![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
I think the issue is twofold. First, there are games that have what some would call padding or an "empty open world" but that is part of the experience. The option to do as much or as little of the side content as you wanted, but the scope and scale of the world is part of the allure - people want to be able to butcher bandit camps when they feel like it, or just ride past etc. Ironically, AC Valhalla was a victim of its own success in that way - it had SO much content, but to deal with a different issue of not wanting to tell people that it was all meaningfull, they made huge amounts of it optional. This was a good in a way in the "Do you like the few times you river raided to get supplies for your town, and really felt like a viking? Well, we made a whole bloody campaign with several expansive rivers, a roguelike element, and other stuff to unlock including boss fights if you want to feel like a raiding viking! Don't like it? Well its optional, the only thing you'll miss out on is some gear etc". They did the same for the "Puzzle Tombs" (which couldn't even be found on the map, you had to fly your eagle , look for a spiral to find the entrance, and then inside it was the old style AC puzzle tombs with blocks and winches and all kinds of other stuff) and other mechanics.. Not it wasn't all perfect - many people got REALLY annoyed with the "Mastery Challenges" where, despite it being in the name, it actually overwrote your game difficulty settings and maxed them out in those trials so it was for Mastery and thus people got frustrated it was SO different from normal gameplay. There was more, but the large amount of content was optional, but was so expansive and so "ever-fresh" people got overwhelmed doing it all back to back. Still, its not an issue in and of itself I think its more of a player choice option.
Just brought this badboy home, but wife said I'm not allowed to install it until after smackdown since I'll need her assistance.
I agree. For example, I think any of the Mass Effect trilogy games are better than Andromeda. The latter is bloated and the open world only serves to increase playtime rather than bring something to the experience.
At the right price the 7900XTX was always a great value despite its relatively poor ray tracing capabilities.
It does so at about half the performance of the 4080 Super. However, the performance hit is only really there in games that utilize the full range of ray tracing features. A lot of implementations do little with ray tracing. The First Descendant utilizes it, but not to a point where it has any negligible impact on anything from a 3080 up.
Certain ray tracing features are considerably more demanding than others. Cyberpunk 2077 being one of the few games that really showcases this. The afore-mentioned TFD has a ray tracing option, but it does little for the visuals and doesn't impact performance at all.
Well, game companies are forever chasing the trends set by the last big game on the market. This means making things open world, adding tons of side quests and padding a game's length because XYZ game did it before. This adds perceived value to the game. Certainly, game developers and publishers really don't understand the simple fact that a game has to be fun first and foremost. Like movies, pacing is important. Some games make far better use of their side content than others. Cyberpunk 2077 is very good at this, but Starfield isn't just to name some examples.
According to who? Even the people who initially shit on this game like Asmongold are putting a lot of hours into it and generally seem to be enjoying it. It's no Elden Ring or Kingdom Come 2, but it's reasonably solid and is generally pleasing AC fans.
For me the perfect example is the rebooted Tomb Raider trilogy. I absolutely loved the first game. The mechanics were simple but fun with a crafting element that was also simple and you didn't have to go out of your way for. The side quests went right along with the main quest so they rarely felt like side quests. The main quest was fun and interesting and I was always ready for more. It was a well paced, tight storyline game which was fun.
This zotac was 1999 NZD most of the other partner models are a couple of hundred bucks on top of that. Ran into a bit of an installation hitch because I ran out of pcie 8 pin connectors. Thankfully have a cable I can salvage from another rig though so should be up and running with the new card tomorrow. I read somewhere this particular card is supposed to go for $750 USD in the states. But of course dependent on the retailers
Ubisoft Plus didn't exist for those launches. You had to pay full price to play Origins and Odyssey at release.
That’s still a win. Better to get a player at $18 than not at all. I am generally perplexed why anyone would buy these games though when you can play it for $18 and call it a day. Only games I buy outright still are Nintendo games since the physical copies hold their value.
That's like saying if I get a new customer at $60 instead of $175 it's still a win. It's not because it would cost money to run my business.
If you get a million more customers paying $18 versus a million less - I’ll let you do the math. Those are customers who would have never bought the game.
Yeah, I wouldn't get so excited there. Two million players isn't the same as two million copies sold. It's far from a success story here despite Paul Tassi already running puff pieces for the game's numbers.
Given that Assassin's Creed Shadows probably needs to pass the 10 million mark in order to turn a profit, it really isn't a "win" for Ubisoft. The fact is that the people paying $15 a month or whatever are trying this out because it doesn't cost them anything extra to do it, or they'll write that $18 off as being a minimal loss if they don't like the game. I'll put it another way, if this game gets 10 million players on Ubisoft's monthly service and sells only 5 million units the game will be a financial failure. It won't make back its development costs, much less turn a profit.
I’m not saying it’s a total win. I’m just saying getting a million people who wouldn’t buy your crap to begin with at $18 versus $0 is better than the $0.
Better than nothing isn't success. I think its safe to say its performing better than Star Wars Outlaws but it also has nearly twice the budget. It's got a much deeper hole to crawl out of.
I don’t know why you keep thinking I’m saying this is a success.
An extremely hard math to do, retention rate and DLC attach rate, determine the value of the marginal added and helped to retain to put a game in there. (minus the sales lost)
It seems you are saying current numbers are better than nothing.
Not "really" a bad boy! Lol
I'm just commenting on the patently idiotic statement that a million more people paying $18 to play a game that they would have not otherwise bought is somehow less money than zero dollars.
Exactly my point.
Compared to my old 3080 it is
