As the end user why should i pay sympathetically for the extended dev time of a product that hasnt tangibly improved for my uses?

Yes the price ceiling of $70 does not do justice to games like KCD 2, but all that matters for the end user is perceived value. If the perceived value of any game isnt going up, then it is difficult to charge consumers an increased amount.

KCD 2 and Elden Ring are great examples of RPGs with content that fans perceive as a great value, but only AFTER playing.

Maybe KCD 3 or Elden Ring 2 can push their perceived value beyond $70, but the simple fact is that the majority of AAA games DO NOT offer an amount or quality of content that gamers would consider to be worth $70, especially with the tiering off of content with various editions, passes and DLC.

It is just subjective that you and i disagree about the amount of games that cross the value threshold of $70, but the evidence of a $0 cost increase for full priced games over the past decade or so definitely seems like evidence towards my perspective.

I wish i could pay more money for higher quality games with more content, but the advertising for these products happens within a competitive and reciprocal market, and that market has a mean perceived product value of $70.

KCD 2 and Elden Ring have essentially wasted dev time/cost creating bonus content, although the perceived value towards their brands it has created, plus the positive IP mind share, will pay off for them down the road with units sold i am sure.

I would argue that AAA full priced gaming space is not where that innovation has been happening in recent years, it has mostly been with lower priced indies.

The value of a game’s Quantity is directly proportionate to its Quality though, starfield and its 1000s of repetitive planets are the perfect example of this. Would any halo fan rather play 20 hours of infinite or 20 hours of halo 2…?

Yes there have been outliers of increased quality and quantity over the last decade, but in the full priced AAA space nowadays, that is the exception not the rule.

Yes both very subjective. Accessibility and streamlining gameplay has seemed to be the focus. Developing unique, novel but also enjoyable new gameplay experiences? (the reason i believe most people game) That more or less ended with the Wii, Ps3 and 360 era of consoles.

The quality of games did not improve, in fact game quality and diversity has deteriorated. The quantity of content has dropped off as well. Graphics fidelity and production costs have skyrocketed though.

Graphics are so superficial when it comes to games anyhow, why would anyone pay more for a pretty waste of time?

Edit: i am talking about AAA games here, obv there has been an extreme proliferation of indie titles

1. Yes, in order to download your “Game Keycard” games, you must get the game data from nintendo online services. This is why banning online services is considered effectively bricking the console, at least for all 3rd party games on keycards.

2. If an account is banned, another one can be made for free and the user can keep utilizing their online services… Nintendo obviously looks at that like a burden, and wants to financially punish that user, making them have to buy another switch. This in turn benefits them.

The comparison is more akin to how they have actually restored the mona lisa with chemical and color correction as a means to make it withstand the test of time. Thats essentially what has happened with the remastered version of this game.

I understand that in other instances, remasters and remakes might as well be a different game, but if you have played crysis, this is barely the case.

Im not saying its fine to lose access to original data. All im saying is in this particular case, there isnt much loss to be outraged about. The publishers havent un-alived the IP. We have just lost access to some historical data.

I am all for preservation. I dont want to underplay the detriments of lost data. I just want to subjectively quantify this loss.

If there was no alternative, and debatably superior, version of the game currently available then this might be an issue. But there is, so the preservation of the IP is hardly jeopardized.

I know i want to buy/play this so bad… But denuvo.

Offline play with bots, not server dependent… Its a multiplayer game with mtx. Its not an Online-Only service game.

You could consider it a service game of sorts, but it isnt the toxic sludge that Destiny 2 and Marathon are/could have been.

Agreed. I would love it if they took all the assets and the engine and made a great campaign actually grounded in the marathon universe. Thats what i would pay for.

Tbh, its probably too late for bungie. All that company is, is a name.

What they need is to make a completely different game.

Destiny was successful because it was the first real fps service game, it didnt push mtx, and had competent pve, pvp and a story(debatably). Bungie cant chase that dragon anymore. Its been done a million times now.

Players know all service games want is to milk them with mtx. No player wants to get into a new service game especially when its nothing unique.

Just make a good single and multiplayer shooter with a somewhat interesting story, then people will buy and play it.

It seems so easy, but AAA pubs and devs cant pull their heads out of their own asses to see what players want. They just see what investors want.

There, dead horse kicked again.

I see your point with the millions that play those specific games, maybe i am just disappointed by microsoft only doing the bare minimum when they are forced to.

This is at least progress

What do you mean? Gamepass users? You can use gamepass on ANY device, including steamdeck. Idk if paying another $500-$1000 usd is worth it for most people to have a slightly more convenient gamepass handheld experience.

Oh and about the potential for native Xbox games running on PC handhelds… God i hope youre right.

I mean if they really nail the UI, and i mean REALLY nail it(which involves nailing game/launcher compatibility as well)…

Then maybe this handheld will forge the way for a new windows gaming OS.

But even then without an Xbox game compatibility layer, they arent going to convert any steam users at all.

Is it good enough for you? Is that why you will get it? Where are these people you speak of…?

I highly doubt there are enough people that want that super particular use case to make this particular handheld stand out at all, especially ones that didnt meet their needs with another handheld already.

What a weak sell then, i understand your point, i just wish Xbox came out swinging with a compatibility layer for the Xbox game library. A portable device with that capability would have the potential to put them back on top.

Instead we get a less bad version of windows, that will likely be inferior to its direct competitor(steamOS) anyways, sans the ability to play a few multiplayer games.

I see no reason to believe it wont be.

Yeah it can be a hassle, but is it such a hassle people would rather buy this specific handheld to play the handful of multiplayer games a steamdeck cant?

Not to mention theyre mainly esports titles that people prefer not to play on an underpowered handheld anyways…

A steam deck already plays gamepass, and if you install windows on the deck, it will the few windows-only PC games that SteamOS cant.