What are your thoughts on the current state of gaming industry ?

[Pandaprewmaster325]

was it better some years ago? what do you think?

 

[Dr Super Good]

I think it was at its peek when multiplayer on game consoles used to be free. This was the case for both the Xbox (original), PS2/3 and Wii/Wii U. Developers were free to add silly multiplayer features to games and as internet increased in popularity games generally became more social.

Now all the game console developers demand paid subscriptions for multiplayer, and although Sony still has some lenience with online features that do or do not need payment, Nintendo is absolute about it with anything online needing a subscription. This would not be an issue if games moved away from multiplayer or social features like to before those commonly existed, but Nintendo has become increasingly aggressive at trying to push them into games and the rewards can be borderline pay to win in some games.

A good example of pay to win aspect of this is with Pokemon sword/shield the max raid battles purposely gave you borderline useless AI companions that you could not control and would do stupid things if you could not pay for the subscription to have real people. Another example is in Fire Emblem Three Houses and Fire Emblem Engage where online features let you find bonus items, including powerful permanent stat ups, if you paid for the subscription. Nintendo did not used to be like this, with Xenoblade Chronicles X having free multiplayer including overworld progress and even coop battles.

It gets even more ridiculous with games that have PC ports. Although the console versions require subscriptions to play, the PC versions do not. For example after buying Diablo IV on PC I can keep playing it free, without a subscription, but anyone playing it on consoles requires a subscription as the game does not even support single player. Like wise with a small developer game like Factorio, I as a PC player can play it fully multiplayer for free with the initial purchase, but Switch players, who can even cross play with PC players, need to pay a subscription to Nintendo to do so.

These practices have sucked a lot of enjoyment out of console games to the point that I am not interested in most of the newer generation of consoles. I do not have issues with subscription services offering game libraries, in game benefits, cloud gaming, e.t.c., but in this day and age having to pay for basic multiplayer functionality on a platform is disgusting.

 

[Pandaprewmaster325]

I think it was at its peek when multiplayer on game consoles used to be free. This was the case for both the Xbox (original), PS2/3 and Wii/Wii U. Developers were free to add silly multiplayer features to games and as internet increased in popularity games generally became more social.

Now all the game console developers demand paid subscriptions for multiplayer, and although Sony still has some lenience with online features that do or do not need payment, Nintendo is absolute about it with anything online needing a subscription. This would not be an issue if games moved away from multiplayer or social features like to before those commonly existed, but Nintendo has become increasingly aggressive at trying to push them into games and the rewards can be borderline pay to win in some games.

Nintendo is doing such activity? why no-one spoke about it? or at least protested against it?

A good example of pay to win aspect of this is with Pokemon sword/shield the max raid battles purposely gave you borderline useless AI companions that you could not control and would do stupid things if you could not pay for the subscription to have real people. Another example is in Fire Emblem Three Houses and Fire Emblem Engage where online features let you find bonus items, including powerful permanent stat ups, if you paid for the subscription. Nintendo did not used to be like this, with Xenoblade Chronicles X having free multiplayer including overworld progress and even coop battles.

this is tragic i never expected Nintendo to be like this always thought of it better

It gets even more ridiculous with games that have PC ports. Although the console versions require subscriptions to play, the PC versions do not. For example after buying Diablo IV on PC I can keep playing it free, without a subscription, but anyone playing it on consoles requires a subscription as the game does not even support single player. Like wise with a small developer game like Factorio, I as a PC player can play it fully multiplayer for free with the initial purchase, but Switch players, who can even cross play with PC players, need to pay a subscription to Nintendo to do so.

so you are telling me a console player might pay more than the pc player to continue playing the game ? always thought of PC as the Superior device to play games on

These practices have sucked a lot of enjoyment out of console games to the point that I am not interested in most of the newer generation of consoles. I do not have issues with subscription services offering game libraries, in game benefits, cloud gaming, e.t.c., but in this day and age having to pay for basic multiplayer functionality on a platform is disgusting.

if the situation is like this then a pc is better economically as you wont have to keep paying if you want to play online

 

[Evilhog]

Although the console versions require subscriptions to play, the PC versions do not. For example after buying Diablo IV on PC I can keep playing it free, without a subscription, but anyone playing it on consoles requires a subscription as the game does not even support single player.

This article says you don't need subscription to play solo or local coop:

How to play Diablo 4 without PlayStation Plus or Xbox Live Gold

For the uninformed, it has been discovered that you are able to play Diablo IV with a PlayStation Plus or Xbox Live Gold subscription after some initial

seekingtech.com

Nevertheless, I also find the idea of paying to get access to basic multiplayer features ridiculous.

Speaking of expenses, it's unlikely I will ever purchase Diablo 4 or any other "premium" title with the current trend of "triple-A" games costing more than 60 dollars/Euros. The regional prices aren't encouraging either.

 

[Dr Super Good]

This article says you don't need subscription to play solo or local coop:

However the official sales page for Sony says otherwise. Specifically the following...

Diablo® IV - Standard Edition

Diablo® IV - Standard Edition includes - Diablo® IV for PS4™ PS5™ - Inarius Wings Inarius Murloc Pet in Diablo® III - Amalgam of Rage Mount in World of Warcraft® Diablo® IV is the next-gen action RPG experience with endless evil to slaughter, countless abilities to master, nightmarish...

store.playstation.com

• PS Plus required for online play
• Online play required

Xbox sales site only says that multiplayer needs a subscription and that the game is single player. As such it might be that the Xbox version does not have this issue, but I somehow doubt it...

Speaking of expenses, it's unlikely I will ever purchase Diablo 4 or any other "premium" title with the current trend of "triple-A" games costing more than 60 dollars/Euros. The regional prices aren't encouraging either.

I think it has already been on sale once. In a year or so you can probably pick it up for $30 or less which is much more reasonable.

 

[Evilhog]

However the official sales page for Sony says otherwise. Specifically the following...

Diablo® IV - Standard Edition

Diablo® IV - Standard Edition includes - Diablo® IV for PS4™ PS5™ - Inarius Wings Inarius Murloc Pet in Diablo® III - Amalgam of Rage Mount in World of Warcraft® Diablo® IV is the next-gen action RPG experience with endless evil to slaughter, countless abilities to master, nightmarish...

store.playstation.com

• PS Plus required for online play
• Online play required

Xbox sales site only says that multiplayer needs a subscription and that the game is single player. As such it might be that the Xbox version does not have this issue, but I somehow doubt it...

These requirements seem to be misleading, since the game can be played solo without active PS Plus/Xbox Live Gold, as evident from these threads:

Can play D4 without PS+ subscription?

For anyone else that sees this post, disregard all the previous information. My PS Plus subscription ran out yesterday and I’m online playing solo and can see other players. I’m just limited to not playing group content and pvp.

eu.forums.blizzard.com

https://www.reddit.com/r/diablo4/comments/13wvruf

I think it has already been on sale once. In a year or so you can probably pick it up for $30 or less which is much more reasonable.

Even on sale, with 25% off, it wasn't a very tempting offer thanks to Blizzard's regional pricing policy. And I think I'm going to ignore the generous "last chance special discount", which decreases the price to "mere" ~$68. Indeed, waiting a few years and picking it up "for $30 or less" seems the most reasonable scenario for me.

 

[emperor_d3st]

There are many problems with the gaming industry.

Firstly, most games are no longer games, but software products, mind viruses that are designed with abusable human cognitive heuristics and short circuits in mind that drain you dry of your money. Art, fun, story-telling, having a good time are often not even on the table when designing a "game".

Secondly, microtransactions.
This is a somewhat separate point from my first. When the Celestial Steed from WoW makes more money than Starcraft 2 altogether, why should companies make a Starcraft 3?

Thirdly, mobile gaming, console gaming.
In the past console gaming was a blight on gaming, because of the very limited resources of consoles, and their very limited controller made companies create overly simplistic, ugly looking games, with stupid UI/UX then they ported that garbage 1:1 from console to PC. Just look at Skyrim's inventory system, for example. Also, I have a hypothesis that much of what you can see on Google Play is actually money laundering.

Fourthly, ideology.
Female leader quotas, diversity hiring, ideological pandering, etc. are a great way to make games unnecessarily more expensive and lower quality.

Fifthly, live service.
While the core idea of live service can be great (active development of content and features even after release), I don't think I can recall a single good example besides Deep Rock Galactic and Don't Starve Together. Live service is a big f.u. to modders in most cases, and it almost always means "We will release 40% of a game, then maybe fix it later".

Sixthly, bots.
While it is clear that some companies, cough, Blizzard, cough, treat bots as paying customers rather than problems that they need to eradicate, because they hurt the quality of the experience, bots are becoming more and more sophisticated and easier to produce and harder to detect. I think the competitive / multiplayer gaming scene will go through a decay because of this in the coming years.

 

[Pandaprewmaster325]

There are many problems with the gaming industry.

Firstly, most games are no longer games, but software products, mind viruses that are designed with abusable human cognitive heuristics and short circuits in mind that drain you dry of your money. Art, fun, story-telling, having a good time are often not even on the table when designing a "game".

yes i noticed that especially with battle passes

Secondly, microtransactions.
This is a somewhat separate point from my first. When the Celestial Steed from WoW makes more money than Starcraft 2 altogether, why should companies make a Starcraft 3?

yes monetization as said before became top priority

Thirdly, mobile gaming, console gaming.
In the past console gaming was a blight on gaming, because of the very limited resources of consoles, and their very limited controller made companies create overly simplistic, ugly looking games, with stupid UI/UX then they ported that garbage 1:1 from console to PC. Just look at Skyrim's inventory system, for example. Also, I have a hypothesis that much of what you can see on Google Play is actually money laundering.

hmmm i dont really get your point on consoles as many great games started on consoles such as god of war even san andreas was first put there and if i remember right RE4 was also on console first the last has a bit of problematic controls with shooting and halo too so i dont think its blight on gaming rather a bless of course there is some games that dont fit the console such as RTS while some RTS games were put on console its rather hard to control it even oh phone RTS games are tough to play also how does your idea of mobile games being money laundering make sense plz elaborate

Fourthly, ideology.
Female leader quotas, diversity hiring, ideological pandering, etc. are a great way to make games unnecessarily more expensive and lower quality.

i agree 100% 1000% on this

Fifthly, live service.
While the core idea of live service can be great (active development of content and features even after release), I don't think I can recall a single good example besides Deep Rock Galactic and Don't Starve Together. Live service is a big f.u. to modders in most cases, and it almost always means "We will release 40% of a game, then maybe fix it later".

yeah this has been proven to be a bad idea and a doomed idea from the start world of warcraft is a good example its story went down further and further and butchered what wc3 built

Sixthly, bots.
While it is clear that some companies, cough, Blizzard, cough, treat bots as paying customers rather than problems that they need to eradicate, because they hurt the quality of the experience, bots are becoming more and more sophisticated and easier to produce and harder to detect. I think the competitive / multiplayer gaming scene will go through a decay because of this in the coming years.

bots are becoming a big problem however you can spot them in valve games mainly counter strike as you can check player list and see who is an actual player and who isnt indicated by their time playing but its still a problem as in some other games you cant do that and you are left with guessing if this person is real or not .

 

[emperor_d3st]

bots are becoming a big problem however you can spot them in valve games mainly counter strike as you can check player list and see who is an actual player and who isnt indicated by their time playing but its still a problem as in some other games you cant do that and you are left with guessing if this person is real or not

Yeah, those are the least hidden cases of botting, but my point is that with AI it is getting easier and easier to be aided in games by a computer, in ways that most of us do not even think about. What if, let's say you could make ChatGPT watch your Dota2 match and warn you of likely ambushes on your lane. Sounds like something you could train ChatGPT right now, and give you a huge advantage over players whose play is not augmented by AI.

hmmm i dont really get your point on consoles as many great games started on consoles such as god of war even san andreas was first put there and if i remember right RE4 was also on console first the last has a bit of problematic controls with shooting and halo too so i dont think its blight on gaming rather a bless of course there is some games that dont fit the console such as RTS while some RTS games were put on console its rather hard to control it even oh phone RTS games are tough to play also how does your idea of mobile games being money laundering make sense plz elaborate

There are great console original games and some games, such as Mortal Kombat or Injustice are outright better with a controller rather than a keyboard and mouse. However, those games start out as console games, because in the beginning companies have to decide what platforms they want to ship their games for, and Console is generally the one they think of first, as it is the most profitable.
Quick google search:

In 2022, revenue from the global PC games market was estimated at nearly $40 billion, while the mobile games market generated a revenue of over $92 billion. The consoles segment came in second with $51 billion.

This means that one day the company making RE4 sat down and gave it a long hard think if they should make a PC game where moddability exists, hardware is stronger, so they can make more complex maps, better graphics, better UI/UX, and said... "naaah, console is where the money is".
Playstation 4 has 8 GB RAM which is also shared by the GPU, a subpar CPU and GPU, and 500 GB. Modern PC games on highest settings require 16 GB RAM plus an additional 8 GB VRAM, a much better GPU and CPU, and close to 100 GB. Take Destiny 2, for example. There are very few enemy models, because having a lot of those would require more RAM, CPU, GPU. In Destiny 2 the developers outright deleted multiple planets (older content), because the size of the game was getting too big. Imagine if Blizzard said, oh, yeah, with this new expansion we are deleting all the old world areas starting with Classic and up to WOTLK.

 

[Pandaprewmaster325]

Yeah, those are the least hidden cases of botting, but my point is that with AI it is getting easier and easier to be aided in games by a computer, in ways that most of us do not even think about. What if, let's say you could make ChatGPT watch your Dota2 match and warn you of likely ambushes on your lane. Sounds like something you could train ChatGPT right now, and give you a huge advantage over players whose play is not augmented by AI.

the question is how easy it is to implement it and how fast it learns

There are great console original games and some games, such as Mortal Kombat or Injustice are outright better with a controller rather than a keyboard and mouse. However, those games start out as console games, because in the beginning companies have to decide what platforms they want to ship their games for, and Console is generally the one they think of first, as it is the most profitable.

oh i see what you meant games that dont start on consoles at first yeah in that case troubles may arise

This means that one day the company making RE4 sat down and gave it a long hard think if they should make a PC game where moddability exists, hardware is stronger, so they can make more complex maps, better graphics, better UI/UX, and said... "naaah, console is where the money is".
Playstation 4 has 8 GB RAM which is also shared by the GPU, a subpar CPU and GPU, and 500 GB. Modern PC games on highest settings require 16 GB RAM plus an additional 8 GB VRAM, a much better GPU and CPU, and close to 100 GB. Take Destiny 2, for example. There are very few enemy models, because having a lot of those would require more RAM, CPU, GPU. In Destiny 2 the developers outright deleted multiple planets (older content), because the size of the game was getting too big. Imagine if Blizzard said, oh, yeah, with this new expansion we are deleting all the old world areas starting with Classic and up to WOTLK.

yeah well resident evil 4 is still great tho even if there was limitations , but indeed PC is superior in every aspect i could think of besides football games those on console are better

In 2022, revenue from the global PC games market was estimated at nearly $40 billion, while the mobile games market generated a revenue of over $92 billion. The consoles segment came in second with $51 billion.

how is this possible? no way pay-to-win earned that much as most mobile games are pay to win thats why i downloaded half life on mobile better than any mobile game

 

[emperor_d3st]

how is this possible? no way pay-to-win earned that much as most mobile games are pay to win thats why i downloaded half life on mobile better than any mobile game

Well, there are many factors here.
Mobile phones are the most numerous.
The average IQ and overall cognitive abilities of mobile gamers are lower than of pc gamers.
Gaming PCs are very expensive compared to mobiles and consoles. A PS5 costs around the third of a mid level PC setup build around, let's say RTX 4060.
Console games are more expensive than PC games.
Piracy and account sharing is easier on PC.
And so on.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Secondly, microtransactions.
This is a somewhat separate point from my first. When the Celestial Steed from WoW makes more money than Starcraft 2 altogether, why should companies make a Starcraft 3?

This is more a case of market share. StarCraft II has a comparatively small market share compared with WoW. This was likely the reason they stopped developing Heroes of the Storm, because despite making them decent money it would never be a league of legends or DotA 2 as far as popularity goes. This is likely where a lot of the tension between developers and Blizzard management started since they only wanted to make the most popular games, rather than popular enough games.

Thirdly, mobile gaming, console gaming.
In the past console gaming was a blight on gaming, because of the very limited resources of consoles, and their very limited controller made companies create overly simplistic, ugly looking games, with stupid UI/UX then they ported that garbage 1:1 from console to PC. Just look at Skyrim's inventory system, for example. Also, I have a hypothesis that much of what you can see on Google Play is actually money laundering.

Skyrim is also the perfect argument against your statement. Although Skyrim was available on consoles and maybe some aspects of its UI were optimised for such, it is primarily a PC game, and its build quality fully supports that. Poor performance, excessive memory usage, crashes, looking ugly, e.t.c. The worst part is that it is all these on PC, so on console it is so much worse lol.

Consoles themselves are not a problem for game creativity. Some of the most well known and popular games ever made have been console games. Modern sonic 1 to 3+k ports pretty much use the original sega genesis limited sprites to this day, and those sonics are still a lot more popular than the newer ones that have all the bells and whistle quality graphics. A good looking game is not about how ray traced the graphics or, or how much maths each pixel needs to calculate, a good looking game is all about how good the art is. Even very old consoles still gave a lot of freedom in that regard, which is why retro graphics are still very popular.

On the other end of the spectrum you have a PC designed game like Warcraft III. As much as I like Warcraft III its graphics have not aged as well as Sonic 1 to 3+k have. Warcraft III (with classic graphics) 3D graphics aged about as well as most PS1 games.

Fourthly, ideology.
Female leader quotas, diversity hiring, ideological pandering, etc. are a great way to make games unnecessarily more expensive and lower quality.

This is needed for creating a game with "most popular" mindset. Be totally offensive to women? Well there goes 30% of your sales. Only feature white characters? There goes 70% of your sales. Offend a major religion? There goes 20% of your sales and gets your product banned in several countries. Percentages were made up, but market analysists could probably produce some. It is just business sense to make a product target as many people as possible.

That said I do agree it limits creativity. This is where indy games can really shine though as they give the creators full freedom over their project rather than it being driven by market analytics. If you want to see such freedom, it is probably advisable to stay away from AAA games.

While the core idea of live service can be great (active development of content and features even after release), I don't think I can recall a single good example besides Deep Rock Galactic and Don't Starve Together. Live service is a big f.u. to modders in most cases, and it almost always means "We will release 40% of a game, then maybe fix it later".

I think you are confusing live service with early access.

Early access is when a developer releases part of a game or a buggy mess that people buy or play with only their promise that it will become a vaguely working game in the future. Although it has been a disaster for a lot of games, it has also proven gold for others. For example, factorio was an early access game that has much critical claim with a large active modding community.

Live service games are where there is a constant stream of limited time content added to a game. The purpose is to encourage consistent user engagement by always offering the player something new to do. Due to the nature of live service, once the development of the game stops the game is often rendered unplayable, or at best left forever stuck in its last state. Examples of live service games include World of Warcraft, Diablo IV and Heroes of the Storm (while in development). For example in Diablo IV it is unlikely previous season mechanics and storylines will ever be replayed in future seasons.

Games like Genshine Impact are a special case of being both. It is early access in that not all map regions and the complete main storyline is implemented, but it is also live service because it runs limited time, never to be repeated, events that tie in with content updates.

Sixthly, bots.
While it is clear that some companies, cough, Blizzard, cough, treat bots as paying customers rather than problems that they need to eradicate, because they hurt the quality of the experience, bots are becoming more and more sophisticated and easier to produce and harder to detect. I think the competitive / multiplayer gaming scene will go through a decay because of this in the coming years.

Blizzard does actively combat bots, especially in their live service or still being developed games. They likely try to combat them in all games, but for the older games there is only so much they can do to detect and deal with bots automatically, instead needing to rely on reports.

Bots are not becoming easier to produce, and in many cases the bot authors are scammers so do not need to care about them being detected or not. AI might allow for more sophisticated bots, but getting an AI to do anything reasonably well is not easy either. Fundamentally if the bot played like a real player there would not even be an issue, the only reason people hate bot players so much is because they either cheat (0 reflex time and aim bot in a FPS) or play so badly it ruins the game for everyone (A move suiciding down a lane in a MobA).

What if, let's say you could make ChatGPT watch your Dota2 match and warn you of likely ambushes on your lane.

Given ChatGPT is running a large language model, it would be like telling a blind person to warn if they see anything unusual.

If someone is skilled enough to make a new AI model that can do that, they would not be wasting their time selling it to want-to-be cheaters and instead would be selling it to governments for their militaries or law enforcement.

However, those games start out as console games

Actually Mortal Kombat started out as an arcade game. Arcade machines were like the super computers for games of the time. Their graphic hardware was often vastly superior to what people would have access to at home, especially early home computers. This practice only changed towards the 2000s where arcade machines increasingly started to become slightly beefier home consoles or just high end computers.

This means that one day the company making RE4 sat down and gave it a long hard think if they should make a PC game where moddability exists, hardware is stronger, so they can make more complex maps, better graphics, better UI/UX, and said... "naaah, console is where the money is".
Playstation 4 has 8 GB RAM which is also shared by the GPU, a subpar CPU and GPU, and 500 GB. Modern PC games on highest settings require 16 GB RAM plus an additional 8 GB VRAM, a much better GPU and CPU, and close to 100 GB. Take Destiny 2, for example. There are very few enemy models, because having a lot of those would require more RAM, CPU, GPU. In Destiny 2 the developers outright deleted multiple planets (older content), because the size of the game was getting too big. Imagine if Blizzard said, oh, yeah, with this new expansion we are deleting all the old world areas starting with Classic and up to WOTLK.

Yes they choose to target consoles because it has a larger audience than PC. Of the sort of people who will play the game, more own consoles than at least as good PCs.

Modern PC games only need 16 GB of RAM because they suck at managing RAM. If you install 16 GB of RAM, the game tries using all 16 GB of RAM so you run out of memory so you then install 32 GB of RAM to find the game is trying to use 28 GB of that RAM just because it can, if it can. Anno 1800 and Diablo IV suffer from this problem where on PC even 16 GB of RAM can be not enough if you have any background applications open just because the game tries to max its memory usage. Remove this cache logic and 8 GB free is still more than enough for most games.

The problem with Destiny 2 sounds like the overall project scope inflating outside of practical limits. If they were targeting a 100 GB install size at some stage they should have drawn a line at some stage and split the game into 2, intercompatible, parts. A classic game covering all the old planets, and a current game which has the classic content people usually would not play removed to stream line the install.

the question is how easy it is to implement it and how fast it learns

Very hard. It would likely cost several million dollars to create just in training costs.

The threat of AI is from people with resources, like large companies and governments. It is not from private individuals who want to make cheat programs. There are tons of youtubers making videos about their journey into AI and making it play various games. All they have in common is that the results vary from pretty decent with a lot of foot notes, to comically abysmal.

how is this possible? no way pay-to-win earned that much as most mobile games are pay to win thats why i downloaded half life on mobile better than any mobile game

Most people on the planet have a smart phone. Most people on the planet do not have a PC or a video game console. Potentially market reach for mobile games is a lot bigger than PC or console.

Apple is trying to encourage PC game developers to port their games to phone. As an example Resident Evil Village now has a native Iphone port that can run on the latest pro iphones. Sure it does not run as well as it does on a steam deck, but it is a phone playing a ported AAA game and it is more than playable.

Gaming PCs are very expensive compared to mobiles and consoles.

Tell that to the £1,000+ iphone models. If you go second hand you could probably build a pretty decent gaming PC for the cost of the phone. But a gaming PC cannot be used in the same way as a smart phone...

Where as a gaming PC or console is a luxury, a smart phone is pretty much a necessity.

 

[emperor_d3st]

Tell that to the £1,000+ iphone models. If you go second hand you could probably build a pretty decent gaming PC for the cost of the phone. But a gaming PC cannot be used in the same way as a smart phone...
Where as a gaming PC or console is a luxury, a smart phone is pretty much a necessity.

The iPhone is an overpriced luxury item.
A real phone, for example a Xiaomi Poco costs around 200$. A PS5 around 500$

 

[Pandaprewmaster325]

Well, there are many factors here.
Mobile phones are the most numerous.
The average IQ and overall cognitive abilities of mobile gamers are lower than of pc gamers.
Gaming PCs are very expensive compared to mobiles and consoles. A PS5 costs around the third of a mid level PC setup build around, let's say RTX 4060.
Console games are more expensive than PC games.
Piracy and account sharing is easier on PC
And so on.

i remember when gamers used to look down upon mobile gamers often calling them "not real gamers" sometimes bullying them too good times

Very hard. It would likely cost several million dollars to create just in training costs.

The threat of AI is from people with resources, like large companies and governments. It is not from private individuals who want to make cheat programs. There are tons of youtubers making videos about their journey into AI and making it play various games. All they have in common is that the results vary from pretty decent with a lot of foot notes, to comically abysmal.

and add on that how accessible its gonna be?

Most people on the planet have a smart phone. Most people on the planet do not have a PC or a video game console. Potentially market reach for mobile games is a lot bigger than PC or console.

Apple is trying to encourage PC game developers to port their games to phone. As an example Resident Evil Village now has a native Iphone port that can run on the latest pro iphones. Sure it does not run as well as it does on a steam deck, but it is a phone playing a ported AAA game and it is more than playable.

yes indeed smart phones are more spread than any other device it just came to my mind that pubg had battle passes and so many of my pairs owned a phone they always bought battle passes and nothing else so this just speaks volume

 

[Dr Super Good]

The iPhone is an overpriced luxury item.
A real phone, for example a Xiaomi Poco costs around 200$. A PS5 around 500$

A PS5 costs closer to 1,000$ if you factor in a decent TV display for it. And it is not even portable...

A lot of people are willing to fork out more on a higher performance phone that they can take around with them than they would be on TVs, game consoles and gaming computers that they have to leave at home.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

Lol I have a different perspective all together.

Yes what they are doing is disgusting but my issue with the modern game is the trophies and other aspects.

In old games completing some hunt, quest or collecting mission rewarded you with a functional reward. Some game mechanism or feature would become available to you for whatever feat you unlocked.

Modern games give you a trophy with which you can do nothing with. I know some games give you points, and that's marginally better depending on what those points can be spent on.

I remember playing morrowin and oblivion, and spending months on the game and not even coming close to finishing it. I still have yet to ever finish morrowin. Then skyrim comes out and if you actually focus on the main storyline, you can finish it in a week.

I get that a lot of people are looking for that quick fix of completion, and the satisfaction of beating the game, and yet that victory is all the more sweeter if the experience was earned rather than bought.

Then you also get the AI... I don't know how it's possible but modern game AI is actually Dummer than old games. One game developer responded with, "games are ment to be beat" when asked why his games are so easy. It makes the game feel so devoid of life when it's too easy to outsmart the enemy computer players. At that point, why are you even playing? If it isn't a challenge then where is the fun in out performing the opposition.

Well that's all I can think of from off the top of my head

 

[Armelior_is_back]

For me the "trophies" (or achievements for me since I only play on PC) are just a good way of knowing how far you're into the story without spoiling yourself, but that's about it. Very rarely is there one that for example incentivize to use a mechanic you otherwise wouldn't for example. It's usually "be faster", "collect/kill X amount of stuff" or "be more of a min-maxer", which is boring.

I remember in-game achievements : for example in Mass effect 1 they gave you little stats bonuses.
It was nice but ultimately that doesn't change much from being purely cosmetic/bragging rights fluff. And if a significant bonus was locked behind an achievement it would become more of a sidequest so... I think I'll just keep on not caring

(so why did I put a wall of text then ? Just felt like writing I guess)

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

I recently played Vampires survivor, and that made me nostalgic for old games.

When you complete an achievement you get something. Whether that was a new hero, a new feature, or new power.

That and the game is packed with so much content that you really feel the developers actually care about the user experience.

You just keep getting more gameplay and new ways to play the game... to the point that I'm not even sure I've unlocked everything :"D

 

[Pandaprewmaster325]

I recently played Vampires survivor, and that made me nostalgic for old games.

When you complete an achievement you get something. Whether that was a new hero, a new feature, or new power.

That and the game is packed with so much content that you really feel the developers actually care about the user experience.

You just keep getting more gameplay and new ways to play the game... to the point that I'm not even sure I've unlocked everything :"D

oh yeah a good factor of a game is replay-ability i for instance beaten hitman contracts with a very aggressive playstyle (killing lots of guards etc) what makes hitman series so fun is the endless and creative ways you can kill a target , i think here you refer to things you missed during your playthrough (1st time?) which also means a replay-ability is possible to get the stuff you missed which help in the game longevity and keeps the player interested in the game.