this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
78 points (97.6% liked)

Games

16387 readers
771 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip 70 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

The obvious answer is to abandon GaaS as a concept and focus making more great single player games like the ones that put Playstation into a clear lead in this generation of the console wars.

However, we've seen that a massive failure in the space isn't enough to deter the truly greedy coughWBcough, so who knows?

[–] Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz 36 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

WB doubled down, after Suicide Squad failed horribly and Hogwarts Legacy sold fantastically they decided they needed to stop making games like Hogwarts to focus on more live service games.

[–] Jumi@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Peak shareholders moment

[–] Kiwi_fella@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Alan Sugar needs to teach this lot some basics of selling.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

I love multiplayer games, and I want more of them. But I don't want live service games. Multiplayer is not synonymous with live service, and single player is not its opposite.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The nature of needing a community is definitely something that impedes purchases, too. People recognizing that something has a bad reputation are less likely to buy/try it.

All games have some financial reliance on the hype cycle, but if I buy a single player game and no one else does, I still have my game. If I buy Concord and no one else does, I'm going to be holding the bag when it gets abandoned.

[–] 100@fedia.io 2 points 3 weeks ago

think they still have a few shitty games as service to go before they run out

cough marathon

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 17 points 3 weeks ago

If you're going to do GaaS, shit needs to be free. Nobody wants to pay money for the ability to pay even more money.

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 14 points 3 weeks ago

Hopefully, in the trash bin.

[–] lath@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Some other article said it simpler. If the game launched for free and they focused on microtransactions for skins, they'd be one of the live service games that brings in the money.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

I doubt it. When you make a game free to play, only about 5% of your players will ever pay any amount of money, which means your total audience needs to be enormous. I think when they revealed it and looked at metrics like social media and wishlists, they saw the writing on the wall and were just trying to lose less money by charging for it up front.

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago

If someone would buy the rights to Anthem and finish it, they could have a goldmine.