They expect you to spend $60 on a game plus microtransactions?
I put away 50 to 100+ hours into games that cost me $15. Why doesn't everybody else do this? Does high-end 3D graphics actually matter that much to people?
$70 nowadays.
Get fucked Capcom. Can always dig through backlog until it's reasonably priced and not a buggy mess.
Japanese company and poor business decisions are a match made in heaven. After success its almost like they race to shoot themselves in the foot.
EA, Activision blizzard, Ubisoft, 2k games and many more. I think you meant "AAA gaming companies and poor business decisions are a match made in heaven".
We'll watch From Software's career with great interest.
Chess is free. No DLC. I have never stopped playing.
Chess is free to play now, but for centuries it was more like shareware.
What do you mean?
You can play online and there are tons of free apps, but it used to be that someone had to purchase a set to be able to share it with their friends. Though since making copies would have been difficult I guess it would have been more like Mario Party than the first nine levels of Doom.
The issue was never having the set, you can make one in an afternoon with scrap wood. The problem is having other people who want to play whenever you want to play.
But doesn't shareware refer to software that is distributed freely, playable (maybe with limitations on how far you can play into the game, or how long you can play it for free) but it's generally a proprietary game that is distributed through this model? I may not have a perfect grasp on the precise meaning of shareware.
I see chess more like abandonware - if someone developed a proto-chess game and didn't assert their ownership over the IP (recognising that this happened before copyright and IP were understood concepts), doesn't that make it effectively free to play, noting you of course need a board to play?
Maybe an ancient and highly modded board game doesn't translate that well to a software/copyright analogy. Also you lost me on your comparison between Mario Party (I think you mean only one person needs to own the game) and the first levels of Doom (which are more like a demo). I don't see either of these as shareware, though I guess a freely playable demo is a form of shareware with my understanding of the term above!
I feel like there used to be a time where we didn't pay the canada tax on games
They expect you to spend $60 on a game plus microtransactions?
I put away 50 to 100+ hours into games that cost me $15. Why doesn't everybody else do this? Does high-end 3D graphics actually matter that much to people?
$70 nowadays.
Get fucked Capcom. Can always dig through backlog until it's reasonably priced and not a buggy mess.
Japanese company and poor business decisions are a match made in heaven. After success its almost like they race to shoot themselves in the foot.
EA, Activision blizzard, Ubisoft, 2k games and many more. I think you meant "AAA gaming companies and poor business decisions are a match made in heaven".
We'll watch From Software's career with great interest.
Chess is free. No DLC. I have never stopped playing.
Chess is free to play now, but for centuries it was more like shareware.
What do you mean?
You can play online and there are tons of free apps, but it used to be that someone had to purchase a set to be able to share it with their friends. Though since making copies would have been difficult I guess it would have been more like Mario Party than the first nine levels of Doom.
The issue was never having the set, you can make one in an afternoon with scrap wood. The problem is having other people who want to play whenever you want to play.
But doesn't shareware refer to software that is distributed freely, playable (maybe with limitations on how far you can play into the game, or how long you can play it for free) but it's generally a proprietary game that is distributed through this model? I may not have a perfect grasp on the precise meaning of shareware.
I see chess more like abandonware - if someone developed a proto-chess game and didn't assert their ownership over the IP (recognising that this happened before copyright and IP were understood concepts), doesn't that make it effectively free to play, noting you of course need a board to play?
Maybe an ancient and highly modded board game doesn't translate that well to a software/copyright analogy. Also you lost me on your comparison between Mario Party (I think you mean only one person needs to own the game) and the first levels of Doom (which are more like a demo). I don't see either of these as shareware, though I guess a freely playable demo is a form of shareware with my understanding of the term above!
It does, unsurprisingly.