If you say so, but only handful of devs who develop games like Witcher/Cyberpunk make it. Its hard path to walk.
Hmm.. I think you are adopting a somewhat narrow view of the industry.
System Shock 3 is in development, Pathfinder: Kingmaker came out to relatively decent success, then there's CDPR, Bethesda, Rockstar, (hopefully) Obsidian, even the Metro guys...
Lots of normal singleplayer games are releasing, and they're performing as well as ever, if not better. I literally cannot name them all here, there are far too many to count. Small projects, big projects, mid-sized projects. Many, many of them do well enough to justify further support and sequels, at the very least.
Now, if you were to tell me that bite-sized games are becoming more popular, I wouldn't disagree. But that isn't happening at the expense of other games - there's no evidence to suggest that, as far as I can tell.
But again, I don't disagree that they're becoming bigger. And as you've already pointed out, Stadia is a great way for Google/other devs to introduce more of those games in a way that actually makes sense.
This is becoming way too long topic for me to care. Btw, narrow view? Ive been gamer over 20+ year.
Okay, nevermind then. For the record, I didn't mean anything by it. It was an observation of your particular mentality at this point in time (that could have been incorrect), not a personal judgement.
I agree about Pathfinder: Kingmaker. But Obsidian got bought by MS, so I don't have high hopes for their future.
Indeed, CDPR isn't the only company that's making good games. And I'm looking at it from DRM-free games perspective which limits options, so Rockstar isn't even something I consider.
Indeed, CDPR isn't the only company that's making good games. And I'm looking at it from DRM-free games perspective which limits options, so Rockstar isn't even something I consider.
Heya, I think you're in the wrong part of the forums. You're probably looking for this: https://forums.cdprojektred.com/index.php?forums/gwent.23/3 wins for a new player....help?
As a new player getting 3 consecutive wins has been so difficult. I dont mine losing, but im at 4 wins and 23 losses. Other than the sticky's on this reddit, is there anywhere else i can learn to play better? I just want the cardback... =/
Thank you for all the replies, i will try my luck at ranked mode.
Good luck on your wins. I haven't played Gwent in a while, but man did I suck at it when I did, so I sympathize.
@Snowflakez I moved that post, but it took me a while.
And, since I'm here... this announcement doesn't sound like anything I'd be interested in. Never been one to get excited over stuff like that, at least not before it's actually live and proven to work.
And, since I'm here... this announcement doesn't sound like anything I'd be interested in. Never been one to get excited over stuff like that, at least not before it's actually live and proven to work.
Browsed maybe a 10 online article, and they didnt even mention YouTube once, man Youtube is gonna hit them like a one ton track.
Its pretty awesome stuff, imagine all Internet Cafes around the world filled by some Stadia Games. You dont need to buy the game, hardware, nothing at all. Bad move if they put 10+ hour games though. Well, Im done with this topic.
Its pretty awesome stuff, imagine all Internet Cafes around the world filled by some Stadia Games. You dont need to buy the game, hardware, nothing at all. Bad move if they put 10+ hour games though. Well, Im done with this topic.
Last edited:
I think that's the meat of the issue. It's not so much that "normal games" are dying as it is that things are evolving. I can remember feeling similarly about "old-school" games becoming very surface, action-oriented affairs. We went from deep and involved flight sims with dynamic campaigns and intricate customization mechanics like Falcon 3.0, Mechwarrior 1 and 2, Descent: Freespace...to more twitchy, arcade approaches like Freelancer, Crimson Skies, Star Fox, and Ace Combat topping the charts. But, you know what...I adore Freelancer and Crimson Skies...even though I miss things like X-Wing Alliance, Aces of the Pacific, and Jane's Longbow. I could make similar arguments for things like The Magic Candle or Darklands, X-COM (1994) or Master of Magic / Orion, the Sierra and Lucasarts adventure games, etc.
I find it to be a wheel. Stuff is introduced, becomes tired, a new approach brings in more people and new ideas, those ideas get tired, and someone goes: "Let's remake something like the good old days!" I hated video games in the and '80s and '90s (meaning the coin-op stuff). I was always the super-geek that loved the overly complex, computer games that most people wouldn't spend more than a glance on. And, that's where the issue really lies: taste. There will always be a market for pretty much everything.
The one, huge difference now, is that the time and expense of creating big games makes it much more difficult to begin or finish a project. Lots of people, lots of moving parts, lots of stuff that can break the machine. (I still stand by what I said before, that things would be a lot better if "maximum profit" wasn't very often the goal. But even a modest triple-A title would still be a monstrous undertaking involving at least 100 people or so and would take years to finish completely.) While we wait, I think there's room for smaller, less ambitious titles. Heck, many indie games today are far more complex than the triple-A titles from the '90s -- and just as awesome.
The one thing that can totally annihilate this is greed. If Stadia aims to create a platform that simply rakes the money into piles, then it will be easy for creativity and ingenuity to be once again throttled by corporations that already have more money than they can utilize effectively as it is. (And, I do think there's a danger of that.)
Game industry is shifting toward pay 15 buck and play all our game for free, you know? its harder and harder to get noticed by players.
Im having blast in EA Origin right now, first played Anthem, NFS Paypack, Titanfall 2 SP, now Battlefield SP.
If I see things right, 5 year from now, Youtube is gonna be full of all kind of 2 hour repetitive games for cheap price. Mobile games are gonna increase.
Im having blast in EA Origin right now, first played Anthem, NFS Paypack, Titanfall 2 SP, now Battlefield SP.
If I see things right, 5 year from now, Youtube is gonna be full of all kind of 2 hour repetitive games for cheap price. Mobile games are gonna increase.
Well, bottom line is that rubbish doesn't become successful. It may make money, but it tends not to be celebrated, lauded, or awarded anything. Or remembered for long. (Unless it's a special kind of awful.
) When I look at Steam's library now, it is literally inundated with titles that are obviously shameless rip-offs of other, existing games / styles. It doesn't stop the best stuff from being good or the fluff from being largely ignored. What's sad is that many, really innovative and worthy games are never even noticed by players because "bigger" studios / producers can completely drown them out. The rating system helps somewhat, but games won't accrue ratings if players don't even know they exist.
It would be really cool, I think, if a marketplace would make an effort to find a.) games that have received very few, but mostly positive reviews and try to put them in the spotlight for a week or so, and b.) dig up games that have no reviews at all -- and review them! -- then give them some time on-stage if they achieve something cool.
Last edited:
Would it by any means be possible for Cyberpunk to be released on Stadia?
If you don't know it here is a trailer:
If you don't know it here is a trailer:
You know.. Being a Netflix subscriber and having recently watched Love, Death & Robots (which would probably never work on tv) i think this could actually become a thing in games as well!
It's the closest thing to proof that streamed, short, anthology, quality content is actually something no one really asked for, but everyone that saw it, wants more of..
Im not sure why you would assume that only mainstream games would be there? I would assume that anyone making games can sign up with google. It seems to work in a way that companies that deliver this service, have a Play button on their website, why this should only be limited to some websites, makes little sense I think. As I again assume, that any developer can pay google for being able to use this service. So unless the price for doing so is extremely expensive, there should be no reason why they shouldn't be allowed.
It might actually make it cheaper for indie developers to get big and better projects going, as they can optimize towards whatever hardware google uses, rather than the millions of different setups people are.
Also there are very view reasons besides games, that requires you to have a high end computer, most people have no real need for these. So being able to setup a subscription and not having to invest a lot of money in your own computer is really cool I think.
I at least would welcome such system with open arms and really hope that they can make it work as they say. I do think that games themselves will still be filled with micro transactions and whatever crap they can put in them to get peoples money. But it will allow those companies that aims at making bigger projects, know that they can. Because as it is now, they can't simply make crazy games with insane graphics etc. that will only work on high end computers, as there might not be enough people to buy such games, well now they can
I have to say that I see a lot of benefits with this.
It's probably a bit more to it than simply paying Google for a button.
It is after all a hardware platform that actually needs to RUN the game which it then streams to n devices. That implies the game makers needing to spend time and resources to make it compatible (Linux os - Vulkan api).
It is after all a hardware platform that actually needs to RUN the game which it then streams to n devices. That implies the game makers needing to spend time and resources to make it compatible (Linux os - Vulkan api).
Exactly how it works, I don't know. But anyone making games and have a company can go to their Dev site and apply. Would make sense for Google to get developers as well, otherwise their system is kind of useless.
(Note: Before I say this, understand I am actively arguing against my own fears. So, let's call this "hope".)
I'm beginning to get the gist. It's not a platform meant to unseam the triple-A industry but, rather, combat it. It should, as described, alleviate the encumbrance and expense of distribution almost completely. But only for titles that fit within its framework.
Once Stadia goes live, a title can be (essentially) built on, distributed, and supported by a single system. That system will make itself available to the widest range of hardware possible. To do so...
...it will need to be significantly limited in its application and execution. In order to ensure reliable compatibility between Windows OS, Xbox OS, Sony OS, MacOS, iOS, Linux, Android, possibly freakin' Rust by that point...we're talking a lot of walls and odd angles.
At least...at first.
So, early on, I foresee lots of indie devs with truly focused ideas, plus bigger companies with really cool off-shoot ideas, jumping on-board to target niche audiences. (And, of course, countless, trifling games simply looking to cash in with rubbish.) I don't think it will immediately be able to compete with triple-A studios.
I do think it will start gathering its own following almost at once.
If that doesn't happen, I think it's going to wind up being one of the most colossal failures of all-time. I say this, because it's coming from Google, is global, and is something that a lot of companies will jump on.
I doubt its gonna has something to with Netflix, Netflix has absolutely no connection to game industry. This is gonna be Google's show + Youtube, EA, Ubisoft and BGS is my bet. Thats more than enough muscle to push it through.
Post automatically merged:
Right, game industry is full of rubbish games. Kickstart to Steam to Consoles its hard path to walk. Even companies like Warner who has loads of money are too afraid to invest big in game industry etc. Casual gaming is gonna win this thing.Well, bottom line is that rubbish doesn't become successful. It may make money, but it tends not to be celebrated, lauded, or awarded anything. Or remembered for long. (Unless it's a special kind of awful.
When I look at Steam's library now, it is literally inundated with titles that are obviously shameless rip-offs of other, existing games / styles. It doesn't stop the best stuff from being good or the fluff from being largely ignored. What's sad is that many, really innovative and worthy games are never even noticed by players because "bigger" studios / producers can completely drown them out. The rating system helps somewhat, but games won't accrue ratings if players don't even know they exist.
It would be really cool, I think, if a marketplace would make an effort to find a.) games that have received very few, but mostly positive reviews and try to put them in the spotlight for a week or so, and b.) dig up games that have no reviews at all -- and review them! -- then give them some time on-stage if they achieve something cool.
Post automatically merged:
This sounds pretty awesome too.
"Google Stadia wants Youtubers to play with fans..." How fun it would be to see Youtube Couples, Youtuber Babies? If you are even little bit famous, it pulls chicks. Real game industry celebrities. Game industry's strenght is definitely cuteness imho.
From: https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/22/18277141/google-stadia-youtube-crowd-play-livestream-hate-content-copyright-monetization
Last edited: