Quoting: F.UltraBut have you not heard that the mighty SJW:s have forced all gaming publishers to only make games with female leads since 2014!

Heh, there certainly have been some debates about that issue. Apparently it didn't help all that much. Tomb Raider existed before 2014, and that's still the only truly major franchise featuring a female lead I am aware of. Other than that, there have been some rare one-hit-wonder gems like Life is Strange (it's successor-by-name-only features boy characters, so I don't count that as a female-lead franchise), Horizon or Hellblade, but in the end, video games are still largely made by men for men.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

For some reason, I have most of these games already! :D

Still not too many games other than Tomb Raider with strong female leads around, even in 2019... :S

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: fagnerlnHERE WE GO AGAIN...

We don't need the government controlling even more our lives, the parents should moderate what their children are using.

Yeah, regulating society is bad! How dare they making laws not to kill each other, or steal each other's stuff! Unacceptable! And now they want to protect minors from online gambling using the same logic already in place for real life gambling! How dare they!!!!

Libertarians will never cease to make laugh, really. Second dumbest ideology on Earth, after the Flat-Earthers. As if totally unregulated markets would have worked at any point in history, anywhere in the world. *rolls eyes*

Also, I don't think you have kids. Otherwise you would find having to say "NO!!!!" to the 99.9% of all mobile games that use these pathetic business practices as annoying as I do.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

My wishes got heard! yay!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I know - people love to bash Paradox for their numerous DLC packs they release for all their games.

I love them (among things) for just that. No good old game is ever dead. They update and improve them for years. Yes, it costs money, but so does making these improvements. Can't have the cake and eat it.

I was hoping for Paradox to start making DLC packs for this gem of a game when they took over. Yes, I am going to buy this one!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Let's not kid ourselves: It's a fairly massive price hike in disguise. As a current subscriber, I appreciate getting grand-fathered in the new program, but for newcomers, it might be the end of the line where it still might be considered a good deal, at least if you're constantly pausing months you feel aren't worth it (I never did, I am too lazy, so I just let it run and gave away games I don't need to family and friends)

The old program was a great deal, and I think it still will be a good deal. But one has to wonder if game subscriptions like this one will become the new Netflix. Which also used to be a great deal, before numerous price hikes combined with an ever shrinking library turned it into just another cable channel.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I would be absolutely thrilled if the new game would be CK III. I love the setting, I love the dynastic gameplay and relative importance of individual characters, compared to other grand strategy titles.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

That's a welcome surprise. I've bought the game back then, but never finished it. Maybe now it's the time to! :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: SkipperroIf you want to have a game, that have hundreds of enemies (or players) at once in one place and simultaneously offers photo-realistic graphic, you won't be able to do it on a single CPU. Forget it. Your only option is a server cluster running massively multi-threaded API like Vulkan, using branch predictions (calculating possible frames before user input) and other advanced techy-stuff.

That's a truly good point! For some games, even modern day computing power won't be enough, and I guess the only way that kind of game can be realized is by it running in a cloud. Microsoft's Flight Simulator is a good example of that already happening.

My counterpoint to that would be that there is no reason for EVERY game to be cloud hosted. While a photo-realistic flight simulator has to be, Stardew Valley profits exactly not at all from being remotely hosted. Cloud hosted gaming isn't exactly a new thing anyway. My favorite genre is MMORPGs, and these have been remotely hosted even back in the days when they didn't re-brand the thing we used to call a cluster-server to "cloud". I think you're totally right that we're going to see more and more cloud-based games actually making USE of the cloud other than just being a DRM scheme. But while games like MS Flight might do that, streaming these games in their entirety is not a necessity, still. Personally I foresee more a future that will use the cloud for performance-heavy operations and let the local client process what makes sense to do there, which is probably the best of both worlds. That's what MS Flight is doing, after all.

Time will tell, I guess.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Skipperro

Quoting: Liam DaweStill, not entirely sure who their market is exactly...

As someone who works in the company selling Gaming-PCs I can tell you, because I've done research about possible Stadia impact on our sales.
If you are interested, I can share the details with you, but to get the picture - if you look at the Stadia not as as a service on your PC, but as a hardware replacement, it's a great deal.

There is no PC, that would play all the games they will have in 4K for 10$ a month (360$ given average PC lifespan of 3 years). Even if I calculated all the extra costs like extra money per month for faster Internet and ignored price for electricity, it's still, from economic point of view, in the best-case scenario - the same. If you want to have a PC for the Internet browsing and games, you will spend less money buying cheap, entry level PC and Stadia subscription than a 4K capable machine.

And if you only want to play in FullHD - I cannot even compare the prices, because local PC will always cost something and Stadia is free so... divide by zero exception!

I say it over and over again in every Stadia discussion - look at it from the perspective of someone who wants to buy a new Gaming PC, because it's meant to replace hardware and compete with local, mainstream gaming rigs. From this perspective, their market seems pretty big to me.

I dunno. At the same time, people willing to spend big bucks on gaming PCs are also the ones who optimize everything to squeeze every last bit of performance out of their rigs and who throw a tantrum when their ISP has a hiccup night, giving them an extra 2ms of lag. Why would these people want a service that's -guaranteed- to perform worse than their Alienware PC?
Likewise, casual players tend to not care about 4K and a few extra FX effects on their games. There are by far the the biggest slice of the market, and they happily play games on low-end machines that don't break the bank enough to warrant signing up to a streaming service ON TOP of owning a PC to run Office on etc.
On top of that, Moore's Law is (mostly) dead, and PCs last much, much longer than they used to. When in the 1990s you had to replace a PC every other year to continue playing recent games, you can now keep a gaming PC for 4 to 6 years and STILL play the newest games with (most) effects enabled. Which cuts the annual cost of owning a gaming PC down but a fair margin.

I suppose you guys put a lot more thought into this than me, but to me, game streaming still seems to be an equal opportunity offender without any clear target audience.

View this comment - View article - View full comments