PC gamers spend 92% of their time on older games, oh and there are apparently 908 million of us now
-
Does "older games" only mean the initial public release? So world of Warcraft, Dota 2, Minecraft... all those games that are constantly updated etc. too?
Because that would be a really useless statistic. Many games are not a one time release and done thing anymore. They evolve over time. The games I listed have large player bases.
Exactly what I was thinking. While it's a great headline the article is nonsense. What about early access? Did those players play any new games? How much time was spent afk? Were those old games new purchases? This is a cherry picked statistic and almost certainly doesn't paint a clear picture or tell any story except "live service games work"
-
I don't even know what the newest game I even own is... Helldivers 2? Except for Elden Ring and it's DLC, I haven't bought anything close to release for years. HD2 came out last year and I bought it last week.
Baldur's Gate 3 and Elden Ring are the last 2 AAA games I bought close to launch for full price. Other than that, I picked up Hades 2 in early access. The rest of my library is all stuff that I bought on sale.
I do have Monster Hunter and Avowed on my wishlist but I think I'm going to be patient. If I do pull the trigger, it would probably be for Avowed because I want more Obsidian games. On a related note Grounded is $20 on Steam right now so I stopped that up even though I beat it back when I had Game Pass.
-
So Realmz is truly open world in a way that BG3 only pretends to be. In BG3, they create the sensation of this huge diversity of endings and paths you can take, but its all pretty much a fugazi: the illusion of choice when actually only a small number of endings are possible. In BG3, the choices add "color" along the way, but they don't fundamentally change anything about the game, or what its about (like what even is the point of the game?). I have a whole essay of criticism I've developed on it, because I truly did enjoy it, but it was so.. it pointed in the direction of how much possibility it could have but didn't execute on it. Its really only an impression of what it claims to be.
There is no ending in Realmz. Its just a big open world. And as you dig, you find more, and more and it just keeps going. But there is no particular path to take. You just can go anywhere and find adventure along the way. There are a huge number of random encounters, and the combat style is basically top down tile based D&D, which BG3 is also, more or less. Then you get into some corner of the map in Realmz, and you find some cave or castle or dungeon to explore.. and it just keeps going. And going and going and going. And instead of it being one monolithic story like BG3, its a world in which many BG3's happen. The spider tower. The kobald army invasion. The castle in the clouds. The necromancers tower.
Another thing is, predictability/ "jail breaking". Modern games have this expectation that we "know" everything that is possible for an item or method or whatever. This is a big departure from early games where we would often "find out" about what is possible. In modern games when something unexpected happens, the dev's patch it and change the game. In old games when something unexpected happens.. well.. thats just part of the game. Dota is a great example of this, where basically, finding ways to break the game to come up with a new strategy was quite literally how the game was played. Its now devolved into a poor impression of itself. In realmz, I remember beating some adventure and its final wizard and getting a wand of polymorph. I used it on one of my characters and it polymorphed them into a red dragon and it killed the entire party. I highly doubt the game developers planned that as a possibility, but game development then was often about creating possibilities, not limiting them. Whenever anyone figures something like that out in BG3, they patch it and the game becomes a little more sterile, a little more boring.
Also, BG3 is just kinda... empty. Which I was really surprised by, considering how many studios create amazing, populated worlds with complex day night cycles and economies. In BG3, once you've pretty much cleared an area, thats it. Not much more to do other than advance to the next area. In Realmz, you had to watch your ass if you were really out there, because no-matter what state your party was in, a random encounter can happen at any time, and in that game, death is permanent. Also, wtf is with there not being a day night cycle in BG3? Like wth. I've got a damn vampire and they aren't weak during the day and OP af at night?
There is no ending in Realmz. Its just a big open world. And as you dig, you find more, and more and it just keeps going. But there is no particular path to take. You just can go anywhere and find adventure along the way. There are a huge number of random encounters, and the combat style is basically top down tile based D&D, which BG3 is also, more or less.
Just to comment further, if you're not a big fan of Baldur's Gate 3 (or the Paths of Exile series, to name another popular modern RPG) for that reason, I wouldn't recommend the Avadon series in the Spiderweb Software bundle, as it has the same sort of streamlined "move you through the world to the right places" thing. The Exile/Avernum series has the Realmz-style "go wherever and stumble onto stuff" model that you're referring to.
Kind of reminds me of the difference between Fallout: New Vegas and The Outer Worlds. Like, both are...technically open world games, but there's very little reason to ever backtrack in The Outer Worlds, and not much placed content to stumble on outside of cities, whereas in Fallout: New Vegas, I'm running all over the place and running into all sorts of stuff, without having the game really drive me in one direction.
-
I don't get how people are still into those old games. I like new experiences too much
The game may be old but that doesn't mean a particular person has played it before.
-
Honestly, most new games just fucking suck. They're too expensive, often don't run properly at launch even on excellent hardware, and those that don't have micro-transactions built-in require you to purchase DLC to get the whole game.
On the other hand, the older titles almost always run well on my machine, have a ton of community DLC, and in general are just designed better because they were built to bring the player as much fun as possible, not to extract as much money as possible.
Plus, the quality content generated from 2005 - 2015 represents some of the best ever, and can provide hundreds of hours of enjoyment before you even get into the 2010s. Why waste money on something that may not work, and that I likely won't enjoy as much as the games I bought 10 years ago?
It's why I usually wait at least a year after release to consider whether or not I'm going to buy a title.
I don't know if I agree about new games. This is a bit of a problem with some AAA games though. The indie game scene is still thriving as far as I can tell, in some genres more than others. (E.g now is a great time to be into FPS games.)
A good old game can occupy you for many hours though, and it's hard to make good games period. I'm not surprised that a few older games dominate the market.
-
While I agree that some of the reasons are because of industry direction and affordability. I do have to mention also that it could also be because of nostalgia, familiarity, simplicity and people still chipping at their library.
Upvoted for mentioning simplicity.
-
Are you familiar with the A Tale of Two Worlds mod, which inserts Fallout 3 into Fallout: New Vegas to make them one giant game? If not, it's a way to add some new life to the thing.
-
This post did not contain any content.
This would be a great time to promote [email protected]
-
Yeah, I've lost track myself. I just follow feeds that alert of me free deals.
I actually learned that I can't even sort my Steam library by release date because of this thread. Otherwise I would actually know lol
-
Are you familiar with the A Tale of Two Worlds mod, which inserts Fallout 3 into Fallout: New Vegas to make them one giant game? If not, it's a way to add some new life to the thing.
-
League of legends is two decades old now, so if you're thinking it's new, yeah that's on you
-
Black ops 6 is so bad IMHO. It takes forever to boot up the game and then hits you with the "update available, quit & restart". Then waiting another 5 mins to download the update, then another couple mins to reach the main menu again. Oh and what was the actual update? To hit me with an advertisement video of season whatever...with new purchases for dumb costumes etc. Like c'mon just let me play the damn game already! When Im finally in a match the gameplay feels rigged...like I'm playing slots in Vegas than an actual video game. The respawns appearing out of nowhere. I honestly believe what I'm seeing on my screen is not what the other player is seeing. Its like these game designers purposely made this game based on an algorithm rather than setting game rules and allowing the players to compete based on skill. Maybe I'm way off on this (and am just a terrible cod player lol) but would like to hear other people's opinion on this.
all the advertisements, constantly wanting me to spend more money when the game was already expensive to begin with. The game play as described as above. Also the perks/tiers suck. Makes for a very unenjoyable experience. The game is just not fun.
We're at Black Ops 6 already? They made 6 of them? Are there other Call of Duty games as well since? I think the last I played was Infinite Warfare, I think I have WWII in my library unplayed.
I kinda lost track of the AAA treadmill.
-
Black ops 6 is so bad IMHO. It takes forever to boot up the game and then hits you with the "update available, quit & restart". Then waiting another 5 mins to download the update, then another couple mins to reach the main menu again. Oh and what was the actual update? To hit me with an advertisement video of season whatever...with new purchases for dumb costumes etc. Like c'mon just let me play the damn game already! When Im finally in a match the gameplay feels rigged...like I'm playing slots in Vegas than an actual video game. The respawns appearing out of nowhere. I honestly believe what I'm seeing on my screen is not what the other player is seeing. Its like these game designers purposely made this game based on an algorithm rather than setting game rules and allowing the players to compete based on skill. Maybe I'm way off on this (and am just a terrible cod player lol) but would like to hear other people's opinion on this.
all the advertisements, constantly wanting me to spend more money when the game was already expensive to begin with. The game play as described as above. Also the perks/tiers suck. Makes for a very unenjoyable experience. The game is just not fun.
I actually really have enjoyed the game itself but you aren't fucking kidding about the rest of it. It's truly insane how much friction there is between deciding to play and getting into a lobby.
-
Honestly, most new games just fucking suck. They're too expensive, often don't run properly at launch even on excellent hardware, and those that don't have micro-transactions built-in require you to purchase DLC to get the whole game.
On the other hand, the older titles almost always run well on my machine, have a ton of community DLC, and in general are just designed better because they were built to bring the player as much fun as possible, not to extract as much money as possible.
Plus, the quality content generated from 2005 - 2015 represents some of the best ever, and can provide hundreds of hours of enjoyment before you even get into the 2010s. Why waste money on something that may not work, and that I likely won't enjoy as much as the games I bought 10 years ago?
It's why I usually wait at least a year after release to consider whether or not I'm going to buy a title.
-
This post did not contain any content.
if you mean i do spend my time playing nes and snes via emulator, you are right
-
Black ops 6 is so bad IMHO. It takes forever to boot up the game and then hits you with the "update available, quit & restart". Then waiting another 5 mins to download the update, then another couple mins to reach the main menu again. Oh and what was the actual update? To hit me with an advertisement video of season whatever...with new purchases for dumb costumes etc. Like c'mon just let me play the damn game already! When Im finally in a match the gameplay feels rigged...like I'm playing slots in Vegas than an actual video game. The respawns appearing out of nowhere. I honestly believe what I'm seeing on my screen is not what the other player is seeing. Its like these game designers purposely made this game based on an algorithm rather than setting game rules and allowing the players to compete based on skill. Maybe I'm way off on this (and am just a terrible cod player lol) but would like to hear other people's opinion on this.
all the advertisements, constantly wanting me to spend more money when the game was already expensive to begin with. The game play as described as above. Also the perks/tiers suck. Makes for a very unenjoyable experience. The game is just not fun.
I will say, the zombies mode is the best version in many years. For the low price of $0 through gamepass (which I get for free through an MS Rewards farming script), I can't complain too much about it. But I wish they would just release a standalone zombies game at some point, it's literally the only thing I like about cod and would gladly actually buy it (assuming it isn't ass, which is like 50/50 with cod lol).
-
This post did not contain any content.
I do not. I haven't played a gamer older than thirty years old in years
-
Yeah, Dwarf Fortress too, but at least Dwarf Fortress has an extensive, well-documented wiki. Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead had a not-very-up-to-date wiki at one point, but then whoever maintained it had it go down at some point in the past year, and I'd say that the game has also been constantly updated and more-dramatically-rebalanced than Dwarf Fortress, so learning to how to play involves scouring Reddit, YouTube, and Discord to try to figure out what information is current. I think that the current recommended route on the subreddit to learn how to play is to watch recent YouTube videos of some streamers playing, which is...kinda nuts. It's not uncommon that a question on the subreddit as to an authoritative answer on game mechanics is "go check the code"...
There are also some military sims I've played that are probably reasonably approachable to players who are familiar with the military hardware involved from prior to the game, but for players who aren't, they're probably in for a lot of reading and understanding mechanics, and some milsims don't bother to document that, so you really need to do outside reading beyond whatever the game documentation has.
In case you weren't aware (it sounds like you're not) :
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Cataclysm
This isn't going to teach you how to play but it's an excellent reference wiki
-
New AAA games suck.
I either play indies or old AAA games. It all went to shit around the beginning of the PS4/X1 era, so yeah, my upper bound is about 2013.
I tend to agree with you, I think the downfall started in the ps3 era since that’s when online was in every console. I understand your idea that it was bad in ps4 era since devs had the time to figure out how to makes things worse due to the ability to use the internet to sell things/deliver patches.
-
This post did not contain any content.
What about new games, like world of warcraft.
