yeah, but the arcade was the same way, there were just more middlemen involved is my point.
...and the online portion of any game has been that way for a while now anyway...how many games actually feature user-hosted server capabilities, let alone lanplay (god, I miss that...)?
lol, according to my own measurements, i'm 5'7 3/4", but if the government was to grant me an extra quarter inch, i'll take it is my point.
but yeah, say whatever else you want about the ps5, the controllers were a godsend. same with the xbox and the Duke.
dude, i'm five eight (legally anyway) with hands to match , and the Duke was probably the most comfortable controller i ever owned until the dualsense came out.
seriously, i love the playstation joystick setup, but fuck those gamepads gave me hand cramps...
or to compete with the joneses over at valve, plus the deck probably has a minor effect on windows usage.
...as far as AAA gaming is concerned, that ship sailed when they got rid of physical media.
at least this way, you don't get bilked at every turn...
well, for one, it's how the gaming industry worked for decades. remember the coin-ops?
well, that's what I'm saying. instead of having to buy the game, you just pay for your use of it. no continuing subscription, no $70+ upfront fee, no paid dlc, just logon, insert your (metaphorical) coin, and play a match.
unless they're unintelligible.
she was borderline at the best of times.
yeah... I've always been more or less behind on the latest games anyway. I mostly play indy stuff or older games these days (trying to work my way through soul reaver atm. never finished that one).
that could be too.
How does that make a difference to you, the consumer, though? Obviously, the game would have to be quality to hold your interest either way, but does there being a physical space hosting the machine the game runs on, a distributor who brings the new games in and takes the old games out, and maybe a repairman to work on the machines make that much of a difference to your gaming experience?
okay, there's the local business argument. Granted, but what's wrong with the same model direct from the publisher directly to your own hardware you have anyway? I just don't understand why it's okay in one setting but not the other.
Charge reasonable prices and don't fill the game with bullshit. If not I won't buy it. It's not a necessity, they do not and have never needed to do this predatory nonsense.
probably gonna have to abandon AAA for a few years then... until these companies crash and hard, they're gonna keep doubling down on this nonsense until casual games are less egregious...
Personally I'd rather the industry just bring back private server capacity for users like in the heyday of online games.
no arguments here. I miss LANplay and private servers, too.
ah, so a weekly subscription on top of a monthly subscription... yeesh.
I'm not trying to make a rebuttal. I'm genuinely trying to figure out which would be preferable. I know what I prefer, but I'm clearly the odd man out.
lol. I would love to see arcades make a revival.
that being said, I think an arcade style pricing scheme could work with modern online games.
No one actually asked them to do so.
fair
I've heard worse, lol.
actually had a supervisor with an accent so thick that, between that and the machines, i could barely understand her half the time.
took me a couple tries to figure out what you meant, but I think you mean the ability to host your own games locally. No...I think the industry has all but killed that concept as it is, sadly, a few notable exceptions aside (minecraft, etc).
okay, so you'd rather pay the up front cost of the game, plus deal with the pay-to-win schemes, the lootcrates, etc?
sorry, i'm not trying to antagonize, i'm just trying to drill down on this one which is preferable. Obviously, we'd rather go back to pay for the game and that's the last money you spend on the game.
Fuck no. An arcade charges money because it is a physical retail space that costs money to own and maintain, and they have a limited amount of customers that can come in and play per day due to physical constraints.
Fair, but EA/Activision does pay to maintain the servers, update the game to fix glitches, security flaws, etc, add new content, etc.
that's what I was thinking as well, yes. ( I ran out of characters.)
I dunno about that...it's a model that worked well for quite a long time in the arcade market.
so you'd rather have seventy dollars for the title, plus lootcrates, plus pay-to-win, plus DLC? Personally, i think paying only for how much you use the service since they want to moved to a games-as-a service model anyway, but to each their own, I guess.
would you pay a dollar per match if it meant no up-front fee, no pay-to-win, no lootcrates, etc?
fair, I still think it could work, but it's not like i'm an expert on this stuff or anything.
also, I appreciate you breaking it down, I think I did a poor job of selling what I was saying, and people took it the wrong way because of that.