Kerbal Space Program
Assassin's Creed IV Black Flag
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
16 days 18 hours
Dark Souls III
4 days 20 hours
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
4 days 9 hours
Sid Meier's Civilization V
3 days 5 hours
If he made it and owns it, he can call it whatever he wants to XD If he wants to call the game a tortoise, it's not our place to deny him that choice. Not that it'll force us to do the same.
The statement alone will never stop people seeing or comparing it too other MMOs, but the entire point is to try and interest the single player gamers, the Skyrim and Fallout RPGers, that they want them to believe they can have fun in this game with our without using the MMO social aspects. It's also happily take their side (that the MP components are not needed to enjoy this title).
I still wouldn't recommend a new player get into this game (there are generally better RPGs out there, both for the SP and the MP gamers), but I know many who love the ES universe and have enjoyed ESO as a single player game (even a couple who became multiplayer players where they used to avoid anything MP).
There's a large difference between the recoil desired and what is currently offered in games like CoD. For a controller input, the CoD style recoil is a fun addition, trying to find the perfect degree to hold your analogue stick down to keep the spray consistently in the same place. For M&K you aim for a different type of spray recoil, a pattern. With mouse aiming you don't want the user to have to lift raise and drop the mouse to continue dragging down whilst spraying. Instead look at CS:GO's AK spray pattern as a perfect example: It drops then straddles left and right. This is the goal for a PC shooter, keeping a difficulty for accurate sprays without forcing the player to lift their mouse. Forcing the lifting of the mouse is a way to remove control from the player (this is where the "doesn't feel good" comment comes from). Hopefully they invest into some good PC patterns (be they specific like CS:GO or randomised, it doesn't matter). If they don't, it will drop the depth of the shooter. Accuracy rolls/bullet spreads are never as fun to compete against, as it results in fights being won by dice-rolls rather than skill.
Sometimes you gotta go oldschool.
Have tweaked the opening, cheers.
I think to be honest, alot of people are still against "paid mods" because of income issues. Games are improving and adding in better things but our wallet is not... people hate going broke and hate it that we have so many more choices and possibly requirements to spend on, but our wallets and wages are still stuck in minimum wage land... now if we never was in minimum wage land, I think people will be more acceptable so they do have money to spend on things like this.
I think overall people just hate spending 60 bucks on a game in the future, plus addition 60 bucks if you want VR, and a certain amount of money to pay for some good mods you might considered a requirement to get the best experience, you probably spending 200 or 300 already on a single game, just like how normal people probably spend more then that on League of Legends or other games.
Games have slowly risen in price, climbing faster than inflation. There’s a limit to how much people can/want to invest into gaming, but there's also a value for everything. Mods at the moment are a way for avid fans to invest into the community and help develop/grow the game they love. There's a market for that, both the devs and the players benefit from this (increased content + increased sales). This is not something that would change. Content creators whose goal is to entertain (not profit) would continue the same way. Many modders are against paid mods, and there’d be no requirement for them to charge people for their content. The benefits for a system such as this though, are rather clear.
I believe the logic of paid mods is to increase the size of a games modding community. To offer a cash incentive to premium quality modders is an efficient way of drawing more modders to the scene, as well as improve the quality of the mods in general. New modders would appear and develop content for games that wouldn’t have existed without the cash incentive. It is not like the free mods community would notably shrink because of this platform, but instead that new content previously unfeasible for the mod community could now be produced to sell.
To talk about money, I’d have to start with correcting your off-predictions. To begin with, why do you believe you’ll have to buy the game twice to play it in VR? Are you accounting for the cost of VR hardware? Or is this Bethesda trying to charge again for Skyrim/Fallout VR. Either way, it is still arguable whether or not VR is the best experience, considering the low pixel-count for the large field-of-view the screen takes up. Also, for those willing to invest into a VR headset, I’m sure paid mods is not the largest addition to invest into. Then within the mods section, you seem to think it’ll cost you $100-200 to get the ‘premium experience’. Paid mods would not be something required. In just the same way as how you’d invest into LoL or a game’s official DLC, you don’t need to own a paid mod at the start of the game. You can comfortably buy it later should you find it has good reviews and like the look of the content, or should you decide otherwise you can always watch a Let's-Play to experience the content 2nd-hand. It's worth noting again that this paid content would not be available for free either way. You'd still have all your free mods available to download/enjoy, there'd be no shortage of content.
Modders are investing large amounts of their time and effort into content for people to enjoy. I can totally get behind a method for the mod creators to charge for their content, so long as the premium taken by the service provider isn't too high (personally, I think it should be the same as Steam's deal to devs: 70% goes to the modders, 30% to service providers + game producers). At the moment I agree that these platform providers are being greedy (as Braneman pointed out), but that does not change my stance on the matter: paid mods is something that should be offered to content creators. It will only improve the quality of the mods and increase the longevity of the games. To argue against a paid platform; requesting that people shouldn’t make more premium content because your scared it’ll make you invest more; seems idiotic to me.
I found it so funny how people jumped to blame Bethesda for the paid mods front. They were never pocketing any money from the Steam's paid mods development. Valve was taking their standard rate for data holding/distribution, and the rest was going to the mod creators.
Problem is as you say: mods have been free up to this point, so nowadays people believe they are entitled to the things. Introducing a paywall would increase the range and depth of mods, resulting in a larger experience with more longevity to each game community. It is a plus for everyone, assuming the public stop throwing a tantrum over it, selling $1000 iron swords and other rubbish to try and abuse the system.
I believe this is what Bethesda are trying to do here: lock the mod list behind there own security checks, to ensure the market grows sensibly. If the modders taste the money, they should get interested enough to invest more into the game for people to enjoy. Conversely, if the paid mod list grows large enough with enough high quality new content, the public will start investing into it. A secondary currency sounds like a bad idea to me (using Gems/Coins instead of £/$) since it introduces a second paywall between the user and them owning the mod. Either way, we should hope this time they succeed. Introducing profits to the content creators is the way to fuel the economy's growth.
Steam had the standard split(30%) then it was up to Bethesda to determine how the rest of the money was split, they went for 45% and left the remaining 25% to the modder. Bethesda decided that the people working to fix their games for them should get 25%.
I can account to a whole 24 minutes of gameplay here. Steam timer seems to be off as I participated in multiple of the Betas :P
Either way, the game lacked depth to me. Gun-play wasn't satisfying, and the anti-gravity zones didn't bring much at all to the combat.
I see your 24 minutes and raise you 29!
Which is probably not accurate either. I cut my internet FPS teeth on Cliffy B's arenas in UT games but I just didn't like the feel of Lawbreakers at all. It seemed like there was no fluidity in movement and it all felt clumsy, I just couldn't get into it.
(BTW - I also played more than timer here suggests - only an hour or two in two different betas).
(edit - changed words & stuff)