138
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
138 points (97.9% liked)
Games
32841 readers
1222 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They wont.
Remedy games have been "underperforming" despite rave reviews for a while. Yet they've been chugging along doing what they think is neat, instead of caving into the current money-making models.
And in this case, the Epic partnership definitely hurt the game. And they know it did. Before AW2, it was microsoft putting the breaks of Quantum Break despite it being great.
Control was the first time since Max Payne I felt they truly achieved the success that their level of quality deserves (and even then it was a timed epic exclusive).
Now Remedy has set themselves up to finally self-publish the follow-up to Control. I can't wait.
Remedy has fans, but something always seems to get in the way.
Didn't they just announce a live service shooter? Isn't that caving into current money-making models?
We know one of their WIP titles is a PvE multiplayer game set in their connected universe. Aside from that, nothing more is known, except for your generic corporate "we're excited about our future projects with Remedy" statements from 505.
I'd be very suprised if Remedy turns around and makes it overtly exploitative.
Whether it's any more exploitative than any other game, it's still got all of the same baggage. It's always online and will one day be unplayable, and it's relying on continual revenue to support it rather than just selling it for an up front price and letting it rock, which both encourage exploitative monetization anyway.
Ok. Unfortunately it sounds like you're asking me to stop liking a studio that I like, based on speculation about how a future title of theirs might work. That's not an actionable argument.
Nothing about a multiplayer title requires it be made in a way that will break whenever the official servers go down. You are assuming this one will work that way, and I'll grant you it likely will.
But the change we both want isn't going to come from voting with our wallets, but even harder.
It'll come from something like this.
I'm not asking you to stop liking a studio you like, but I am asking you to take them off of the pedestal you put them on. If you care about the SKG campaign, that new shooter of theirs is at odds with it.
...
That pedestal being, that they keep making games that are just plain good, despite at the same time being involved with shit industry practices by working with Microsoft and Epic?
I think that particular pedestal is pretty fucking deserved. And one that looks their faults in the eyes.
They keep making good stuff, while marred by the bullshit that allows them to fund the studio.
Why do you think I'm specifically excited for them to finally do something fully self-published, so they can make something I can enjoy with no fucking strings attached?