Login

Internet download required for Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus

Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus is a big game. Even without a multiplayer component, the title takes up quite a bit of space. With that in mind, it's not too surprising to see Bethesda pass off the storage requirements to the consumer, rather than take on the cost of a higher-priced game card. I'm not saying I like that it's that way, I'm just saying I'm not surprised.

Categories: Consoles

Comments

Top Rated Comment
evil-c
Sat Apr 21 18 12:39am
Rating: 13

I could see how in the years ahead, one buys this and can't access the game anymore, despite buying said hard copy, could be seen as anti-consumer.

What I really hate is that white box on the top of Switch game cases when a download is required.

vexchaneu
Fri Apr 20 18 10:36pm
Rating: 6

I am really grateful for the text wall of shame on the cover companies should have to detail their anti-consumer practices.

Can you explain how keeping the price down is anti-consumer?

vexchaneu
Fri Apr 20 18 11:46pm
Rating: 2

who are they keeping the price down for? also I'm pretty sure this is $60

panurgejr
Fri Apr 20 18 11:51pm
Rating: 1

Keeping the price at $60 instead of raising it to $70 so that their margins are acceptable is keeping the price down for the consumer, to answer your question. I'll repeat mine: how is that anti-consumer?

vexchaneu
Fri Apr 20 18 11:54pm
Rating: 5 (Updated 1 time)

Expecting the consumer to need a download to play your game is anti-consumer especially when you need to buy an extra memory card to accommodate that .

edit: let me make this 100% clear if you buy a physical game and you can't play said game without the use of the internet that is anti-consumer

panurgejr
Sat Apr 21 18 12:25am
Rating: 1

It doesn't require continued access to the Internet; it requires access once, which they're upfront about, to keep the price down. That's not anti-consumer.

vexchaneu
Sat Apr 21 18 12:38am
Rating: 2

Well, I view having to download something to even play a physical game and having to buy a separate memory card to store that stuff that you have to download to play that game as anti-consumer so I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

panurgejr
Sat Apr 21 18 01:40am
Rating: 1

You keep saying "physical" like video games have a physical nature. They're not books that are printed--they're digital information on a storage device. What device is used--proprietary cart or SD card--and who puts it there--manufacturer or consumer--are the only differences, and they simply don't matter to what video games actually are.

As for the expense of the memory card, you're paying for memory whether it's in the console or separate, and just as nobody would say booksellers are anti-consumer for selling something that requires a bookshelf, neither is selling a product that requires an SD card anti-consumer.

evil-c
Sat Apr 21 18 12:39am
Rating: 13

I could see how in the years ahead, one buys this and can't access the game anymore, despite buying said hard copy, could be seen as anti-consumer.

I want to always be able to play my favorite games. There are still N64 games I like to play through occasionally. Sometimes you have to replace the system and if you can't redownload the remainder of the game you could be screwed. I just look at some of my old games and think, what if I couldn't play that now because of something like this?

thedreaminghawk
Sat Apr 21 18 01:14am
(Updated 1 time)

Bit rot will kill those games before that can happen. Won't be for years now. Reprints are likely for these big games in 3-4 years, especially if they're hot sellers.

Everything I have read points to them lasting 10-15 years and that is with heavy use. and honestly, I would bet on them lasting longer than that by a fair amount, my limited understanding is that 3DS cards are the ones you have to worry about.

I have NES cartridges that still play today. They are 30+ years old.

NES Carts are pretty damn tough to even expose, which is pretty much why. So much plastic covering little chips will make them last quite long. On the contrary, I've picked up several GBA/GB/GBC titles that flat out won't boot regardless of cleaning, all due to the bits in the carts just dying to the point it takes a godly task to get them to even boot. And that's nothing compared to actual games in danger of being lost, such as PC-8801 gams or Famicom Disk System titles. Try picking up a used copy of one of those games and it's likely to be dead or corrupted due to being de-magnetized or just worn out (since even keeping them safe won't stop them from being worn out.)

Obviously blu-ray discs and Switch carts are built with future-proof in mind so they work 10-20 years from now at least if you keep them well, but considering how the internet is part of the future, it's pretty much assured that unless a game is a licensed title that the IP holders will continue to reprint them and reissue them for years to come, and since all you need to play the game is a one time internet connection, it's very unlikely that the part-download will be an issue forever. Either they'll eventually put them on bigger cards years from now when they aren't so pricey, or the game will simply be available in full on other systems.

Case in point, I'm not too worried about the half-download stuff as long as it gets someone the game. The only thing I do agree with is that it's pretty dumb to buy a physical copy in the first place when the game forces a big update on you, so you might as well get digital for an all-in-one experience. That being said, physical media isn't invincible either and has flaws of its own...

But in the future you will be able to access the game. Buy the game, download the extra data, and you can play it as long as your Switch stays alive. Sure, if you delete the data you might not be able to play it anymore, but that's like saying if you throw away a book you bought you can't read it anymore--at that point unplayability is the result of your decision, not Bethesda's.

evil-c
Sat Apr 21 18 09:03am
Rating: 1

How? Where? Show me where that's guaranteed.

I didn't delete any of my Wii shop games, yet next year all that money I spent on them will have been for nothing. So when my hardware dies, they die with it.
I've always preferred physical to avoid issues like this, but when your hard copy is incomplete, it's a disappointing situation for many like myself.

You know that when Wiiware shuts down your games don't get deleted, right? You will still be able to play them. And when your Wii dies you won't be able to play any games, not just the downloaded ones.

And when you replace that broken Wii, how do you access those games that you paid for? And that’s for 100% digital download games.

The initial argument is around games where you expect to buy the entirety on a physical medium (cartridge) and should expect to be able to use that cartridge to play the entirety of the game end to end, even long after the systems online service has ended.

Your argument that that’s not a problem has been weak through this entire thread.

panurgejr
Sat Apr 21 18 01:19pm
Rating: 1

No, the weak argument is the one which considers the problems arising when one faces replacing outdated technology that is no longer manufactured. Seriously, when your VCR died did you worry about how you'd watch all those VHS tapes sitting around your house, or did they go into the garbage with it? Technology fails and becomes difficult to replace, and while that is, yes, a problem, it's a laughably small problem, and it's utterly absurd that people are refusing to buy a game because at some point in fifteen years they won't be able to play it. I don't know about you, but my backlog is so big that I won't be able to play every game on it even a single time, let alone replay them all. The odds I'll absolutely need to keep playing a game in this distant, hypothetical future are so small that they'll make absolutely no difference between whether it's worth spending $60 today, or not.

But hey, that's just me. If you're still burdened by regret for a bunch of purchases you made in 2003 for things you no longer have, then by all means forego some entertainment now to save your future self more regret.

I don’t own a VCR but I know my parents one still works - it doesn’t need an update from the internet to operate. Did you know you could still purchase a VCR play and VHS tapes today?

I can also put a VHS tape into a player and play the entire movie. It’s not like half the movie is on the tape and the rest needs a download from a service that may or may not still exist.

Plus if I wanted, I could rip any VHS tapes to mp4 files and create numerous copies and backups.

So that analogy you tired to use was not so good. Nice try though.

If you're still burdened by regret for a bunch of purchases you made in 2003 for things you no longer have, then by all means forego some entertainment now to save your future self more regret.

But that's just it. I'm not burdened by regret for games I bought in 2003, or 2000, or 1998 because they still work just fine.

You may not care about retro (i.e. old) games but a lot of people do.

Many people have a sizable collections of retro games and when the system dies they can go to a used game store and buy another one. Or they can decide not to bother and sell off the games, which still have value (often more than they paid for them).

If their library consisted of games like this, they would be terrified of the system dying because then they may as well chuck the whole library in the trash. Buying a replacement system won't help if they can't download the rest of the game and I doubt anyone would want to buy a pointless dead unplayable game.

This is a negative development for the consumer, for the reasons I stated above. Things should be getting better for the consumer, not worse. Even if it doesn't affect you, other people care about this.

Your argument would be true if you edited out "many"; it only applies to a few people, who don't number enough to outweigh the advantage to the average consumer, who benefits from having this game but not having its price rise.

The publishers could easily eat the cost of the bigger carts they just don't want their margins to be any less on Switch than they are on PS4 and Xbox One. It's understandable. As a business that is the last thing they will volunteer for. It is not acceptable to me to pay $10 more for a game on Switch than it is priced on other systems. It's also not acceptable to use a small cart that doesn't fit the whole game. If enough people agree they will get the message and stop the nonsense.

evil-c
Sat Apr 21 18 01:32pm
(Updated 2 times)

If my Wii dies, depending on the issue, I can repair it. The games aren't necessarily wiped.
Why are you defending the practice of letting companies take your purchases away from you?

That was the entire point of staying physical in an increasingly digital age. I guess people like losing their freedom and choices.

Things fall apart.

--William Butler Yeats

Yes and in this case your options about what you can do about it just got a hell of lot worse than they had been previously. That's the whole point. No one is saying things don't fall apart. Which do you prefer: Things fall apart and you're screwed? Or things fall apart and you aren't screwed?

Fetch my tools, good sir.

-Me Smile

Though I do wonder who is actually going to be buying these games, 15+ years from now at the minimum? In the event the eshop shuts down there will definitely be alternate ways to get these updates.

mereel
Sat Apr 21 18 09:59am
Rating: 1

Who will be buying 15+ yo games? You must not darken the doorways of many retro gaming conventions. These games will become sought-after retro gems 20-25 years from know.

I guess I mean at that point where the game is only being bought second hand, I Don't really consider any issues it has to be anti consumer because you're not directly purchasing a game that funds a developer. It's been too long.

cassidy
Fri Apr 20 18 10:40pm
Rating: 1

I'm going to be on their defense and say that this was probably the best they could have done. The game already exceeds over 40 GBs on the Xbox One and PS4 retail discs and the Switch currently does not support carts that hold over 32 GBs, so it's understandable that there were struggles in porting this.

I dont give a crap if I have to download anything extra, there's been so many opportunities for people to snap up 128-200gb microSDs for as low as 25$ in the past year already, and more will come.

What I do care about is that GODAWFUL white banner they put on their boxart. Its goddamn hideous. I hope to god there's a reversible cover.

"GODAWFUL" is right. It looks like a damn Surgeon General's cancer warning.

The only way this is acceptable is if the game is bigger than 32 GB. If it’s not, then there’s no excuse for this and I’m not buying this version.

vexchaneu
Fri Apr 20 18 11:33pm
Rating: 1

I don't even think that's acceptable if you cant fit your media on a physical format don't put out a physical version.

To be fair, this happens a bit with the other consoles as well. Final Fantasy XV, with all its updates and add-ons currently sits around the 100GB mark on PS4 and Xbox One. When you buy the Royal Edition, you get the old disc, and all the add-ons, patches and updates will have to be redeemed by code and downloaded separately.
And there are probably more examples of this happening...

Switch doesn’t support carts big enough. Not their fault.

I hope it’s not a lot. After downloading FIFA and NBA 2K, I’m passed the halfway point in my 128 GB

I am such a big Nintendo fan that I like to support Nintendo's systems as much as I can but if I decide to pick this up it will be for PS4 because of this.

thedreaminghawk
Sat Apr 21 18 01:13am
(Updated 1 time)

This is inevitable and should be a surprise to nobody. The game's too big to fit onto a single cart, let alone the cards easily available in the current cycle of the Switch's life. I don't even think a 32 GB one would cover it unless they compress it hard or up the price (and no sane consumer will spend $70 on a game that launched ages ago for others.)

I wouldn't be surprised if in 3-4 years some applicable games will get reprinted on proper sized cards with patches and whatnot. Such is the risk of obsessing over worthless pieces of plastic when the digital era is the way to go on Switch (I'd be more for physical if they saved the damn data onto the cards like with 3DS... even with a physical game you can't get anything actually saved to it. And unlike the wii u era, I don't have to worry about stuff filling up fast with a micro SD card.)

Seriously though. One look at the file size for this should tell you that fitting it on a 16GB piece of plastic is impossible. Not that it matters much with this version since it's in 30FPS and the other versions are far cheaper now... It's a miracle and a bit baffling this exists at all.

Thanks Bethesda, you've just saved me spending money on this game. And another boxart ruined by that hideous white banner.

As the game card will be worthless one day anyway - why not save even more money and make the game a code-in-a-box?

reynard
Sat Apr 21 18 02:29am
Rating: 3

NO. NONONO!

Why the goddamn hell even bother with a physical release if it isn't a working product on its own? WHY? What kind of person wants both HDD space AND the Cart slot taken up in order to play?

I was actually looking forward to this, but I am NOT buying an incomplete product. FUCK you Bethesda.

My response to this nonsense is to buy the games I want used on eBay later on... punish the behavior by not giving the publisher any money but not depriving myself of something I still want.

That's a good idea. And then sell it back after you beat it and be out very little. Or maybe just Gamefly it. I mean there is no reason for me to keep a game like that.

panurgejr
Sat Apr 21 18 03:06am
Rating: 1

It is only incomplete if you choose not to complete it. I cannot possibly see how a game can be worth $60 but not worth $60 and taking a bit of time to download some data.

Because maybe one day you buy the game on eBay, put it in your Switch, and then throw it in the garbage bin because the servers were closed some time ago.

panurgejr
Sat Apr 21 18 09:53am
Rating: 1

In this hypothetical situation it would be your fault for buying a game you can't play and the reseller's fault for selling it. Bethesda would have nothing to do with it. What they're selling you can play.

Yes, NOW. And for the next few years. But this game will completely cease to be buyable one day, just like real download only games. Which is okay - but the sole purpose of games on physical media is to NOT be dependent on the availability of a download.

Would have been nice if at last some kind of base version would be playable without download, maybe with reduced textures, so the Game Card wouldn't be completely worthless one day.

thedreaminghawk
Sat Apr 21 18 10:42pm
(Updated 2 times)

Or you could use the not-often-talked about feature of the Switch "Share Update Data Wirelessly?" You can literally download updates for a game off another Switch console now. Even if the servers died, finding another friend who owned the game on the Switch and has the update wouldn't be that hard if the game in question gets popular, and with how well the switch selling, that's not much of a worry. The loss of a server is only a hypothetical situation anyhow... Since the XB360 is still kicking with online servers since 2005, I can see the Switch's servers lasting way past 2040/2050, and by then folks who really want Wolf II in general could just buy better versions on other platforms that run better, while you can get an update file transferred on the switch if they did shut down the servers.

Except it’s Nintendo you should be blaming. Once they allow bigger carts these games will be able to fit on them. Until then, this is the only viable solution unless you just want a code in a box.

As much as I despise going digital... a release like this shouldn't have even bothered with a physical version, the fact that it exists in such a state at all is a slap in the face of anyone who cares about physical media.

You’re just changing your argument. First you blamed Bethesda, now it’s something different. If anyone deserves the blame, it’s Nintendo since this game is almost 50GB and can’t fit on the carts they support.

Sat Apr 21 18 06:07pm
(Updated 1 time)

It's Bethesda's fault because it is their decision not to have a playable game on the cart. They could if they wanted to. For starters Doom ran at pretty low resolutions and Wolfenstein 2 is even more demanding so it won't be running in HD. So does it need HD textures? No. You can also lower the quality of the audio and most people won't notice. Playable game on cart. I guess you could then offer higher quality textures (which hardly no one would notice) and higher quality audio as a download if it mattered to anyone.

The Switch is only a bit more powerful than a PS3 and games during that era were hardly ever this large. Its just because of all the high res textures and audio.

Sat Apr 21 18 11:33pm
(Updated 1 time)

Doom still required a download if you wanted multiplayer. So it’s Bethesda’s fault for not wanting to compromise the experience anymore than they already have? Okay... Yet if they did any of those things, there would be the ‘will not buy!’ crowd. People on here will blame anyone besides Nintendo themselves.

PS3 games were also somewhat limited by the Blu-ray format— they couldn’t be 50GB without spilling over onto multiple discs. At least in that instance, discs are cheap enough to make it worthwhile.

No I'm not, It's just that that a physical release that can't run without mandatory external connectivity is worse to me than none at all, the gesture is insulting as it defeats the purpose of going physical in the first place.

At least Nintendo has kept their own games to sizes that will very easily fit on the carts. I can get third party games elsewhere. If Nintendo's own games didn't fit on the carts... that would have been a deal breaker. Still, it would have been nice if Nintendo had hurried up with the 64 gig carts instead of delaying it until next year.

grcpan
Sat Apr 21 18 04:52am
Rating: 1

No surprise here. Most if not all AAA multiplatform games will need a download. On the bright(?) side, we won't get many of them ported anyway. Nintendo went with a medium that can't even do half the space of blu rays without getting extremely expensive.

Even Nintendo forces their studios to fit the games to 16GB cartridges so that they don't have to go for the 32GB ones (or require downloads), which I am hoping doesn't restrict their creative freedom. Obviously for multiplatform AAA games that is not an option unless they are developed for the Switch first.

My history with Wolfenstein 2 on Switch.
"It's coming later. That's okay... I'll wait..."
"The performance looks quite iffy at times. That's okay, it's probably still playable and fun. I'll wait..."
"Download required for physical version... Yeah, okay, you lost a sale! Good going!"
I'll probably pick this up on the Xbox instead then. Sure, I won't get a portable version, but I can play it now, it runs great, and at least Microsoft has a history of great online preservation.
Screw this trend!

Sat Apr 21 18 07:51am
Rating: 3 (Updated 1 time)

Really don't see why people are blaming Bethesda. They are TRYING to support Nintendo. Nintendo CHOSE to go with cartridges for the Switch. The technology (64 gb carts) doesn't exist yet AND is too expensive. Nintendo is having trouble producing them. How is that Bethesda's fault? What is Bethesda suppose to do force Nintendo to make the carts faster/cheaper for them?

So in order for this game to EVEN exist on Switch this had to be done. People claim they want 3rd party support yet complain when stuff like this happens and claim I won't buy it. You probably weren't gonna buy it anyway even if they somehow magically made 64gb appear. Also that is also too big of a risk because the carts are TOO expensive. Nintendo fans have a trend of not buying 3rd parties so let's say Bethesda forked over the cash for a 32gb cart. In order to make their money back they would have to sell a million plus copies (which let's be honest probably won't happen) OR make a physical only version that costs $80-90 and then you all still wouldn't buy it because you would all be claiming anti-consumer as well.

Their is no winning with Switch. With it's measly 32gb of storage but I guess that's Bethesda's fault too as to why you would have to spend more money for an sd card to download extra data as well? If Nintendo really wanted 3rd party support this gen they should have known that 3rd party games nowadays are HUGE. So why wouldn't you make sure 32gb were available sooner and for cheaper as well as include more than a pitiful 32gb of internal storage or AT LEAST support external HDD support for at least docked users.

You’re sounding reasonable in the midst of the Nintendo defense force. 😂

Sat Apr 21 18 10:00am
(Updated 2 times)

It wouldn't have been possible to add a Disc Drive to the Switch, or it would've been chuncky and unusable (like the original PSP). So cartridges is the absolute ONLY way to go with a portable system. Like the Switch.

Harddisk support is also not smart since the Game AND System AND Harddisk WILL 100% SURE CRASH the SECOND you take the Switch OUT OF THE DOCK WHILST PLAYING!!!!! The dock has NO way of safely parking the Disk when the Switch is removed when in use. (This will damage the disc and the data on the disc, just try to take a harddrive out of a PC that's currently in use) The Switch, in the best case will have to force close the game and in the worst case the game and the system will crash damaging the internal memory of the Switch and you'll have a very expensive paperweight.

The only way to fix this would have been adding a lot more internal storage, like 512GB of flash storage. But that would've made the Switch around 2000 dollar. Nintendo chose the cheaper option of just allowing MicroSD cards. Up to 2TB.

Aaaaand that's a hard pass for me. No thanks, Bethesda.

46 comments! What a nightmare World this is

Grab your pitchfork! We’re going after Bethesda who has no control over what carts the Switch supports...

csp
Sat Apr 21 18 01:42pm
(Updated 1 time)

soooo better played on other systems where storage is FAR cheaper.
and more game is on the disk
and something on graphical fidelity
and achievements
and community

got it thanks

Yeah and don't forget price; it's available right now for $30 on PS4. By the time it releases on Switch for $60 you may be able to pick it up for $20 on PS4 (that's the current price of Doom on PS4).

csp
Sat Apr 21 18 08:33pm
(Updated 1 time)

Thanks I did forget the most important aspect...money does not grow on trees and no will to support a specific company can change that. It is simply not worth it.

btw I got Doom used for 10Eu for xbox one before the switch release. But I guess, the switch audience is composed only of single platform holders...so they do not care about releasing full price a game that is already out on other consoles and its price can not compete. After all the console sells like hot cakes...

...I am missing something here.

toupee43
Sat Apr 21 18 06:16pm
Rating: 3

I don't see the problem, frankly. It is what it is. Would it be nice for the game to be all on the cart? Of course. but, it's not possible with switch's current hardware. When you bought the switch you should have known what you were getting into. It's a hybrid system and the fact that they're even trying to bring games like this over to the platform, is amazing in itself. they didn't try with the 3DS line of systems. They would either not make said game for it or do some other version of it. Stop complaining and being babies. Jesus!

but, it's not possible with switch's current hardware

THAT'S a QUITE significant failure right there

and no it all boils down to money, not the hardware itself.

So, now the switch is a failure? what?
If the game is more than 40 gigabytes on other platforms, the 32 GB cart isn't going to do the trick either. They'd need a 64 GB cart, which I believe isn't available yet.

of course it is, it's just BLOODY EXPENSIVE

then again I got a 64GB micro sd+adapter for the wii over 3 years ago and I paid 15Eu (RETAIL) so bulk should be less than half that. PAY UP NINTENDO

I understand you guys don't want to download part of the game on your own harddrives... but why get so upset? It's not like it's an evil practice.

Every Xbox One game and PS4 game, EVERY one you have to download the ENTIRE game. The disk is essentially to prove that you own the game.

The only issue I see here is the white banner, as it sort of ruins one of the best reasons to buy physical- the box.

People don't realize that this is a trend of the 2010s and Nintendo being behind for so long means that as a result of both that and the fact that the Switch's cart size situation really sucks, people are still getting used to this strange new shock. I wonder what will happen if Nintendo finally adds an achievement system at this rate since some people don't like new trends...

if the achievement system launches with the switch VC, people will go nuts. Then again, nintendo are afraid it will cannibalize sales of new games since people will play less games more so they...opted to simply ignore it.

and what a bad idea this was...

Maybe we realize it just fine and want no part of it. It seems idiotic to defend one of the shittiest practices to grace the industry. Add insult to injury, you call out Nintendo for being behind in doing so. So ridiculous.... Just say no to achievements kids! ;0)

csp
Sun Apr 22 18 04:04pm
Rating: 1

people who are not aware of any of the meta analysis of achievements (ie trueachievements and truetrophies) have no idea what this is REALLY about.

you know nothing john snow.

you only think you do

No, we just don't like achievements. It has nothing to do with lack of understanding of their meta-analysis. (Which is a meaningless phrase designed to sound profound. It isn't.)

first of all, no its called meta analysis since data are weighed against other factors (ie rarity) increasing in score so not meaningless at all

and suit yourself. if nintendo implement them for those who care, do not bother. thanks

Please let me know what in here applies to achievement systems. I can't find it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis

trueachievements use a novel way of calculating data where achievements are weighed based on their rarity thus calculating the game difficulty (told you to look it up - there is a wiki page for crying out loud)

so the bloody meta analysis one can do is check which games are hard and take time to beat, have a list of ALL the easy achievements on every game one owns, track statistics on each individual achievement either regional or global and much much more

you know NOTHING john snow. Thanks

That's not meta-analysis. It's just simple old analysis, and not particularly interesting analysis at that.

Also, I know how achievements work. Everyone knows how achievements work. They're a basic system of tasks and rewards. Every time you insist that there's something deep about them you are not only insulting my intelligence but make yourself look ridiculous.

Also also, "Jon" doesn't have an "h".

and yet you keep using the word achievements. TRUEacihevments is something different. PLEASE LOOK IT UP

and I am sorry that I end up insulting your intelligence, I am only trying to point out that this is far more complex than you have understood.

I'm not looking up "true" achievements. I know what an achievement system is. If you are talking about something else, it's you who is using the wrong word. Whatever that something else is may be complex, but achievements aren't.

csp
Wed Apr 25 18 01:40pm
(Updated 1 time)

"I'm not looking up "true" achievements"

this goes to my list of other similar remarks like "I am not going to watch a video to prove your point"

which also means, the conversation is over.

Fine. Since you're so obsessed with this concept that you continued the conversation just to say that it's over (thus contradicting what you're saying), I went to trueachievements.com. My instincts were confirmed--nothing that appeared there could even remotely be described as "meta-analysis", nothing was in any way complex, and there was nothing about achievements that I didn't already know. You just have to accept the fact that some people don't like them, and that the reason people don't like them is not because they don't understand them.

no mate, if you ever go to university, you will obtain the skills to do research. Until then good luck

I graduated summa cum laude. I'm confident in my ability to understand the material on display.

Your confidence is greatly overstated. You never mentioned the institution though which is s bit suspicious.

In any case you need certain skills to do some in depth research. Not everyone had these skills and "mickey mouse" degrees are not enough

Your continued obsession with insulting me for not pretending that achievements are complex speaks for itself. I didn't mention where I got my degree because they don't offer an Intro to Achievements class. Because there'd only be enough material for about two minutes, not an entire semester.

csp
Sat Apr 28 18 12:32pm
(Updated 1 time)

and yet you continuously keep stating your original "verdict" after spending TWO minutes on the matter, refusing to look into it because you think you got it.

and no the rabbit hole goes VERY deep on this one. Take it from someone who has spent countless hours looking at stats.

your education has failed you mate. anyone who states this "I'm not looking up "true" achievements" is simply too stubborn to have ANY kind of conversation. May I also remind you of your insistence to insult ME because "i am too pretentious and there is no such thing as depth in achievements"

You know what? I'm done with you. The constant insults I can take, because you've established yourself as someone whose opinion I shouldn't concern myself with. But I don't forgive people telling me they know the facts of my life better than I do, not people who actually know me, and certainly not people who've never met me. You gave me a source that I knew would be a waste of time, and yet, owing to your insistance, I did you the courtesy of checking it out. You thank me by concluding, with no evidence, that I gave it only a mere, cursory glance. You have also told me first, that I have not attended college, and then later, that it was a poor institution. All because I have the audacity not to see complexity where none lies. If you find that insulting, so be it; it is no more insulting than telling a flat-earther the world is round, and I'm no more worried about how I'm construed. Enjoy your countless hours looking at stats about achievements. I'll spend my hours doing something better with my time, not least of which will be actually playing and enjoying games, instead of worrying about being rewarded for completing menial tasks.

Trueachievements seems like a better way to do achievements since the value of the achievement is based on the difficulty of the achievement and not sort of arbitrarily assigned by the devs.

But some people are just not going to be into any kind of achievements. I don't play games to achieve anything. I play games to have fun and to relax. I play games to have an artistic experience and enjoy the artwork, music, characters, world, dialogue, etc that a game offers up. I like to see the creativity of game mechanics and how interesting and unexpected things can be done within those limitations. It is very engaging and stimulating to me on a creative level.

But I'm not trying to achieve anything or see where I stack up against other people playing the game because it is disconnected from my purpose for enjoying games. I don't want to be shown how little I have achieved or anything like that.

It would be nice to have achievements but be able to opt out of it with a system wide setting.

I think I got it. It's about a deep sense of lack and the solution-filler with a false sense of importance that helps curb your inner purchasing regrets. I know I'm at least close. lol

seriously mate, check how true achievements work. thanks

We know how achievements work. It's one thing to wonder why we don't like them, but saying we don't understand something so basic is insulting.

csp
Tue Apr 24 18 05:26pm
Rating: 1

no you don't, sorry - please look above

Why bother offering a physical release if it requires a large mandatory download?

Might as well just have a download code in the box.

I buy all my games digitally on Switch anyways, but I still think the physical release should contain 100% of the game.

Want to join this discussion?

You should like, totally log in or sign up!