“Chin off” Love it! 
I do pretty much ignore dodgy companies if/ when I can. For example, the last EA game I bought was Unravel Two, which was 2019, I think? That said, I’m currently going through the moral quandry of buying the new Dragon Age as I adore that series.
You could do what I do with Ubisoft games. I only buy used physical copies so that I’m not giving money directly to the company. I still engage with the games because I’m curious about them but I don’t support the company. And if they stop making physical copies I’ll stop buying their games.
Bugun the silver age of microtransactions have began
I just finished a 3+ hour Youtube video, the Entire History of RPGs. It helped me understand how the industry reached the state its in today, at least in a genre of games I enjoy. Worth a watch if you haven’t seen it.
So Dragon Age: Veilguard is confirmed to release at £70. For me, that’s simply too much. I can’t slap that much down on a game without some budget juggling and most likely saving. So I’ll be waiting for it to go on sale, or at least getting it a good stretch after release. And I’m saying this as someone who has bought every previous entry on release - the special editions no less -, have all the books and comics and the CG movie on DVD.
The industry said that they had to raise the price of games because development for the kind of game “people expect” is so high (I think there’s some arguments to be made as to what qualifies as “what people expect”, but anyway). But if someone like myself, who is 100% the core audience, is not willing to pay the release price for a game, what then?
My question is, what if by making games £70 on release prices too many people out? The game will be seen as a financial flop, the developers has having done something “wrong,” and there could be job losses because of that. Yet none of that is ture, but rather it’s the hard fact that games on release are too expensive.
They’ve hit my pay wall limit, which I’m sure is personal for everyone, so it’ll be interesting to see if/how this affects things.
This will always be a b.s. phrase that really means “our execs and shareholders expect higher revenue so we are raising prices.”
I think what we were discussing in the other thread is relevant here. It’s clear the UK is getting gouged on console launch prices. After exchange, both the US and Canada have much lower console launch prices for Veilguard. So a lot of launch might get carried by large regions like the US that has a lower price point. And that might be intentional on EA’s part. Charge less in the US where they expect a large volume of sales, and charge more in regions with smaller populations (Canada has a small population but is so close to the US they have to price competitively to discourage cross border shopping).
I also wonder where this will do its biggest numbers, console or PC, given the PC price is lower than the console price. I suspect it will be console and this might be another factor. PC players can easily pirate games, so lower PC pricing might be designed to discourage overt piracy, whereas console owners are a captive audience and EA (or any AAA studio) can charge a bit more, secure in the knowledge that console players will pay it.
Not if I get it second hand from somewhere like Game. Bwaaaaahahahahahaha! 
To me, the two major issues I have with AAA and AA-games today are…
WOKE:
I’m not talking about representation and diversity.
When I say “woke”, I actually mean woke. Nobody likes shoehorning and intrusive elements
just for the sake of scoring some virtue points. If you’re creative and have some experience
in writing fiction, it becomes very easy to spot the difference between a genuine message,
and shoehorning. Good writing never includes shoehorning
BORING:
It’s boring alright. Nothing seems to be sufficiently transgressive and innovative
to my high-concept brain. And the uncreative games that are a bit enjoyable,
tend to be full of the forementioned or has intrusive purchases/pay-to-win shit
I think the state of the industry is that when a game company makes a “good” game then they try to make it better but it starts to lose it’s orginality. Just look at the halo franchise.
After 4 years of game testing, 20 of playing and 3 as a game designer, my conclusion is this. Games today are targeting a different crowd. I was born in 88 so my time in gaming is 90% done. Souls games bring me enough challenge and interest than most recent titles. I am still a sucker for well told stories but those games are rare. I’ve seen all sorts of reused mechanics, stories and almost nothing makes me curious anymore. I rely on old gems that still stand the test of time today, not because old is good but because those times, developers were more free in creating. Being limited by technology forced them to use more of their brains. Today, i couldn’t care less if i can see graphic details ( hairs and all that bs) or how the muscles on my horse in RDR 2 move while galloping ( still a fantastic game on the written part). We fail to see that the more a game looks real, it fails to deliver its purpose of being fun and challenging your brain. You, as a gamer had to use your imagination in Deus Ex 1 when there were few props on the map, few textures, well placed and thought scrips and sound cues. Now, we are lazy, everything is thought by others. Their time invested in graphics could be put to a better use. The truth is, most consumers prefer what it is on the surface than what lies beneath because now, there is nothing under the shiny graphics. Games are released unfinished ( because complexity demands time and when money is involved there is no time ), microtransactions, first day patches and so on. Games from our beloved idiots at Ubisoft, EA, Activision are a dozen but games like System Shock 1, Max Payne, HL, Thief come once per generation. Now, everything is remake or remaster. They are desperate. The light at the end of the tunnel are indie developers who are doing a fantastic job.
New law (in the US) to ensure buying know they DON’T own digital titles.
Highligh:
As reported by The Verge (thanks, IGN), the law, AB 2426, will forbid digital storefronts from using the words “buy, purchase, or any other term which a reasonable person would understand to confer an unrestricted ownership interest in the digital good or alongside an option for a time-limited rental.”
I posted this comment on the main site, but one thing to note is that it only applies to licensed items, so digital items without DRM are exempt. It also only requires a seller to disclose the fact that the media is licensed. If they do they can still use the terms “buy” or “purchase”. So while consumers will have greater awareness, it may require them to read the terms and services to get the full details, while still seeing the word “buy” beside their “purchase”. I feel like plenty of consumers will look past those terms and still not really appreciate that their licensed product can be taken away. But it’s a start.
I’m also curious what this means for physical media like games, movies and music, all of which are also “licensed” in the eyes of copyright law.this bill is specifically only for digital licensed media, so it has no direct effect on how the law looks at the media we purchase on physical media, but I wonder if that will ever change.
Reminded me that I need to download some games I got from them to my backup HDD, so that the zombie apocalypse part will be true. 
Precisely why GoG will fall under the exemption portion of the law.
Hm, I need to do this too. I’ve bought a few games on there for backup purposes.
Steam now presents gamers with a new version of the Steam Subscriber Agreement, highlighting that games on Steam are not owned, but rather are licensed to users, who do not actually own anything. As noted by GameSpot the language on Steam when checking out now clearly states that you are licensing items in your shopping licensing cart. This is seen in this paragraph invoking the word “license” five times:
Steam and your Subscription(s) require the download and installation of Content and Services onto your computer. Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a non-exclusive license and right, to use the Content and Services for your personal, non-commercial use (except where commercial use is expressly allowed herein or in the applicable Subscription Terms). This license ends upon termination of (a) this Agreement or (b) a Subscription that includes the license. The Content and Services are licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Content and Services. To make use of the Content and Services, you must have a Steam Account and you may be required to be running the Steam client and maintaining a connection to the Internet.
GOG has a field day with it:
This is at least one funny thing happening in the industry while on all other ends it seems to be burning down.
