Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Star Wars: Jedi Survivor Gets Final Gameplay Trailer Showing Off Some Of Cal's New Moves | MMORPG.co

SystemSystem Member UncommonPosts: 12,599
edited April 2023 in Videos Discussion

imageStar Wars: Jedi Survivor Gets Final Gameplay Trailer Showing Off Some Of Cal's New Moves | MMORPG.com

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor is in the home stretch before its global launch on April 28th, and during the Star Wars Celebration over the weekend, Respawn Entertainment released the final gameplay trailer for the upcoming RPG.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member LegendaryPosts: 10,901
    edited April 2023
    This is my most anticipated game of 2023. First one was in my top 5 SW games. So excited and so I won't watch any trailer or read anything about this game. So want everything to be a surprise.
    RaagnarzJeroKaneGorweTheDalaiBombaSovrath
  • GorweGorwe Member Posts: 1,609
    Nanfoodle said:
    This is my most anticipated game of 2023. First one was in my top 5 SW games. So excited and so I won't watch any trailer or read anything about this game. So want everything to be a surprise.
    I agree. But! There are some issues even right now:

    Price: 70€ for the BASE VERSION? Nah, sorry, can't support that. Regardless of what the game might be.

    Size: 155GB? You for serious? That's entirely too much. Yet another practice I am not going to support.
    ashiru_1978McSleaz
  • SplitStream13SplitStream13 Member UncommonPosts: 253
    edited April 2023

    Gorwe said:


    Nanfoodle said:

    This is my most anticipated game of 2023. First one was in my top 5 SW games. So excited and so I won't watch any trailer or read anything about this game. So want everything to be a surprise.


    I agree. But! There are some issues even right now:

    Price: 70€ for the BASE VERSION? Nah, sorry, can't support that. Regardless of what the game might be.

    Size: 155GB? You for serious? That's entirely too much. Yet another practice I am not going to support.



    Average chad gamer: We want bigger worlds, we want sandbox worlds, we want high fidelity, we want multiple graphical presets so that even our potat PCs can run this shit.

    gamedevs: ok, that'll be 155GBs

    Average chad gamer: Muh hard disk T_T

    Like bro, chill, do you honestly believe that Respawn aren't compressing what can be compressed? I expect Starfield to be of similar size. The 500$ consoles come with 1TB storage. If you have less on your PC, it's on you.
    Games get bigger, gamers want 4K. 4K doesn't come cheap. Hell, 1440p doesn't come cheap ,yet if you do a poll in this forum everyone will vote that 1440p is the superior resolution. And some of those 1440p nutjobs will even say that ultrawide is superior, lul. Absolute chads
    ashiru_1978Nanfoodle
  • GorweGorwe Member Posts: 1,609

    Gorwe said:


    Nanfoodle said:

    This is my most anticipated game of 2023. First one was in my top 5 SW games. So excited and so I won't watch any trailer or read anything about this game. So want everything to be a surprise.


    I agree. But! There are some issues even right now:

    Price: 70€ for the BASE VERSION? Nah, sorry, can't support that. Regardless of what the game might be.

    Size: 155GB? You for serious? That's entirely too much. Yet another practice I am not going to support.



    Average chad gamer: We want bigger worlds, we want sandbox worlds, we want high fidelity, we want multiple graphical presets so that even our potat PCs can run this shit.

    gamedevs: ok, that'll be 155GBs

    Average chad gamer: Muh hard disk T_T

    Like bro, chill, do you honestly believe that Respawn aren't compressing what can be compressed? I expect Starfield to be of similar size. The 500$ consoles come with 1TB storage. If you have less on your PC, it's on you.
    Games get bigger, gamers want 4K. 4K doesn't come cheap. Hell, 1440p doesn't come cheap ,yet if you do a poll in this forum everyone will vote that 1440p is the superior resolution. And some of those 1440p nutjobs will even say that ultrawide is superior, lul. Absolute chads
    I don't want any of those. 1080p is enough for me. Just do other things properly(audiovisuals, gameplay, story). And I know that 98% people(speaking generously here) don't really know what they want, they think that they want "better" things. As long as they are peer reviewed as "better", that's what they want.

    And as such ... yeah. I am going to be skipping this one. 155 GB was the final nail.

    70€ Base Price is the sticking point, however. The time to say "NO" is when it hurts the most. This is what they(=pubs) know and why they are using CoDs, Diablos(=beloved, big franchises) etc to sneak this as a new standard. The worrying part?

    Given the average human condition, it's gonna work. Hell, if they went for 80€, it would have worked. Because "muh release day Diablo!" . /facepalm

    Sartre was right.
    ashiru_1978McSleaz
  • SplitStream13SplitStream13 Member UncommonPosts: 253
    edited April 2023
    70/80$ games just means things like Xbox Gamepass are a better deal than ever. 

    Either that or you stop buying 3-4 games a year and you buy 1-2 instead. And pray that the increased pricetag would also count as a increased gamelength. 

    But yeah, so, costs of developing games have skyrocketed. If 70$ is what keeps microtransactions off of my singleplayer games, I'd gladly pay it. If it doesn't weeeeeell I'll probably get the game at a discount. That's how I got the last 3 Assassin's Creed games. Even with a season's pass they were cheaper than 60$. 

    Who doesn't love a good spring sale :D 
    McSleaz
  • ashiru_1978ashiru_1978 Member RarePosts: 818
    edited April 2023




    Gorwe said:




    Nanfoodle said:


    This is my most anticipated game of 2023. First one was in my top 5 SW games. So excited and so I won't watch any trailer or read anything about this game. So want everything to be a surprise.




    I agree. But! There are some issues even right now:

    Price: 70€ for the BASE VERSION? Nah, sorry, can't support that. Regardless of what the game might be.

    Size: 155GB? You for serious? That's entirely too much. Yet another practice I am not going to support.






    Average chad gamer: We want bigger worlds, we want sandbox worlds, we want high fidelity, we want multiple graphical presets so that even our potat PCs can run this shit.



    gamedevs: ok, that'll be 155GBs



    Average chad gamer: Muh hard disk T_T




    Like bro, chill, do you honestly believe that Respawn aren't compressing what can be compressed? I expect Starfield to be of similar size. The 500$ consoles come with 1TB storage. If you have less on your PC, it's on you.


    Games get bigger, gamers want 4K. 4K doesn't come cheap. Hell, 1440p doesn't come cheap ,yet if you do a poll in this forum everyone will vote that 1440p is the superior resolution. And some of those 1440p nutjobs will even say that ultrawide is superior, lul. Absolute chads



    If you give the game Mass Effect 3 graphics, it will be no more than 20GB and nothing of value will be lost.

    How much better and more realistic can graphics get? There will come a point where they won't be able to look any better and games will stagnate, because gameplay is the one part that has not evolved since 2000, now 23 years later. I look at this game and the previous one and I can't see how it offers more gameplay options that Jedi Outcast or Jedi Academy, in fact, it seems to offer way less. Give it Jedi Knight graphics and compare it gameplay-wise to those games, this one will come out short. It doesn't have multiplayer, it doesn't have firearms, it doesn't have first person mode... so what does it have? It feels like a one-time game - you play it once and never again.
    McSleaz
  • TheDalaiBombaTheDalaiBomba Member EpicPosts: 1,493
    Gorwe said:

    Gorwe said:


    Nanfoodle said:

    This is my most anticipated game of 2023. First one was in my top 5 SW games. So excited and so I won't watch any trailer or read anything about this game. So want everything to be a surprise.


    I agree. But! There are some issues even right now:

    Price: 70€ for the BASE VERSION? Nah, sorry, can't support that. Regardless of what the game might be.

    Size: 155GB? You for serious? That's entirely too much. Yet another practice I am not going to support.



    Average chad gamer: We want bigger worlds, we want sandbox worlds, we want high fidelity, we want multiple graphical presets so that even our potat PCs can run this shit.

    gamedevs: ok, that'll be 155GBs

    Average chad gamer: Muh hard disk T_T

    Like bro, chill, do you honestly believe that Respawn aren't compressing what can be compressed? I expect Starfield to be of similar size. The 500$ consoles come with 1TB storage. If you have less on your PC, it's on you.
    Games get bigger, gamers want 4K. 4K doesn't come cheap. Hell, 1440p doesn't come cheap ,yet if you do a poll in this forum everyone will vote that 1440p is the superior resolution. And some of those 1440p nutjobs will even say that ultrawide is superior, lul. Absolute chads
    I don't want any of those. 1080p is enough for me. Just do other things properly(audiovisuals, gameplay, story). And I know that 98% people(speaking generously here) don't really know what they want, they think that they want "better" things. As long as they are peer reviewed as "better", that's what they want.

    And as such ... yeah. I am going to be skipping this one. 155 GB was the final nail.

    70€ Base Price is the sticking point, however. The time to say "NO" is when it hurts the most. This is what they(=pubs) know and why they are using CoDs, Diablos(=beloved, big franchises) etc to sneak this as a new standard. The worrying part?

    Given the average human condition, it's gonna work. Hell, if they went for 80€, it would have worked. Because "muh release day Diablo!" . /facepalm

    Sartre was right.
    Fun fact: per Steam, only 2% of users have a 4k monitor.  Only 11% even play at 1440p.  About 75% play at 1080p or lower.

    It's simply not worth the money to upgrade stil, really.
    Gorwe
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 32,941
    edited April 2023

    Gorwe said:


    Nanfoodle said:

    This is my most anticipated game of 2023. First one was in my top 5 SW games. So excited and so I won't watch any trailer or read anything about this game. So want everything to be a surprise.


    I agree. But! There are some issues even right now:

    Price: 70€ for the BASE VERSION? Nah, sorry, can't support that. Regardless of what the game might be.

    Size: 155GB? You for serious? That's entirely too much. Yet another practice I am not going to support.



    Yeah but games used to be a LOT smaller and of course have gotten larger over the time. Is this really the line in the sand?

    I'm sure there are older games that made a significant leap in size compared to other games of the time. Did you draw the line there? And if so what made you change your mind to continue buying "larger games?"

    Also, prices are going to go up eventually. Games can't be 49.95/59.95 forever. Inflation alone makes that unsustainable,.
    Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb." 

    Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w


    Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547

    Try the "Special Edition." 'Cause it's "Special." https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/64878/?tab=description

    Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo 
  • TheDalaiBombaTheDalaiBomba Member EpicPosts: 1,493
    Reference the price: if you can complete it within a month, it actually only costs $15.  If you take two months with it, $30.  You just won't own a copy forever.  It will be on EA Play day one.

    With single player narrative driven games like this, I don't mind paying a fraction of the box to play it through and then unsub.
  • GorweGorwe Member Posts: 1,609
    edited April 2023
    Sovrath said:

    Gorwe said:


    Nanfoodle said:

    This is my most anticipated game of 2023. First one was in my top 5 SW games. So excited and so I won't watch any trailer or read anything about this game. So want everything to be a surprise.


    I agree. But! There are some issues even right now:

    Price: 70€ for the BASE VERSION? Nah, sorry, can't support that. Regardless of what the game might be.

    Size: 155GB? You for serious? That's entirely too much. Yet another practice I am not going to support.



    Yeah but games used to be a LOT smaller and of course have gotten larger over the time. Is this really the line in the sand?

    I'm sure there are older games that made a significant leap in size compared to other games of the time. Did you draw the line there? And if so what made you change your mind to continue buying "larger games?"

    Also, prices are going to go up eventually. Games can't be 49.95/59.95 forever. Inflation alone makes that unsustainable,.
    Don't think that the games industry really needs to worry about inflation. Given how profitable and how good RoI they have. It's just that people like BobbyK decide to take ever increasing bonuses. Because of inflation. Ofc. Yachts are getting expensive! Imagine BobbyK owning a schooner ; he obviously needs at least a galleon!

    As for the size, I really doubt that Survivor's bigger than 100GB tops. Everything else in uncompressed garbage. I'd say 85 - 90 GB is the most likely. Big? Yes. Ass YUGE? No 
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 32,941

    Gorwe said:


    Sovrath said:



    Gorwe said:




    Nanfoodle said:


    This is my most anticipated game of 2023. First one was in my top 5 SW games. So excited and so I won't watch any trailer or read anything about this game. So want everything to be a surprise.




    I agree. But! There are some issues even right now:

    Price: 70€ for the BASE VERSION? Nah, sorry, can't support that. Regardless of what the game might be.

    Size: 155GB? You for serious? That's entirely too much. Yet another practice I am not going to support.






    Yeah but games used to be a LOT smaller and of course have gotten larger over the time. Is this really the line in the sand?



    I'm sure there are older games that made a significant leap in size compared to other games of the time. Did you draw the line there? And if so what made you change your mind to continue buying "larger games?"



    Also, prices are going to go up eventually. Games can't be 49.95/59.95 forever. Inflation alone makes that unsustainable,.


    Don't think that the games industry really needs to worry about inflation. Given how profitable and how good RoI they have. It's just that people like BobbyK decide to take ever increasing bonuses. Because of inflation. Ofc. Yachts are getting expensive! Imagine BobbyK owning a schooner ; he obviously needs at least a galleon!

    As for the size, I really doubt that Survivor's bigger than 100GB tops. Everything else in uncompressed garbage. I'd say 85 - 90 GB is the most likely. Big? Yes. Ass YUGE? No 



    If you look at game development you'll see that games have gotten larger and have always pushed the boundaries of pc storage. Knights of the Old republic was almost 4 gb. I'm pretty sure computers weren't sporting 1 TB drives back then.

    As far as your assessment of how large games should be, I suspect it's all being pulled out of thin air. Oh sure, games can be made smaller but people enjoy better graphics, larger worlds, etc.

    How many times has a game launched with some retro style, pixel graphic look only to hear some player say something about lazy and cheap developers. Which is also misguided.

    As far as price hikes, again, it's ridiculous to expect a game to stay at 49.95 forever.. Even if Bobby Kotick is adding a 3rd yacht.

    It's a business. Businesses make money. That's what they do. On one hand they have to pay the people they work for. at the very least give them cost of living raises. You think that they aren't going to raise their prices to keep business going?

    As far as business leadership, sure, they negotiate all sorts of high salaries and incentives. Unless you have a plan to put a stop to their evil deeds, it is what it is.

    And if larger game sizes and higher prices are going to stop you I suspect that you will only be playing indy and old games going forward.

    Nothing wrong with that many of them are great.
    Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb." 

    Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w


    Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547

    Try the "Special Edition." 'Cause it's "Special." https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/64878/?tab=description

    Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo 
  • GorweGorwe Member Posts: 1,609
    Sovrath said:

    Gorwe said:


    Sovrath said:



    Gorwe said:




    Nanfoodle said:


    This is my most anticipated game of 2023. First one was in my top 5 SW games. So excited and so I won't watch any trailer or read anything about this game. So want everything to be a surprise.




    I agree. But! There are some issues even right now:

    Price: 70€ for the BASE VERSION? Nah, sorry, can't support that. Regardless of what the game might be.

    Size: 155GB? You for serious? That's entirely too much. Yet another practice I am not going to support.






    Yeah but games used to be a LOT smaller and of course have gotten larger over the time. Is this really the line in the sand?



    I'm sure there are older games that made a significant leap in size compared to other games of the time. Did you draw the line there? And if so what made you change your mind to continue buying "larger games?"



    Also, prices are going to go up eventually. Games can't be 49.95/59.95 forever. Inflation alone makes that unsustainable,.


    Don't think that the games industry really needs to worry about inflation. Given how profitable and how good RoI they have. It's just that people like BobbyK decide to take ever increasing bonuses. Because of inflation. Ofc. Yachts are getting expensive! Imagine BobbyK owning a schooner ; he obviously needs at least a galleon!

    As for the size, I really doubt that Survivor's bigger than 100GB tops. Everything else in uncompressed garbage. I'd say 85 - 90 GB is the most likely. Big? Yes. Ass YUGE? No 



    If you look at game development you'll see that games have gotten larger and have always pushed the boundaries of pc storage. Knights of the Old republic was almost 4 gb. I'm pretty sure computers weren't sporting 1 TB drives back then.

    As far as your assessment of how large games should be, I suspect it's all being pulled out of thin air. Oh sure, games can be made smaller but people enjoy better graphics, larger worlds, etc.

    How many times has a game launched with some retro style, pixel graphic look only to hear some player say something about lazy and cheap developers. Which is also misguided.

    As far as price hikes, again, it's ridiculous to expect a game to stay at 49.95 forever.. Even if Bobby Kotick is adding a 3rd yacht.

    It's a business. Businesses make money. That's what they do. On one hand they have to pay the people they work for. at the very least give them cost of living raises. You think that they aren't going to raise their prices to keep business going?

    As far as business leadership, sure, they negotiate all sorts of high salaries and incentives. Unless you have a plan to put a stop to their evil deeds, it is what it is.

    And if larger game sizes and higher prices are going to stop you I suspect that you will only be playing indy and old games going forward.

    Nothing wrong with that many of them are great.
    It's not so black and white. But yeah. I have nothing against playing old games and such. Given the AI improvements, a lot of them could get a serious gfx upgrade too.

    As for the management, well, there is no hope. They make the rules and as such, they decide what's ok and what isn't. I actually respect selfishness, just not shortsighted selfishness.
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    Gorwe said:

    Size: 155GB? You for serious? That's entirely too much. Yet another practice I am not going to support.
    Diablo 4 is using an approach that I hope will become standard. When we DLd the beta we had an option to DL the 80 GB whole thing or not DL the 4K textures for a whopping 40 GB size reduction.
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • GorweGorwe Member Posts: 1,609
    edited April 2023
    Iselin said:
    Gorwe said:

    Size: 155GB? You for serious? That's entirely too much. Yet another practice I am not going to support.
    Diablo 4 is using an approach that I hope will become standard. When we DLd the beta we had an option to DL the 80 GB whole thing or not DL the 4K textures for a whopping 40 GB size reduction.
    4k is still a gimmick at this point. Now do the same with language packs we don't use.
    McSleaz
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    Gorwe said:
    Iselin said:
    Gorwe said:

    Size: 155GB? You for serious? That's entirely too much. Yet another practice I am not going to support.
    Diablo 4 is using an approach that I hope will become standard. When we DLd the beta we had an option to DL the 80 GB whole thing or not DL the 4K textures for a whopping 40 GB size reduction.
    4k is still a gimmick at this point. Now do the same with language packs we don't use.
    Well, I need cataract surgery on both of my eyes so I'll pass on judging that. But I do know that 4K textures are the #1 reason for game size bloat.
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • GorweGorwe Member Posts: 1,609
    edited April 2023
    Iselin said:
    Gorwe said:
    Iselin said:
    Gorwe said:

    Size: 155GB? You for serious? That's entirely too much. Yet another practice I am not going to support.
    Diablo 4 is using an approach that I hope will become standard. When we DLd the beta we had an option to DL the 80 GB whole thing or not DL the 4K textures for a whopping 40 GB size reduction.
    4k is still a gimmick at this point. Now do the same with language packs we don't use.
    Well, I need cataract surgery on both of my eyes so I'll pass on judging that. But I do know that 4K textures are the #1 reason for game size bloat.
    Yes, that's true. But that's just an excuse. Look at almost every survey. They all point to sub 5% adoption rate for 4k. Idk, I'd just want to choose whether I want 4k textures. Or not to save some space. Ok, a lot of space.
    Post edited by Gorwe on
  • TokkenTokken Member EpicPosts: 3,650
    edited April 2023
    .....finally an open world Star wars game.

    Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004!  Make PvE GREAT Again!

  • AngrakhanAngrakhan Member EpicPosts: 1,843
    Hey look didn't I just make a post yesterday about how cheap gamers are? That raising the price of a game by a mere $10 is just too much in spite of what gamers are willing to pay for pizza? That the $10 is going to put us under a bridge living out of a cardboard box. That this attitude is what drove game companies to get creative with monetization and we ended up with loot boxes, cash shops, and battle passes? Well isn't this thread just a big fat case in point.

    Look I don't want to be a dick, but sometimes you have to call things out. If an extra $10/euro is the breaking point for your budget maybe you should be investing your time in something other than gaming. Get that advanced degree, get a certification in a trade skill. Do something so that your budget is not so fragile that $10 in a month is not sending you to the poor house. Heck learn to cook so you order out pizza one time less per month. There's your $10 right there and then some. Healthier for you as well.
    Gorwe
  • GorweGorwe Member Posts: 1,609
    edited April 2023
    Nevermind. Such useless advice is not worth the time.
  • TheDalaiBombaTheDalaiBomba Member EpicPosts: 1,493
    Angrakhan said:
    Hey look didn't I just make a post yesterday about how cheap gamers are? That raising the price of a game by a mere $10 is just too much in spite of what gamers are willing to pay for pizza? That the $10 is going to put us under a bridge living out of a cardboard box. That this attitude is what drove game companies to get creative with monetization and we ended up with loot boxes, cash shops, and battle passes? Well isn't this thread just a big fat case in point.

    Look I don't want to be a dick, but sometimes you have to call things out. If an extra $10/euro is the breaking point for your budget maybe you should be investing your time in something other than gaming. Get that advanced degree, get a certification in a trade skill. Do something so that your budget is not so fragile that $10 in a month is not sending you to the poor house. Heck learn to cook so you order out pizza one time less per month. There's your $10 right there and then some. Healthier for you as well.
    Again, you can literally pay $30 bucks for two months of EA Play and complete the game very casually.

    Since it's a single player narrative driven adventure game, it's not going to have a lot of replayability.  No reason to keep it languishing in a Library list on Steam when you can pay less than half price and play the entire thing.  Hell, even if you go back and play it again over a third month, that's still only ~$45.

    So even for the frugal PC gamer, this game is an affordable title.  It's going on EA Play day one.

    If this were a game like Diablo, based on replayability, this wouldn't be the case.
  • GorweGorwe Member Posts: 1,609
    edited April 2023
    Angrakhan said:
    Hey look didn't I just make a post yesterday about how cheap gamers are? That raising the price of a game by a mere $10 is just too much in spite of what gamers are willing to pay for pizza? That the $10 is going to put us under a bridge living out of a cardboard box. That this attitude is what drove game companies to get creative with monetization and we ended up with loot boxes, cash shops, and battle passes? Well isn't this thread just a big fat case in point.

    Look I don't want to be a dick, but sometimes you have to call things out. If an extra $10/euro is the breaking point for your budget maybe you should be investing your time in something other than gaming. Get that advanced degree, get a certification in a trade skill. Do something so that your budget is not so fragile that $10 in a month is not sending you to the poor house. Heck learn to cook so you order out pizza one time less per month. There's your $10 right there and then some. Healthier for you as well.
    Again, you can literally pay $30 bucks for two months of EA Play and complete the game very casually.

    Since it's a single player narrative driven adventure game, it's not going to have a lot of replayability.  No reason to keep it languishing in a Library list on Steam when you can pay less than half price and play the entire thing.  Hell, even if you go back and play it again over a third month, that's still only ~$45.

    So even for the frugal PC gamer, this game is an affordable title.  It's going on EA Play day one.

    If this were a game like Diablo, based on replayability, this wouldn't be the case.
    There are other considerations. Like how the increase in price of AAA is going to impact game prices as a whole. The cumulative effect. But good luck explaining this simple thing to some people.
    TheDalaiBomba
  • TheDalaiBombaTheDalaiBomba Member EpicPosts: 1,493
    Gorwe said:
    Angrakhan said:
    Hey look didn't I just make a post yesterday about how cheap gamers are? That raising the price of a game by a mere $10 is just too much in spite of what gamers are willing to pay for pizza? That the $10 is going to put us under a bridge living out of a cardboard box. That this attitude is what drove game companies to get creative with monetization and we ended up with loot boxes, cash shops, and battle passes? Well isn't this thread just a big fat case in point.

    Look I don't want to be a dick, but sometimes you have to call things out. If an extra $10/euro is the breaking point for your budget maybe you should be investing your time in something other than gaming. Get that advanced degree, get a certification in a trade skill. Do something so that your budget is not so fragile that $10 in a month is not sending you to the poor house. Heck learn to cook so you order out pizza one time less per month. There's your $10 right there and then some. Healthier for you as well.
    Again, you can literally pay $30 bucks for two months of EA Play and complete the game very casually.

    Since it's a single player narrative driven adventure game, it's not going to have a lot of replayability.  No reason to keep it languishing in a Library list on Steam when you can pay less than half price and play the entire thing.  Hell, even if you go back and play it again over a third month, that's still only ~$45.

    So even for the frugal PC gamer, this game is an affordable title.  It's going on EA Play day one.

    If this were a game like Diablo, based on replayability, this wouldn't be the case.
    There are other considerations. Like how the increase in price of AAA is going to impact game prices as a whole. The cumulative effect. But good luck explaining this simple thing to some people.
    I agree, though I don't disagree with the underlying premise that game box prices have not kept up with inflation or other increased costs created by competition in the industry.

    Oddly enough, I'd be more willing to pay this for Jedi Survivor than D4, despite D4's replayability.  Not out of love for EA, but because it's nice having games that are still presented as complete packages, not a GaaS mess that tries to nickel and dime us every day.  Fuck Battle Passes.
  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member LegendaryPosts: 10,901

    Gorwe said:





    Gorwe said:




    Nanfoodle said:


    This is my most anticipated game of 2023. First one was in my top 5 SW games. So excited and so I won't watch any trailer or read anything about this game. So want everything to be a surprise.




    I agree. But! There are some issues even right now:

    Price: 70€ for the BASE VERSION? Nah, sorry, can't support that. Regardless of what the game might be.

    Size: 155GB? You for serious? That's entirely too much. Yet another practice I am not going to support.






    Average chad gamer: We want bigger worlds, we want sandbox worlds, we want high fidelity, we want multiple graphical presets so that even our potat PCs can run this shit.



    gamedevs: ok, that'll be 155GBs



    Average chad gamer: Muh hard disk T_T




    Like bro, chill, do you honestly believe that Respawn aren't compressing what can be compressed? I expect Starfield to be of similar size. The 500$ consoles come with 1TB storage. If you have less on your PC, it's on you.


    Games get bigger, gamers want 4K. 4K doesn't come cheap. Hell, 1440p doesn't come cheap ,yet if you do a poll in this forum everyone will vote that 1440p is the superior resolution. And some of those 1440p nutjobs will even say that ultrawide is superior, lul. Absolute chads


    I don't want any of those. 1080p is enough for me. Just do other things properly(audiovisuals, gameplay, story). And I know that 98% people(speaking generously here) don't really know what they want, they think that they want "better" things. As long as they are peer reviewed as "better", that's what they want.

    And as such ... yeah. I am going to be skipping this one. 155 GB was the final nail.

    70€ Base Price is the sticking point, however. The time to say "NO" is when it hurts the most. This is what they(=pubs) know and why they are using CoDs, Diablos(=beloved, big franchises) etc to sneak this as a new standard. The worrying part?

    Given the average human condition, it's gonna work. Hell, if they went for 80€, it would have worked. Because "muh release day Diablo!" . /facepalm

    Sartre was right.



    1440p is becoming the standard and is only about 30% less resolution then 4k and lets you get better frames. I agree with who you replied too. If you took time to look at the size of games now vs 10 years ago, you could be shocked. UE5 games have more pixel's in the eye lashes then a full avatar from a game 5 years ago. You can buy 1tb M.2 drives for $80 bucks now and that will hold about 8-15 games. Thats the way of things now.
  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member LegendaryPosts: 10,901



    Gorwe said:




    Angrakhan said:

    Hey look didn't I just make a post yesterday about how cheap gamers are? That raising the price of a game by a mere $10 is just too much in spite of what gamers are willing to pay for pizza? That the $10 is going to put us under a bridge living out of a cardboard box. That this attitude is what drove game companies to get creative with monetization and we ended up with loot boxes, cash shops, and battle passes? Well isn't this thread just a big fat case in point.



    Look I don't want to be a dick, but sometimes you have to call things out. If an extra $10/euro is the breaking point for your budget maybe you should be investing your time in something other than gaming. Get that advanced degree, get a certification in a trade skill. Do something so that your budget is not so fragile that $10 in a month is not sending you to the poor house. Heck learn to cook so you order out pizza one time less per month. There's your $10 right there and then some. Healthier for you as well.


    Again, you can literally pay $30 bucks for two months of EA Play and complete the game very casually.

    Since it's a single player narrative driven adventure game, it's not going to have a lot of replayability.  No reason to keep it languishing in a Library list on Steam when you can pay less than half price and play the entire thing.  Hell, even if you go back and play it again over a third month, that's still only ~$45.

    So even for the frugal PC gamer, this game is an affordable title.  It's going on EA Play day one.

    If this were a game like Diablo, based on replayability, this wouldn't be the case.


    There are other considerations. Like how the increase in price of AAA is going to impact game prices as a whole. The cumulative effect. But good luck explaining this simple thing to some people.


    I agree, though I don't disagree with the underlying premise that game box prices have not kept up with inflation or other increased costs created by competition in the industry.

    Oddly enough, I'd be more willing to pay this for Jedi Survivor than D4, despite D4's replayability.  Not out of love for EA, but because it's nice having games that are still presented as complete packages, not a GaaS mess that tries to nickel and dime us every day.  Fuck Battle Passes.



    Funny how we applaud game developers standing up for better pay, reduced hours and unions. Studios have been trying to make these changes before they have to see their staff push unions on them. Yet on the other hand, we gamers get upset when we see a game go up by $10-20 bucks. Should we go back to slave labor for the devs?
    Iselin
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    Nanfoodle said:



    Gorwe said:




    Angrakhan said:

    Hey look didn't I just make a post yesterday about how cheap gamers are? That raising the price of a game by a mere $10 is just too much in spite of what gamers are willing to pay for pizza? That the $10 is going to put us under a bridge living out of a cardboard box. That this attitude is what drove game companies to get creative with monetization and we ended up with loot boxes, cash shops, and battle passes? Well isn't this thread just a big fat case in point.



    Look I don't want to be a dick, but sometimes you have to call things out. If an extra $10/euro is the breaking point for your budget maybe you should be investing your time in something other than gaming. Get that advanced degree, get a certification in a trade skill. Do something so that your budget is not so fragile that $10 in a month is not sending you to the poor house. Heck learn to cook so you order out pizza one time less per month. There's your $10 right there and then some. Healthier for you as well.


    Again, you can literally pay $30 bucks for two months of EA Play and complete the game very casually.

    Since it's a single player narrative driven adventure game, it's not going to have a lot of replayability.  No reason to keep it languishing in a Library list on Steam when you can pay less than half price and play the entire thing.  Hell, even if you go back and play it again over a third month, that's still only ~$45.

    So even for the frugal PC gamer, this game is an affordable title.  It's going on EA Play day one.

    If this were a game like Diablo, based on replayability, this wouldn't be the case.


    There are other considerations. Like how the increase in price of AAA is going to impact game prices as a whole. The cumulative effect. But good luck explaining this simple thing to some people.


    I agree, though I don't disagree with the underlying premise that game box prices have not kept up with inflation or other increased costs created by competition in the industry.

    Oddly enough, I'd be more willing to pay this for Jedi Survivor than D4, despite D4's replayability.  Not out of love for EA, but because it's nice having games that are still presented as complete packages, not a GaaS mess that tries to nickel and dime us every day.  Fuck Battle Passes.



    Funny how we applaud game developers standing up for better pay, reduced hours and unions. Studios have been trying to make these changes before they have to see their staff push unions on them. Yet on the other hand, we gamers get upset when we see a game go up by $10-20 bucks. Should we go back to slave labor for the devs?
    Reading that I'm confused as to whether you're pro or against slave labor when you talk about "pushing unions" on those poor employers.

    You kind of need to make up your mind. Do you want employees to get paid well AND have an enforceable legal framework for bringing about change in their workplace or just good pay and they can shut the fuck up about everything else?
    Nanfoodle
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

Sign In or Register to comment.