That's the first time I hear a company claiming that remote-work would somehow be less efficient than working in an office. lol!

I call bs on it, really. It's just the usual bad project management and unrealistic deadlines common to the games industry, except that now they go a convenient excuse for it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This game might be the first good thing to happen in this trainwreck of a year...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Good to see them working on getting Wolcen to run. That was one of the last games I backed on Kickstarter, under the promise that it will have a Linux version.

/sarcasm

I wonder why I even care if WINE can run it, since it got promised a Linux version!

/endsarcasm

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I guess my daughter would love that game! Thanks for reporting about it, I have never heard of it before! :)

And yes, I don't even want to know how much work it was to replace the engine of a -finished- game. I have never heard of this being done before. oO

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: gregfI want AMD not intel, and I want a good keyboard like on a think pad. Till then it's a no go for me.

If I am not totally mistaken, that's because AMD doesn't have a competitive on-board GPU solution. It also is not considered a force for dedicated mobile GPUs. Intel still kinda has a monopoly on that. Which is why nobody considers AMD for building a laptop, still.

I otherwise agree with the sentiment. I'd love to see a good AMD laptop platform one day.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 14Usually when people speak in ultimatums, they're exaggerating due to a lazy mind or anger-fueled irrationality.

Needless to say, I disagree with you. But that's fine.

For the most part I would agree with you that absolutes rarely exist, and there's usually an exception or two to every statement one can make. I felt fairly comfortable generalizing in this particular instance though, and still do. The reason for this lies in the very effect the "Free"-to-Play model causes on game design, which makes these games bad by definition.

I will try to explain:

For a Buy-to-Play game, the game design focuses on delivering the best possible experience for the player. There are no secondary concerns for game design - the monetization has already happened.
For a "Free"-to-Play game, monetization has to happen DURING play, and AFTER giving the player access to it. The design no longer focuses on the best possible experience for the player, it focuses on motivating the player to pay up. Which for the F2P side of the industry is habitually done by intentionally making the game boring or tedious after a few hours of playing it, while giving players the opportunity to buy away these nag-mechanics with micro-transactions ("Don't want to wait 100 hours for this cooldown to expire? Just pay $10!").
In short, you can safely say that F2P games are universally designed to suck unless you pay up. It's how these games make you pay when you otherwise would have no reason to.

Now, you might say "But what about vanity and cosmetic items that have no effect on gameplay? Selling these don't make a game suck!"

Unfortunately, it does.

In a B2P game, cosmetic items are earned in-game, by PLAYING it. For many games, getting better-looking gear is the very essence of our motivation to play them in this first place. But with F2P games, you just BUY them. You can't earn the good-looking stuff in game, because it's moved to the cash-store. All you do is swipe your credit card and done! Your character looks great now. The only problem is that moving in-game rewards to a cash-store is that it kills in-game content, because your already great-looking character doesn't have to do any dungeon crawling to become great-looking. Cash-stores, even if cosmetic only, leave game designers with a lot less options to design rewarding and engaging content.

Maybe this helps you to understand why I made my absolute statement the way I did. There is simply no way to make a F2P game NOT suck, because the problem is in the business model itself.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 14

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: rkfgMake it F2P,

100% of all so-called "free"-to-play games suck. As in all of them, no exceptions. Because all of them are designed to suck unless you dump more money into it than you ever would in an actual for-purchase game.

Oh, like Dota 2?

I'm fine with buying a digital card game if I can play a trial mode first. I was too hesitant to put money down on Artifact and so never experienced it. I wish they had a free weekend or a trial mode of some sort. I also think it's OK to charge money for card packs just like Magic (etc) does in the physical world... as long as the game includes a Draft mode!

Not sure which part of "100% no exceptions" wasn't so clear. If a game was -designed- to be "free" (haha!) to play, it sucks. FTP is probably the most successful fraud ever conceived. Except that it's (yet) legal.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: rkfgMake it F2P,

100% of all so-called "free"-to-play games suck. As in all of them, no exceptions. Because all of them are designed to suck unless you dump more money into it than you ever would in an actual for-purchase game.

Why anybody still thinks FT2 is the solution is beyond me. In today's gaming business, it's the root of the problem.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Let's open a bottle and celebrate! :D

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Monopoly is a game I really, REALLY need to stream, because my local PC won't be able to render it! Hey, who cares what a total waste of energy and network resources that is, anyway! I am just glad that it's FINALLY there!!! How did people ever play computer Monopoly without having access to multi-Teraflops computing power?

Oh...wait...

View this comment - View article - View full comments