loobkoob

And to prove your point even further: my friends and I went go-karting for someone’s stag do a couple of weeks ago and it was £50 per person for two fifteen-minute sessions. And that’s even more entry level than autocross, I’d argue!

We had to get there early, too, and get registered, get changed into overalls and helmet, etc. We had to go through an idiot-proof safety briefing. We had to wait for the previous group to finish their session. We had a break between our two sessions for drinks and to cool down / recover, and another session ran during that time, so ~twenty minutes there. All in all, our half-hour of driving probably came with around an hour and a half of downtime, which I think lowers the value proposition even more.

(Plus I got heatstroke during it and got increasingly ill as the day went on - and was unable to really eat during our restaurant meal or drink at the bars later in the day - which lowered the value proposition even more for me, ha!)

£100/hour of actual go-karting, versus £1/hour for most AAA games these days. I don’t tend to like AAA games that much, for the most part, but even with all their bloat, recycled content, open-world downtime, etc, they still seem like better value per money per time than anything motorsports-related.

I don’t disagree, but gaming laptops are always overpriced. You’re paying a premium for the small form factor. (And I assume they also have the much less powerful RTX 4070 Mobile, which makes the value proposition even worse for laptops.)

Those and reducing the requirements for the early blinds definitely stand out to me, yeah. Reducing the early blinds is a very good change - I think most of my early losses aren’t necessarily because I’ve played badly, but rather because it’s too early in the run to have found something to build around or to put any combos together. This change makes you less beholden to RNG in the early game, and also allows you to think a little more about your endgame strategy rather than focusing on surviving right now.

It also left Game Pass somewhat recently, which could maybe contribute.

The idea that non-game software doesn’t involve creativity or spit balling or iteration is ridiculous. But from what I’ve seen it does involve a lot more waiting for consensus and thinking too far down the road, which are political activities aimed at being right (as measured by vice presidents) rather than productive activities aimed at getting something done or making something cool (as measured by your own name in credits of a completed work offered to the public).

I think the key difference is what the goal is. With non-game software, there’s usually a goal of we want something that achieves X - let’s create, spit-ball and iterate until we achieve that. X is a measurable outcome - it requires some creativity, spitballing and iteration, but it’s easy to see if/when you’ve succeeded.

With games, things are a lot more subjective. The goal is create, spitball and iterate until you have something that people find enjoyable. You just keep going until you recognise that you’ve got something worthwhile. It’s a “you’ll know it when you see it” situation, rather than something you can track your progress towards. Sometimes you can follow a formula/template and iterate on another games’ mechanics/systems and people will like it; sometimes you can do that and people will call it a soulless copycat instead. Sometimes games are technically good but just don’t feel enjoyable; sometimes they’re enjoyable despite any technical issues they might have.

Amazon and Google’s issues stemmed from treating game development like any other software development.

An analogue would be: petrol stations stop being a thing as the world transitions to electric/hydrogen/whatever cars. You start working on a way to modify your car in some way to account for this - perhaps you plan on making your own biofuel, or manually converting it to a electric/hydrogen/whatever car. The manufacturer of your car hears about this, comes along to your house and repossesses your car and takes it to be crushed, despite it being something you own and that they should have no say in any more.

And if you’re getting a game 48 hours prior to release, you’re at least getting a finished game.

True. But, personally, I think it has all the downsides of pre-ordering but at extra cost. The game could be an absolute disaster (Suicide Squad, anyone?) and there’s no way for anyone to know that. Not waiting to be able to properly inform yourself about what you’re spending money on is so stupid.

I’m honestly reaching the point where I think pre-ordering games should be legislated against. Sure, it’s only stupid people being parted from their money, but it’s clear some consumers need protecting from themselves and it’s only really the corporations that would lose out.

That’s not even the big reason; microtransactions are often very lucrative (as much as I tend to dislike them). The main thing is just the COVID hangover and general economic downturn the world has seen.

• during the height of COVID, people had more time and money to spend on gaming. While brick and mortar stores and quite a few service industries suffered, the gaming sector was seeing record profits and growth.
• investors were also investing a lot. Crypto was booming, interest rates were really low, and a lot of investment companies were just throwing money around as a result. With gaming companies not only not being hit too hard by COVID, but also thriving during it, gaming-related investment shot up. See Embracer Group for the prime example in gaming.
• like good little capitalists, these companies saw all the extra money coming in and tried to grow their companies - more staff, bigger projects, etc. They scaled up to levels that were sustainable for their newfound income and investments.

Now, not only have all of those factors been reduced, they’ve actually gone the other way. Consumers have less disposable income than they did pre-COVID due to rising cost of living. Investment companies can’t just throw their money at absolutely anything and still turn a profit because the interest rates are much higher. And the companies all found their expenditure and growth unsustainable once the money dried up, which is why we’ve seen so many layoffs in gaming already this year.

On top of all that, we’ve seen game budgets just go up and up and up, to the point where some games are costing upwards of $200M to make. The price of games hasn’t really budged that much, which means the only way for the increasing budgets to be sustainable is for sales and microtransaction spending to keep increasing. Obviously that’s not happening, and until some novel tech comes along that draws in new gamers - like the Wii did, where people who didn’t care about games at all were interested in getting the Wii for Wii Sports, Wii Fit, etc - I think gaming’s not likely to attract too many new people.

Microtransaction scandals and less and less innovation in the AAA(A) space obviously don’t help, but they’re not the big reasons why the industry has hit hard times.

Guys, don’t fall for this propaganda video about the game, it’s actually much better than he’s making it look - Skeleton Bones Ghoulie just has a bone to pick with Will Smith.

I’m aware of when to use “a” versus “an”, but I wasn’t aware that Americans don’t pronounce the “h”! It makes a lot more sense now, thanks!

…well, a little bit more sense, anyway - I’m still not sure what calling someone “a herb” actually means…

Ahh, that would do it! I don’t know if I’ve ever actually heard an American person say “herb” so I just assumed the “h” was pronounced like it is everywhere else! Thanks!

Jim Spanfeller is an herb

What does this even mean? And shouldn’t it be a herb? (Not trying to correct you on it, I know you’re just quoting, but I can’t figure out how or why you would say an herb.)

There certainly was some actual “ethics in video game journalism” discussion early on that I felt was legitimate, but that got drowned out pretty quickly by the misogynists (which, from what I gather, was the entire point - it seems the misogynists started the whole thing and used the “ethics in game journalism” thing as a front to try to legitimise their agenda).

I think the discussion about the personal relationships game journalists have with developers in general was a reasonable one to have. It unfortunately ended up just laser focusing on Zoe Quinn supposedly trading sex for good reviews, which was untrue, sexist and resulted in nasty personal attacks. But I think it was worth at least examining the fact that game journalists and game developers often have close relationships and move in the same circles, and that game journalism can often be a stepping stone to game development. Those are absolutely things that could influence someone’s reviews or articles, consciously or subconsciously.

And another conversation worth having was the fact that gaming outlets like IGN were/are funded by adverts from gaming companies. It makes sense, of course - the Venn diagram of IGN’s (or other gaming outlets’) readers and gaming companies’ target audience is almost a perfect circle, which makes the ad space valuable to the gaming companies. And because it’s valuable to gaming companies, it’s better for the outlets to sell the ad space to them for more money than to sell it to generic advertising platforms. But it does mean it seems valid to ask whether the outlets giving bad reviews or writing critical articles might cause their advertisers to pull out, and therefore they might avoid being too critical.

Now I don’t think the games industry is corrupt or running on cronyism, personally. And I certainly don’t believe it’s all run by a shadowy cabal of woke libruls who are trying to force black people, women (and worse, gasp black women shudder) into games. But I do feel it was worth asking about the relationships between journalists, developers, publishers and review outlets - and honestly, those are the kinds of things that both game journalists and people who read game journalism should constantly be re-evaluating. It’s always good to be aware of potential biases and influences.

The fact that the whole thing almost immediately got twisted into misogyny, death threats and a general hate campaign was both disappointing and horrifying. And the fact that it led to the alt-right, and that you can trace a line from it to Brexit and to Donald Trump becoming US president, is even worse.

My interpretation is that it sold poorly, but that among the people who did buy it it’s got high retention.

There are definitely technical reasons why saving mid-run is a lot more complicated. With Pacific Drive, right now when you save, it’ll save:

• the state of your car - this will likely be done by looking each individual “equipment slot” the car has, assigning them a number, assigning each possible upgrade for that “slot” a number/letter, and storing its damage state (which is probably just a scale of 1-5 or whatever). So the game will store everything about your car in the format off “slot x, upgrade type y, damage z”, which can just be three values.
• your quest state. The game won’t remember what quests you’ve done or how you’ve done them in the way that you remember it - it’ll just store that you’ve completed quest step 14a and that 14b is your active objective.

It makes for a fairly simple, small save file. Being able to save mid-run would add a lot of complexity because it’d need to save a complete map state, including:

• the map layout
• your position in the map
• the enemies and hazards in the map - their positions, states, etc.
• what’s happened already in the map
• the loot in the map, and whether you’ve collected it or not

And so on. Not only does it massively increase the complexity, it would also increase the size of save files a lot and make saving and loading a lot more cumbersome. And that’s just a simplified breakdown; there are definitely other factors that can make it much, much more complicated.

There are definitely some games where “easy mode” save systems could be implemented without much changing on a technical level, but I don’t think Pacific Drive is one of them.

that game is over for me once I’ve launched the rocket

Ahh, well that definitely isn’t the case for me! I usually keep playing long after I’ve launched the first rocket. For me, launching the rocket is a somewhat arbitrary “ending”; it’s a good objective for people to focus on - especially new players - but I don’t think anything really changes before or after the rocket launch in terms of gameplay loop (and there’s no narrative to change). Just like before the rocket launch, there are still things to optimise, new ways to build, etc, (some of which are supported by the science you get from launching rockets, in fact).

I suppose it partially comes down to whether you’re an objective-driven player or someone who enjoys the process. For me, it’s all about the process/journey, and the objectives are more of a guide than anything. If the objectives are complete and I’m still enjoying the process, and there’s still room for me to enjoy the process, then I’ll keep playing.

I can definitely think of quite a few non-live-service games with an “end game” that I’ve enjoyed:

• (Older) Pokémon games with their battle towers, where putting together a flexible team with as few weaknesses as possible is the aim.
• Loot games like Borderlands, Grim Dawn and Last Epoch where I want to make new builds and test their limits against harder and harder challenges.
• Factorio, where I want to optimise my factory. Although there’s absolutely an argument to be made that that is the game, but I think it becomes more about player-set goals once you’ve launched the rocket.

All of them are either offline or have offline modes available. All of them have potentially infinite “content” if you’re the sort of person who like optimising, or just being able to set yourself new targets. They’re all enjoyable to play for their “campaigns” alone, but they also have very strong sandboxes that players can continue to engage with even after the game stops giving them objectives.

I don’t necessarily disagree with your overall sentiment, though. I think MMO-style “end games” where you login for your daily, time-gated quests and do the same thing you always do with no variation or sense of progression (be it narrative, emotional, build-related or some other kind of progression) isn’t necessarily healthy. And I dislike the way “end games” have tended to move away from being optional post-game content for people who aren’t ready to finish playing yet and instead are often viewed as the main game that you have to get through the sorry excuse for a campaign/story to access.

Not that your suggestion is necessarily bad in general, but I don’t really think it’s necessary when it comes to Factorio. I think it should be clear from playing the demo whether 100+ more hours of that seems worth the asking price for someone. It’s probably the most representative demo I’ve ever played; the full game is just the demo but more. There are no surprises down the line. There are no random pivots to other genres, or the game trying to stick its fingers in too many pies. There’s no narrative to screw up. There’s no “oh, they clearly just spent all their time polishing the first hour of the game and the rest of it is a technical mess”. It’s the same gameplay loop from the demo for another 50 hours until you “win”.

… and then another 50 hours after that when you decide to optimise things. And then another 100 hours when you decide to make a train-themed base. And then another 700 hours when you discover some of the mods that exist…

Even of that were true (which it may be), there are loot games and loot games. Personally, I want itemisation to make a meaningful difference to how my build feels to play and how it performs. I want to be able to have a unique/legendary item drop and think, “wow, I’m going to make a while new build around this”.

Games where the loot is just +1 damage or 7% extra armour, and where there’s no real depth to the loot, would be better off without loot, I think - I’d rather just see an armoury where I pick the weapon I want, and not have to deal with the loot scaling, enemy level scaling, etc. Save the looter aspects for games like Path Of Exile or Borderlands where loot is actually engaging and impactful.

Mine, too! It really showcases the kind of narrative that is only possible with the interactivity of video games as a medium. If I could experience any game again for the first time, it’d be Outer Wilds!