Why don’t you hire designers who can design games instead of designers who are good at implementing every manager’s ideas and c-suite business goal? There is a threshold of tolerance beyond which your business strategy priorities become incompatible with a game anyone wants to play. Nobody plays games to make you money, so if you make games to make you money, nobody will want to play them.
It goes back to Steve Jobs talking about how engineers and programmers losing positions of power in companies and being replaced with worthless MBA people.
They cannot add any value to a product, ever. All they do is make things worse for short term gain. They are all taught the Jack Welch style of management which does nothing but destroy a company. It makes no sense why it’s tolerated.
They know what we want. A game where any dlc is cosmetic only. A game where there are no micro transactions at all. Something that will run on a older PC without any performance problems. Something without an online requirement.
They know what we want but that is something they are unwilling to build.
I want to agree with you because that’s what I want too. Unfortunately, the financial success of f2p microtransaction infested pseudo-games tells the majority of players are just fine with that bullshit.
Children and horny nerds are fine with it.
Was Concord trying to corner the horny nerds?
There’s something oddly heart warming about seeing massive companies produce utter flops and lose millions.
We don’t want your dross.
“But we worked so hard in this!”
Sorry, you aren’t a cute grade school kid, you are a goddamn adult. I will happily encourage a small child to keep drawing stick figure dinosaurs that are indistinguishable from a melted candle.
When an adult makes a game far worse than what we had during the PS3 era with worse writing than an NES game, fuck out of here. We don’t owe you shit, not buying your garbage.
It’s been a long time since I gave Sony money, but if they did release Bloodborne on PC I would buy it on day one. It seems like emulation will be a reality before that.
Porting it to another platform, I understand.
But I can’t understand the clamour for yet another remaster, in a generation full of them.
Superfluous remasters are one thing, but Bloodbourne desperately needs one. I have 2,000+ hours across all of From’s games but I can’t put more than 30 minutes into Bloodbourne before the FPS issues are too irritating for my eyes to keep playing (not hyperbole).
Fixing that alone would be huge, but porting to PC and giving it the full DSR treatment (QoL + GFX upgrades) on top of that is guaranteed to make enormous profit.
The original is locked at 30fps, and they’ve got an in-house studio which remade Demon’s Souls. Seems like low-hanging fruit. Game is almost a decade old so it seems like a reasonable time frame.
I’m not really part of the group opposed to remakes though. I just don’t buy them if I feel like they’re unnecessary.
Eh, it’s because of what Bloodborne is, and the state of it. Improper frame pacing with a 30FPS cap, even if you bought a new PS5 to play it (because it’s not available on PS4).
A cleaned up patch for newer gen hardware to unlock it would be enough, but a remaster is more likely to appeal to Sony.
they should fix their game for free because it is broken in the first place, instead of fixing it then slapping a remastered sticker on it so they can sell it again at full price.
That means you get the chance of playing the game in exchange of your data or not playing it at all because you live in most of the world where Sony accounts aren’t even available.
I’d get their games for PC if they didn’t have a compulsory PSN account login.
Yeah I really don’t get why Fromsoft hitched that game so tightly to Sony. They were already on the map!
We all know Dark Souls was a hit, but maybe From wasn’t quite sure they would be able to capture lightning in bottle twice. So they played safe and signed another deal with Sony.
When you think about it, that worked well for them. DS2 wasn’t as good as DS1, but Bloodborne was HUGE.
