Useless gaming news & chatter

[Rasix]

Depends on your definition of "fucked up".  Was it reasonably fun? Sure (until the problems wore you down).  Was it competently made? No.

I'll give it this. I may give it another chance at some point (well after I try the D:OS EE), especially since they patched it up.  I doubt, however, that they've patched out some of my most prominent gripes.

[Mandella]

Funcom's "The Park" is out for 9.99. I'll probably pick it up. Whatever you say about the Secret world, these guys can do creepy.

This one is Joel Bylos' baby, and yeah he can do some good horror writing.

Apparently this was just supposed to be an exercise in learning to use the Unreal Engine (I think), for another project in the works, but Bylos pushed for an independent release for it.

Be advised that it only contains a couple of hours of playtime, so don't be disappointed in that.

[Falconeer]

New David Cage game. Detroit. About androids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL2gW7hmXu4

[HaemishM]

Why doesn't he just make overly pretentious, barely coherent movies instead of these things?

[brellium]

Funcom's "The Park" is out for 9.99. I'll probably pick it up. Whatever you say about the Secret world, these guys can do creepy.

This one is Joel Bylos' baby, and yeah he can do some good horror writing.

Apparently this was just supposed to be an exercise in learning to use the Unreal Engine (I think), for another project in the works, but Bylos pushed for an independent release for it.

Be advised that it only contains a couple of hours of playtime, so don't be disappointed in that.

The videos have it looking a lot like the amusement park in TSO.

[Ard]

That's what it's directly based on.

edit:  could have been more clear, yes, that's the same amusement park from the TSO. Iit's set in the same world and place.

[Sir T]

Funcom's "The Park" is out for 9.99. I'll probably pick it up. Whatever you say about the Secret world, these guys can do creepy.

This one is Joel Bylos' baby, and yeah he can do some good horror writing.

Apparently this was just supposed to be an exercise in learning to use the Unreal Engine (I think), for another project in the works, but Bylos pushed for an independent release for it.

Be advised that it only contains a couple of hours of playtime, so don't be disappointed in that.

Yeah, bought it, played it, finished it in just under 2 hours. I quite enjoyed it. Nowhere near the best game I've ever played, but I've spent far worse 10 bucks. Got a few items for my the secret world char too so there's that.

I somehow missed one achievement too, so I might replay some of it to get that. Damn completionist gene.

[satael]

Paradox Buys White Wolf – Including World Of Darkness and Vampire The Masquerade – From CCP.

In my opinion this is great news since CCP hasn't really done anything with the IP. 

[HaemishM]

I can see Paradox actually completing something that might be playable. CCP did fuckall but waste money on it.

[Quinton]

SOMA - Any views ?

Heard about it on Halloween and spent much of Halloween and a bit of today playing it.  Liked it a lot, though it could have used fewer monsters (I thought the mystery/horror of the unfolding story as you explore the environment was far stronger than the monster elements).  The visual design of the environment was fantastic, I enjoyed piecing together the story of "wtf happened / is happening here", and was generally impressed by the experience.

There were two rather frustrating timed sequences and a couple other annoying encounters that soured me on the monster side of things, but everything else made up for it.  The opening sequence has some pretty drab environmental design that had me a bit worried about the overall quality of things, but it was a false alarm.  Once the first surprising thing happens and you're in the main environment of the game, the amount of care put into the level / npc / mechanism / etc design really shows.  If you enjoy really cool airlocks and nice solid-feeling mechanisms, there are plenty of those too.

I was pleasantly surprised that once the initial mystery of who/what the protagonist is was starting to become pretty damn obvious to the player they addressed it in-game rather than dragging it out for an absurd amount of time (though all the details are not immediately obvious nor revealed).  There were a couple possible (overly used) endings that would have been really crappy that they thankfully did not fall victim to.

Story-wise my biggest complaint is the protagonist is not a blank slate, so you ride-along with someone who you may seriously disagree with.  I would have appreciated some minimal dialogue-treeing to allow me to express my own opinion on some things, even if it had no real impact on the story.

There's a no monsters (except for a couple necessary key bits) patch out there, which could be useful if you hate the encounters even more than I did (I might use it for a second play through sometime, to be able to spend more time exploring some areas I didn't get as good a look at as I would have liked):
https://www.reddit.com/r/soma/comments/3qqmb8/spoilers_release_of_my_soma_monster_mod_to_remove/

[Draegan]

If you like SMITE, here is another "FPS MOBA". Can get a key via this link here: https://rsvp.battleborn.com/ to try the beta via steam.

Checking it out now.

[Nija]

I may overuse the phrase "rainbow vomit" but Battleborn is totally rainbow vomit.

Let me know if you can figure out what's going on. I didn't have the patience to figure it out.

[Yegolev]

I have a low tolerance for that shit, so I'll let you know... provided I ever get around to the login and playing part.

[Ginaz]

It seems an indie MMO, Otherland, on Steam's early access (I'm sure people are shocked at that part) is being accused of paying for fake positive reviews.  Don't know if its true or not.  Don't care.  Game looks like shit and is made by some random shifty Russians.

http://mmos.com/editorials/otherland-has-hundreds-of-fake-paid-reviews-on-steam

[ezrast]

I may overuse the phrase "rainbow vomit" but Battleborn is totally rainbow vomit.

Let me know if you can figure out what's going on. I didn't have the patience to figure it out.

I'll take rainbow vomit over real-is-brown any day (looking at you, Vermintide).

Public discussion is prohibited under Battleborn's NDA, but much thanks to Draegan for the link!

[Falconeer]

EDIT: NDA.

Judging from trailers and screenshots, this looks like Wildstar: The FPS.

[Jeff Kelly]

Activision Blizzard buys King for 5.9 billion. I get that whales sometimes spent an excessive amount of money on gems, but 5.9 billion for Candy Crush seems a tad excessive.

This will be yet another Zynga.

[schild]

Activision Blizzard buys King for 5.9 billion. I get that whales sometimes spent an excessive amount of money on gems, but 5.9 billion for Candy Crush seems a tad excessive.

This will be yet another Zynga.

Backwards, King buying companies to expand but not being able to bottle lightning twice would be another Zynga.

Activision buying them is just plain stupidity, greed and a marvelous misunderstanding of the casual/social gaming landscape. A fast-follow reskin of Hearthstone for Starcraft would make them more money than future King games.

[Merusk]

Yeah I heard that on the ride in this morning and was WTFing about it. Maybe if King had some elite crew or multiple games it would make sense but when all they've got is CC? Tech Bubble 2.0 in full effect on prices.

[Father mike]

Maybe what Activision payed for was King's crack legal team who managed to trademark "crush", "saga", and "candy". 

[tmp]

A fast-follow reskin of Hearthstone for Starcraft would make them more money than future King games.

[HaemishM]

Win. 

[Merusk]

Maybe what Activision payed for was King's crack legal team who managed to trademark "crush", "saga", and "candy". 

So NPR had a bit from Kotick that almost explained the decision.
1) They realize that their current stable of designers are better at male-oriented hardcore games like CoD, SC2, and WoW.
2) There's huge money out there in the female casual games market.
3) Kings is currently the biggest profit center in that market, even if they only have one game.

So it makes sense in that I can see a businessperson making the decision based on those facts.

[schild]

Maybe what Activision payed for was King's crack legal team who managed to trademark "crush", "saga", and "candy". 

So NPR had a bit from Kotick that almost explained the decision.
1) They realize that their current stable of designers are better at male-oriented hardcore games like CoD, SC2, and WoW.
2) There's huge money out there in the female casual games market.
3) Kings is currently the biggest profit center in that market, even if they only have one game.

So it makes sense in that I can see a businessperson making the decision based on those facts.

So, exactly Zynga.

Sick.

[MahrinSkel]

But at the end of the day, they have exactly one game that is a hit with the 'female casual games market'. A first mover 'lightning in a bottle' success they haven't replicated in any way. So exactly WTF does Activision think they are buying?

--Dave

[schild]

Like I said, exactly Zynga.

Zynga had one hit that happened to strike a chord with weird ass housewives who thought farms were just neato and they bought like 50 companies crating a social gaming version of Activision.

They have not bottle that lightning since, and neither will King Activision Blizzard.

[Jeff Kelly]

Only Kotick would be able to frame it as "only women play those stupid money sink match three games" and sound like a complete dick in the process.

[schild]

No, everyone that says that sounds like a dick. But they aren't wrong on a monetization level. Men want to figure out how to game a f2p game. Women are happy to pay to win.

Source: the people that did the math

[Merusk]

Maybe what Activision payed for was King's crack legal team who managed to trademark "crush", "saga", and "candy". 

So NPR had a bit from Kotick that almost explained the decision.
1) They realize that their current stable of designers are better at male-oriented hardcore games like CoD, SC2, and WoW.
2) There's huge money out there in the female casual games market.
3) Kings is currently the biggest profit center in that market, even if they only have one game.

So it makes sense in that I can see a businessperson making the decision based on those facts.

So, exactly Zynga.

Sick.

Yep. Bad move but a business guy isn't going to see that, he's only going to see the dollars and assume they will convert to more dollars.

[tmp]

No, everyone that says that sounds like a dick. But they aren't wrong on a monetization level. Men want to figure out how to game a f2p game. Women are happy to pay to win.

Source: the people that did the math

I'm not convinced they did their math right, or alternatively there's a lot of women who play discreetly, my Lord World of Tanks and such.

[Draegan]

My wife played Farmville for like 3 months before quitting as she realized she was addicted (she's not a gamer at all). She dropped $60 bucks on the game before I could rip the laptop away from her. She hasn't touched a video game since.

[schild]

No, everyone that says that sounds like a dick. But they aren't wrong on a monetization level. Men want to figure out how to game a f2p game. Women are happy to pay to win.

Source: the people that did the math

I'm not convinced they did their math right, or alternatively there's a lot of women who play discreetly, my Lord World of Tanks and such.

We're talking very specifically about casual/social games. World of Tanks, Path of Exile, etc are hardcore games with reasonable F2P schemes, unless I'm missing something and those games are secretly pay2win.

[Engels]

I'd also like to know where the stats are coming from that there's a huge secret female playerbase for WoT. Sure, there are some celebrity women playing WoT in the EU (Rita Gamer, Jacqueline, for instance), but widespread? I don't think so.

Also, schild is right in his hunch that although WoT is technically f2p, it is not a game that can be played for free without a LOT of soul crushing grindage.

[tmp]

We're talking very specifically about casual/social games. World of Tanks, Path of Exile, etc are hardcore games with reasonable F2P schemes, unless I'm missing something and those games are secretly pay2win.

World of Tanks was my first thought because it's a game I consider pretty casual (you launch the game, you play a match and then rage-quit, all in under 15 mins a day)  But more seriously, there's also bunch of these web/tablet/whatever games that are in my eyes no different from Farmville except skinned to build a "kingdom" not a farm, and oddly enough I only see them advertised toward dudes --and lesbians, I guess-- with half naked chicks writhing and promising untold pleasures if only you click on that link. And we're talking millions spent on this, with literal Superbowl ads and shit. I have yet to see such an ad with a Chippendale in tight leather pants.

Which, if we accept for a second that the research is legit and dudes don't spend money in these casual games but women do, would be pants on head stupid, because shouldn't you rather be advertising to people your own research shows spend the money, not to the ones who don't? So the explanation I can see here is either #1, the research is off and the dudes spend money on these games too, enough of it to make such advertising worthwhile... or #2, these people can't do math, which puts in doubt their ability to properly do that initial math about who the money in these games comes from.

Personally i'm inclined towards #1, mainly because statistics you can find on the subject seem to vary wildly -- when you get three studies from around the same time (last year) and one claims only 5% of U.S. mobile/facebook players ever spend money on microtransactions, another puts this number at ~10-15% and another claims it's as high as 30-40% ... well, is there any reason to believe the other statistics they provide are any more accurate?

Incidentally -- a quick google search turned up some quite interesting insight why the spenders actually spend. They only interviewed dudes though, so maybe motivation is different, but it seems that they're much more about social aspect and helping friends who also play and such, than straight "pay to 'win'".

[tmp]

I'd also like to know where the stats are coming from that there's a huge secret female playerbase for WoT.

That's not a statistic, and I should've put it in green, perhaps. The train of thoughts would be as follows:

* if dudes don't spend on F2P games, women do
* but World of Tanks appears highly profitable for their developer, with its current microtransaction system
* then where does the money that keeps them afloat comes from?

it's either a) dudes spend money too, or b) there must be lot of these money spending women in their playerbase.

However, schild's caveat that the spending habits of dudes are actually different in the soul-crushing grind games like WoT can work, idk. Personally I feel it's off and that they're quite happy/quick to spend in these casual titles too, but that's nothing more than a hunch -- and as I mentioned upthread the statistics you can find on the subject don't seem very reliable in general.