Re: "They Just Have To Be Good"

On 21/03/2025 22:09, Zaghadka wrote:

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 11:03:56 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
 

The big-name publishers looked at this calculation and decided the
best way to do things, then, is to go all-in on live-service,
MTX-riddled, advert- and sponsorship-heavy games in a hope that they
can recoup some of the expenses. And --for the time being-- that
strategy is working, but it comes at a cost.

 Yeah. The indies and smaller shops will step in. We're not back to games
in ziplock baggies, but AAA games are not where it's at for me.
 I prefer small dev-team options and will pay them handsomely. So long as
Unity doesn't shit the bed, this will continue to be available.
 

My money and time also now goes to the smaller studios as I just find the games more interesting and I don't feel and they are trying to squeeze every last penny out of me.

And then there's Larian. There's CDPR. There are single-A companies that
try. We need to be forgiving of them and support them. I bought Cyberpunk
2077 at a discount to keep them honest.
 It's not dead yet. It's just very badly burned.
>

I agree although even those games you mentioned aren't really doing anything that different but instead doing a type of formula know to work very well, although in Cyberpunk's case that took a couple of years until after it had been released.

I don't care if the textures aren't 4k. I just have to buy a much more
expensive graphics card and monitor then.
 

I got off the graphics bandwagon many years ago as I realised that graphics were no longer that important to me and the type of games I was played didn't really rely on them. I can appreciate really high fidelity graphics but that quickly wears off.
I look at the price of higher performance GPU's now and just think, you have got to be kidding me.