fuck if I get downvoted.
As for the rest of your I totally agree.
I could see this happening for quite a lot of games, sure. But... I'm skeptical just because the experience for some games would be so, so much worse. Anything requiring fine input goes straight out of the window, such as a tactical FPS like CS:GO, or VALORANT. MOBAs, maybe, except when you get to a high level where it, once again, requires precise inputs. Hell, even CoD, FIFA require it when laying against other players. Fortnite gets quite difficult when you consider the prevalence of building in that game - lord knows I struggled with accuracy even on a good machine. I guess Destiny 2 has demonstrated some aspects working, but AFAIK, quite a bit of the game is PvE.
I can't think of an analogous comparison for this in other media, to try and make a comparison to. Either something groundbreaking needs to happen (and doesn't physics prevent this?) or if the transition truly happens, these types of games will require a fundamental change in how they work.
Another thing - if VR ever actually gets any traction, I can't imagine cloud streaming working here.
I can't think of an analogous comparison for this in other media, to try and make a comparison to. Either something groundbreaking needs to happen (and doesn't physics prevent this?) or if the transition truly happens, these types of games will require a fundamental change in how they work.
Another thing - if VR ever actually gets any traction, I can't imagine cloud streaming working here.
Better than the alternative IMO: Buying to own a bunch of games on Steam every time they go on sale and never even bother to play them because you have a huge backlog of games to work through.
but nobody is forcing you to buy, and what you have bought will not cost anything to maintain your ability to play them (other than a PC).
And eventually you would finish the backlog, and then you can buy more to fill it again! With subscription, you are paying even if you don't got time to play!
And eventually you would finish the backlog, and then you can buy more to fill it again! With subscription, you are paying even if you don't got time to play!
Considering none of you want to pay full price for anything ever, get used to it. I don't see people complaining about how Netflix isn't making DVDs and Blu-ray for their content, or buying physical games even any more. You all want the moon; you want digital content forever at rock bottom prices.
The subscription services exist because people didn't want to pay for games. The games as service model exists because trying to make what you want just leads to piracy and enough lost sales to make it not worth releasing the content. GTA V for example probably learned its lesson from the piracy of chinatown wars on portables; its GAAS forever.
This is the world you made, I guess.
I mean, even with advertising on the net; no one wanted to pay subscriptions, and people here wanted content to be free. So the people moved to a model that would get them paid, and it was much worse than if we all just subscribed to physical magazines. Monetization models are often in reaction to the audience's willingness to pay; what we are finding out is that the old model of "buying physical product and not pirating it" actually was the best way to balance value and demands from the customer.
The subscription services exist because people didn't want to pay for games. The games as service model exists because trying to make what you want just leads to piracy and enough lost sales to make it not worth releasing the content. GTA V for example probably learned its lesson from the piracy of chinatown wars on portables; its GAAS forever.
This is the world you made, I guess.
I mean, even with advertising on the net; no one wanted to pay subscriptions, and people here wanted content to be free. So the people moved to a model that would get them paid, and it was much worse than if we all just subscribed to physical magazines. Monetization models are often in reaction to the audience's willingness to pay; what we are finding out is that the old model of "buying physical product and not pirating it" actually was the best way to balance value and demands from the customer.
Unlike the situation with paid media and adblocking, for games, the big boys were usually profitable aside from the occasional flop which was mostly related to bad games or aggressive monetisation. There are probably more examples of games killed by aggressive financial models in the recent past than by piracy.
Consequently there's a lot less sympathy for "We're not making enough money" verus "We're losing money".
Consequently there's a lot less sympathy for "We're not making enough money" verus "We're losing money".
nah, if anything aggressive financial models seem to work better, because they increase the limit of what people spend on a game. People pay $30 just to own a mount now; and its easy to make a lot of mounts for people who buy them. A fighting game like Dead or Alive costs you literally a thousand dollars for a "complete" version with all DLC. To the point where they just toss the base game for free.
Something like Genshin Impact prints money hand over fist compared to other games. If anything, the worry is that it works too well and drives out less aggressive games.
Something like Genshin Impact prints money hand over fist compared to other games. If anything, the worry is that it works too well and drives out less aggressive games.
It's easier than ever to make any game and Netflix is known for miniseries. What this means is it's easier than ever to push a commercial product.
My response is, well, how much money do game devs expect to make in non-original games anyway? Perhaps they should lower their revenue expectancies.
My response is, well, how much money do game devs expect to make in non-original games anyway? Perhaps they should lower their revenue expectancies.
Stadia without a very good connection is basically unplayable. Even the fact they have a data center near most population centers who would use Stadia isn't enough to combat it.
A little over a month ago I had thought about doing p2p resource sharing to reduce the amount travel time and latency and make game streaming an edge computing problem and I still think that might be the way to go.
P2P resource sharing in a local area. Start with PC gaming friends with the assumption that a lot of people have local friends when you want to game but not own a PC you boot up the system and it uses your friends GPU, when they play it'll bump you to another friend or in the case you don't have another friend that's where you fall back to a reduced server farm in a datacenter some where to handle that.
As people use the service you gradually expand who can resource share from friends to a general Geolocation based pool. Now you very rarely fall back to the datacenter. Problems like spot instance turnover in the cloud have forced people to solve the problem of gracefully transferring resources before spur of the moment shutdown and worst case I think you can run multiple copies that you could hard cut over to.
You'll need a pretty tight lower bound for the types of hardware that can join that network and be used as resources among other things.
Anyway I'm 100% certain I'm missing a bunch of problems and technicalities here but it seemed like a good enough idea where I still want to set this up in a small example using kube and a few friends' computers.
A little over a month ago I had thought about doing p2p resource sharing to reduce the amount travel time and latency and make game streaming an edge computing problem and I still think that might be the way to go.
P2P resource sharing in a local area. Start with PC gaming friends with the assumption that a lot of people have local friends when you want to game but not own a PC you boot up the system and it uses your friends GPU, when they play it'll bump you to another friend or in the case you don't have another friend that's where you fall back to a reduced server farm in a datacenter some where to handle that.
As people use the service you gradually expand who can resource share from friends to a general Geolocation based pool. Now you very rarely fall back to the datacenter. Problems like spot instance turnover in the cloud have forced people to solve the problem of gracefully transferring resources before spur of the moment shutdown and worst case I think you can run multiple copies that you could hard cut over to.
You'll need a pretty tight lower bound for the types of hardware that can join that network and be used as resources among other things.
Anyway I'm 100% certain I'm missing a bunch of problems and technicalities here but it seemed like a good enough idea where I still want to set this up in a small example using kube and a few friends' computers.
> Stadia without a very good connection is basically unplayable.
I dunno, I've used it on connections I consider "not too great" like at my parents house and was surprised at how well it works. Like a lot of things though I'm sure it's YMMV, maybe I got lucky.
I dunno, I've used it on connections I consider "not too great" like at my parents house and was surprised at how well it works. Like a lot of things though I'm sure it's YMMV, maybe I got lucky.
I play on gigabit hardwired and fiber and it was basically unusable for me. They need to do a lot better than that if they want mass adoption imo.
"Stadia without a very good connection is basically unplayable."
This is plain wrong. Tech wise stadia is amazing.
This is plain wrong. Tech wise stadia is amazing.
I mean if you read any of the launch articles or people's experiences including my own you'd know it's incredibly hit or miss.
If anything you're wrong here. Neat tech, swing and miss product and quality wise imo.
If anything you're wrong here. Neat tech, swing and miss product and quality wise imo.
I played Doom on my tv ( 10 years old with Chromecast ultra ) over wifi with a 50mb connection ( VDSL ) and was really impressed by the quality, responsiveness, how to setup things ect ... It's basically plug and play and it just works.
What do you define as unplayable? Reading your comments that you have fiber meaning low latency sounds very suspicious.
What do you define as unplayable? Reading your comments that you have fiber meaning low latency sounds very suspicious.
I would push a button and it was taking 1-2s to respond in Destiny 2 playing Stadia in chrome on linux. Playing on windows the input lag is less significant but enough where I can push a button and the action happens at basically a high ping couple hundred ms feeling.
Anything with an online component including things like ESO, an MMORPG, had enough input lag where I could not realistically enjoy playing.
Anything with an online component including things like ESO, an MMORPG, had enough input lag where I could not realistically enjoy playing.
[deleted]
With subscriptions, control is higher for publishers, so the only thing they need to do is making it a better deal than owning a game. As an important milestone, digital distribution paved the way so now people don't expect actual ownership over games, it's enough to be able to pay and then download and run.
Along this system, I think an indie scene will remain that distributes games as traditional downloadable software. As long as we'll have computers able to do generic computation of course.
I don’t know. I know many people just want to play all the new AAA games and then move on. For those subscription services seem perfect.
Me? I buy Albums and listen to them a lot. I don’t use Spotify. I buy games like Pathfinder: Kingmaker (1283h), Slay the Spire (1011h), Stellaris (762h). I sink a lot of time into those games I actually love. I might buy games that I don’t enjoy enough, but in the end for me it still wouldn’t be worth it to buy a subscription like gamepass.
But I think there are a lot of people who want that.
Me? I buy Albums and listen to them a lot. I don’t use Spotify. I buy games like Pathfinder: Kingmaker (1283h), Slay the Spire (1011h), Stellaris (762h). I sink a lot of time into those games I actually love. I might buy games that I don’t enjoy enough, but in the end for me it still wouldn’t be worth it to buy a subscription like gamepass.
But I think there are a lot of people who want that.
I've heard this one before!
What we're sold: a low monthly price to enjoy all the content we could ever want.
What we get: rapid balkanisation of service offerings.
Disney+, Netflix, Peacock, Discovery+, HBO Max, Hulu, YouTube Premium, Prime Video, Crackle.
Soon: Xbox Game Pass, PS Game Pass, Steam Game Pass, Ubisoft Game Pass, Take Two Game Pass, Activision Game Pass.
It's worse than bundles! Not to mention publishers just giving up on live service games and switching off servers. Games are art, and art should not be ephemeral.
I'll be able to fire up SimCity for DOS in 50 years. I won't be able to fire up SimCity (2013) in 5 years, let alone 50.
This industry is rapidly hollowing out. Microtransactions permeate every single AAA release, everything is "always online", paywalls for content and disastrous releases.
What we're sold: a low monthly price to enjoy all the content we could ever want.
What we get: rapid balkanisation of service offerings.
Disney+, Netflix, Peacock, Discovery+, HBO Max, Hulu, YouTube Premium, Prime Video, Crackle.
Soon: Xbox Game Pass, PS Game Pass, Steam Game Pass, Ubisoft Game Pass, Take Two Game Pass, Activision Game Pass.
It's worse than bundles! Not to mention publishers just giving up on live service games and switching off servers. Games are art, and art should not be ephemeral.
I'll be able to fire up SimCity for DOS in 50 years. I won't be able to fire up SimCity (2013) in 5 years, let alone 50.
This industry is rapidly hollowing out. Microtransactions permeate every single AAA release, everything is "always online", paywalls for content and disastrous releases.
> art should not be ephemeral
I think this is a little too unilateral for my tastes, but I do agree that it shouldn't be almost exclusively ephemeral. Culture is worth preserving.
I think this is a little too unilateral for my tastes, but I do agree that it shouldn't be almost exclusively ephemeral. Culture is worth preserving.
Counterpoint: Most people get WAY more value out of their Disney+, Netflix, Hulu, HBO Max subs than they ever did paying Comcast $200 a month. And at a fraction of the cost!
> And at a fraction of the cost!
...big fraction these days. I "cut the cord" a couple of years back and am now paying close to what I was paying before.
...big fraction these days. I "cut the cord" a couple of years back and am now paying close to what I was paying before.
I’m in Eastern Europe, I pay around 15$ monthly for Cable TV with around 100 channels, and high speed giga level internet.
Once Steam came up, and our standard of living increased, we pretty much stopped pirating games due to the convenience. When Spotify came up, and all the other music streaming services, we pretty much stopped pirating music. When Netflix popped up, most of the torrent sites dissappeared over night.
Now, a lot of people seem to turn back to piracy, and I suspect money is not the primary reason.
Once Steam came up, and our standard of living increased, we pretty much stopped pirating games due to the convenience. When Spotify came up, and all the other music streaming services, we pretty much stopped pirating music. When Netflix popped up, most of the torrent sites dissappeared over night.
Now, a lot of people seem to turn back to piracy, and I suspect money is not the primary reason.
Exactly, and I don't need to keep them active to watch one or the other. When i'm done with Disney+, i cancel. When i'm done with HBO/Showtime, I cancel.
The only ones I keep are Hulu+ an Netflix simply because they're so affordable and have so much content that i don't need to binge a show to cancel because there isn't anything else I want.
The only ones I keep are Hulu+ an Netflix simply because they're so affordable and have so much content that i don't need to binge a show to cancel because there isn't anything else I want.
The counterpoint is renting and buying DVDs/VHS tapes, not Comcast cable though.
> art should not be ephemeral
Why not?
Why not?
It'd be a sadder world if modern audiences could no longer enjoy Homer, or Shakespeare, or P.G. Wodehouse, or Firefly. It'd be a poorer world if current art could no longer build on or remix older art. Does this really need an argument?
Good art can and often does contain topical references which are mostly ephemeral, but I can't think of anything I've ever seen which was both a) entirely ephemeral and b) worth a damn.
Good art can and often does contain topical references which are mostly ephemeral, but I can't think of anything I've ever seen which was both a) entirely ephemeral and b) worth a damn.
>a) entirely ephemeral and b) worth a damn.
I can look back to some really really good fireworks shows.
I can look back to some really really good fireworks shows.
Fair point, although this example is ephemeral by necessity rather than by design. If you could experience those shows again whenever you felt like it, maybe via some improved VR setup, and share them with your friends/kids/postman, wouldn't that be strictly better?
Of relevance, Sand Mandalas are intentionally destroyed after completion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_mandala
Not by necessity, but by design. The world and life are transient - I see no fault in embracing it (for certain things)
Not by necessity, but by design. The world and life are transient - I see no fault in embracing it (for certain things)
Just wait until all software becomes a streamed H.265 video stream. That's certainly the future once latency allows for it. No piracy, infinite subscriptions, total control. But if you don't like it, don't buy it. That's life.
only true if the platform is not open enough for arbitrary competition.
> This industry is rapidly hollowing out. Microtransactions permeate every single AAA release, everything is "always online", paywalls for content and disastrous releases.
That's not true. there are good games that dont come with BS exploit gamers for every cent.
Hades, Disco Elysium, Valheim are my most recent games i played last year that are without microtransactions.
Also FUCK EA for destroying SimCity
That's not true. there are good games that dont come with BS exploit gamers for every cent.
Hades, Disco Elysium, Valheim are my most recent games i played last year that are without microtransactions.
Also FUCK EA for destroying SimCity
Hades, Disco Elysium, Valheim
None of those are "AAA" games. Don't get me wrong Hades and Disco Elysium where great (haven't played Valheim), but if your idea of a good time is CoD, Fortnite and Madden I won't blame you for not enjoying them.
None of those are "AAA" games. Don't get me wrong Hades and Disco Elysium where great (haven't played Valheim), but if your idea of a good time is CoD, Fortnite and Madden I won't blame you for not enjoying them.
None of those games are from AAA studios, so you haven't exactly rebutted the OP's comment which was "Microtransactions permeate every single AAA release".
> Also FUCK EA for destroying SimCity
Amen bro
Amen bro
Well, we got Cities: Skylines out of their mistake, so...
I feel like I'm alone in saying this, but I found Skylines to be a pale imitation of SimCity 4. It's a city-building game, where SC4 is much more of a city management game; you fill the map in Skylines, and there's almost nothing else to do.
Skylines is sandbox and traffic simulator, or more less traffic jam simulator
i think subscription is here to stay and solves the “new game are expensive but i want to play them” problem. on the other end of the spectrum you have all these game stores selling old games on heavy discount sales or epic store giving away a free game each week and this solves the i want to own, even if i’m years later, cheaply solution. i think there’s room for both
Remember the VR hype? It's most certainly the same marketing experts saying game subscription services are going to be a big thing one day.
I see it this way. PlayStation to XBox, is like Apple to Android. On one side you pay for a product, on the other side you are the product. Sony runs the infrastructure, and provides bandwidth. You get two games for free every month (if you haven't bought them already) and you won't get into a Netflix situation where, when you have time to pick up a game it suddenly isn't available any more as part of the subscription.
This all might take a generation of kids who grow up with subscription services to ve successful, until they eventually find out it hasn't always veen this eay and then post on HN hoe grrat it would be to own your stuff again.
I see it this way. PlayStation to XBox, is like Apple to Android. On one side you pay for a product, on the other side you are the product. Sony runs the infrastructure, and provides bandwidth. You get two games for free every month (if you haven't bought them already) and you won't get into a Netflix situation where, when you have time to pick up a game it suddenly isn't available any more as part of the subscription.
This all might take a generation of kids who grow up with subscription services to ve successful, until they eventually find out it hasn't always veen this eay and then post on HN hoe grrat it would be to own your stuff again.
[deleted]
Check "Game as a service is a fraud" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUAX0gnZ3Nw
[deleted]
I've given up on commercial games after online DRM. I'll play the game when the source is on github.
Have a look at https://www.gog.com/. I only buy new games from them. You can download the whole package to store offline and play in a few years without needing to "login" or being online
If the future of gaming is a subscription model, I'd rather just stop gaming.