Bleeping Lobster

  • 4 Posts
  • 344 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle







  • You make excellent points. Personally, I rarely have a problem paying for proper DLC (and buy proper DLC I mean, additional story content that wasn’t obviously cynically cut from the OG game). Notable past examples for GTA, stuff like ‘The Ballad of Gay Tony’ were amazing expansions.

    Also sticking with GTA, they’re a good example of bad practice nowadays (imo). They pivoted to online-only DLC once they realised how lucrative a pay-to-play system can be when leveraged against not being bullied by players with more disposable income. There was amazing single-player content in dev for GTA5 and they cut it to focus on MP. Worse, they left the dregs of that content in the game, allowed a ‘GTA5 mystery’ concept to flourish and left people hunting for the mystery thinking they were going to find something like GTA4’s bigfoot. Knowing all along it didn’t exist. But of course, happy that people were still playing and hoping they would get bored and try online mode.




  • This is the big problem with modern gaming. Too many companies are now in hock to investors and publishers. To those at the top of the hierarchy, making a game is an investment, a bet. Innovation is stifled in favour 9f ‘safe bets’, no wonder gaming is stagnating.

    It’s not all doom and gloom, there are still exceptions to the rule. But it’s certainly not looking good for fantastic single player games.

    I’m expecting gta 6 to have a much shorter single player campaign with most of the focus towards online (and more obscene earnings from shark cards 2.0).




  • Bleeping Lobster@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldUtterly insane
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    118
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    I get that they have to protect their IP, but $14m is insane. Feels like the judge threw the book, switch, 3DS and every other console they could find at him. Does he have no right of appeal against the sentence?

    When Bowser was first sentenced, Nintendo’s lawyer Ajay Singh said in a court transcript (via Axios) that the company wanted to “send a message” to other Switch hackers.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought sentencing was supposed to reflect the severity of the crime and make fair restitution? It sounds as if this sentence / restitution was massively inflated to create a deterrant, to benefit a private business. Huge fail from Nintendo imo that only makes me want to never buy one of their games or consoles again.