launch bugs are what they are, but I’m mostly disappointed to hear of how little people are enjoying the actual game when it’s functioning as-intended. I loved the arkham series and the flowy, beautiful combat it has. Between it and the very similar middle earth games, I’ve put in hundreds of hours of counter and dodge focused ass-kicking, and I was hoping for more in a universe that I actually quite like.
Rocksteady took the game entirely offline to fix a devastating bug that would lead to new players receiving 100% completion of the entire game without having done anything.
What about people who want to play multiplayer games? Like, when I play Counterstrike in a ranked fashion I sort of expect the service part… Same for games like Overwatch, Valorant, Dota, League, etc.
I feel like you’re missing a clarification of “No one wants Always Online or GaaS in single player or coop titles”?
Well yeah. Games that are inherently multi-player and not split screen and feature an aspect of matchmaking are obviously fine to be always online games as a service.
Although personally the games-as-a-service model is something I avoid even in those. Overwatch was made objectively worse when it went from the buy-once model to the pay-once-a-season-or-you-dont-get-the-new-hero model. Mauga is completely busted right now and every new introduction of a hero since 2 launched has felt exactly like this-- busted while paid-only players have access and then fixed after the free players get a chance.
It’s the model. Squeezing money out of players is slowly killing even multi-player games like Overwatch.
It’s completely and utterly unacceptable for single player games.
You’re right. It is a matter of perspective though. For the actual players, absolutely. It’s always better to have self hosted matches and control the content yourself. But even in my example above, Overwatch could not sustain itself as a studio on the buy-once model, even with loot boxes. I still think they’re doing it wrong and it fucking sucks, but the buy-once model lead to a developmentally dead game for a few years.
From game dev perspective, having a model that makes money over time allows the game to continue being updated without investment from outside sources.
You can get money over time with the traditional model, just release content DLCs. I’ve spent hundreds on EU4 over the years, and I just treat their DLCs as buying a new game since it freshens up the experience for me. For MP, players get access to whatever DLC the host has, which works really well.
Overwatch could totally do that as well. DLCs could have:
playable characters/classes
game modes
maps/settings
SP campaigns
Nothing about the game requires an evergreen format. Some games do, such as CCGs like Hearthstone and Magic: Arena since they have frequent card releases and the games are designed around scarcity, but most of these don’t.
When I played counter strike I expected no such thing. If I wanted skins, I could go get them for free on csbanana. I expected nothing more than a game and a dedicated server client. The rest was provided by the community.
I’d prefer it release with modding tools so the community could make maps and skins. I’d also prefer it to release with the ability to host my own server. I also don’t give a shit about meaningless ranking. All this shit is a poison pill for me.
Every game should have this tbh. A lot of the big genres and games in recent years came from literally this. Modern mobas and battleroyals come to mind .
Instead what we have is Epic delisting all the Unreal and Unreal Tournament games from all the stores and shutting down the master servers for the multiplayer games. There was a time when games were going to be restricted, but managed to survive on the basis that they were art and therefor protected under free speech laws. You can’t even get American McGee’s Alice legally anymore and it was absolutely art created by masters of the engine at that point.
Well, I’m sure there are plenty out there that do want multiplayer only games.
Personally I avoid them like the plague. I would love it if Valorant, overwatch, etc came with a single player campaign that could be played offline, or an option to play against bots.
I hate people. Especially random competitive online people.
Lots of great indie games stay on Early Access for a while and end up becoming amazing games.
But yeah, for an IP this big, early access is a red flag.
Edit: I’m realizing now that you probably meant it as in “paying more to play the game a couple days early,” and not the Steam definition of “releasing an incomplete game while you continually update it.”
Except Suicide Squad wasn’t released in that way. Maybe you’re not aware of the recent trend by AAA studios to make playing a game a week or so early one of the pre-order bonuses. People are just confusing things by using the already established “early access” label.
I interpreted it as: people had a chance to play it before release, and realized it sucked, and then told other people online that it sucks, who then changed their minds about buying it.
There is a difference between: an indie game being sold as Early Access on Steam, a situation where the buyer is completely aware of the state of the game, and might even be interested in participating in how that game develops going forwards; and a shitty incomplete AAA game that’s being sold as a complete experience for $60-70. I don’t think I should have to explain why they’re different.
I’m aware of the difference, and it’s not a new thing. I remember preordering physical console games for the OG Xbox and getting it a couple days early. The same exists for Magic: the Gathering sets.
That style is usually called “pre-release,” which differs from “early access,” which is Steam’s term for communicating that something is unfinished yet available for purchase. Baldur’s Gate 3 followed the “early access” model where the first act was available three years before full release. Starfield followed the “pre-release” model (though called “early access”) where the full game was available about 4 days early if you paid a bit extra, but the game didn’t differ from what was available on the regular release date (except whatever bug fixes were made in those 4 days).
I understand not wanting to pay extra for a “pre-release,” but I don’t understand writing a game off entirely just because it offers that option. However, I do understand writing a game off if it’s in “early access” because many games never actually release and the game is just a buggy mess. If there’s an official release date, I’ll usually wait a week or so to get reviews from regular people. If it’s in “early access,” I’m not going to expect an official release anytime soon and will usually just wishlist and check back later (unless the game like really good, reviews are good, and I’m okay with the game changing significantly; e.g. Palworld).
So that’s why I think they meant Steam’s “early access” (no set release date) since the AAA “pre-release” is just a money grab that you can avoid by waiting a week and says nothing about the quality of the game (it’ll be just as buggy on the official launch date).
My point is that I think OP is likely complaining about “early access” in general and probably never bothered to check if Suicide Squad is “early access” (as in, beta) or “pre-release” (money grab for getting it a few days before everyone else). As in, the typical “didn’t read the article” that’s so common here and on Reddit.
Edit: OP responded and clarified. They meant the Steam “early access” that many indie games do, not the “pre-order” that Starfield and Suicide Squad did. OP doesn’t seem to actually know anything about the game and is just responding to headlines like so many other Lemmy and Reddit users do.
I think others were referring to the fact that Suicide Squad was playable a few days early by people who preordered. It definitely wasn’t in “Early Access” in the way Satisfactory is. They’re two different concepts, and people are just confusing things by calling the relatively new phenomenon of letting people play a AAA game early by a term that already exists in the gaming space.
Regardless, indie devs that choose to release a game as “Early Access” (as in the Steam model) have made a decision to offer the admittedly incomplete game to players for a reduced price, and then including those gamers’ opinions into the development of the game. If you buy an early access game and you’re upset that it’s not finished, that’s 100% on you. When you get an early access game, you’ve accepted that the game isn’t complete. That’s part of it. That’s what you paid for.
That sucks. Many EA games have great content before being released fully. If you like the state of the game its fine to buy it. With Suicide Squad it was obvious the game would be bad though
Wonder why, I was watching Lirik, shroud, and summit play it earlier and it honestly looked really good. I’m not 100% sold on the destiny/warframe-lite combat but the story is good and the writing is funny. Graphics are great as well, the cutscenes are gorgeous and there’s very little noticeable cutover between game and cutscene
I watched some gameplay and expected the worst, and i kinda liked the story. The writing isn't fantastic but at least it's not super cringe. And it looks pretty great, and runs fine apparently. But the combat is grade a boring. S crolled through 4 hours of gameplay and i saw 2 slightly different enemies. And aside from the story it was: go here, kill this. Go there, kill this. Good job.
One of the biggest issues with Super Hero stories in general is they’ve all been told already. If a videogame does nothing to make its super hero story stand out, like letting you interact with the story in a unique way, it’s probably not worth the money, and it’s very likely not worth the time. If you are into super hero stories regardless of if there’s an ounce of originality, or if you’re into gameplay that is proven to be solid but also purely derivative of better games, then by all means go for it.
Gameplay, movement, and shooting are all super fun. The story is silly, but exactly what you’d expect.
This is just clickbait. Yea, there was a bug for the first few people that changes their location to New Zealand to play early, but 99% of people did not experience that bug.
I mean, who was searching for that before the game released? I imagine you’d see the same trend with basically every game immediately following release. Not to downplay the issues the game has having, but this is like a “duh” kind of thing.
They did, yes. Getting pretty common these days. Early Access with a preorder of a higher priced digital edition of a game. Seems relatively harmless to me. I would never pay for that, but I think if it means that much to you, it’s not hurting anything.
I feel somewhat the same on single player, but this is competitive GAAS, and they knew exactly what they were doing when they did it here. People who do this seriously already know every map, every spawn and every weapons characteristics within three days. (I’m wrong about this see below) This is simply another pay to win mechanic for the kind of people who play 12 hours a day, reach max rank in three days and hunt rookies who didn’t spend the extra money to play early.
###########
I have been corrected and apologize for the mistake. It is not competitive and that mostly renders my point moot. I’m leaving this here for posterity.
It’s not competitive. It’s cooperative. It doesn’t even have a pvp mode.
And even if it had a pvp mode, 3 days isn’t going to change anything long term. It’s such a minor issue. It’s just another thing for people to needlessly complain about.
Honestly? I’d like to see a second videogame crash. Kill off most of the major publishers, start over from scratch… Ain’t happening, but sometimes I wish.
Add comment