Steam+ Deals Mega Thread (All PC Gaming Deals)

[Neuro5i5]

This thread will attempt to provide a place to discuss past/present/future PC gaming deals. While mainly focusing on Steam games, any standout sales may also be presented. I will not be updating every Daily/Weekly/etc. sale. The tools to help individuals become a smarter shopper will be provided below.

See this POST for links to store sale pages, threads of interest and other tools to help you become a more informed PC game shopper.

 

[Souffrir]

[wall of text redacted]

To be honest, I'm entering the conversation a bit late, and don't really care enough to go all the way back to the beginning, but assuming I'm interpreting this correctly, are we mostly talking about PvE games revolving primarily around randomized loot? I don't know much about most of the popular titles in the genre since I don't really play them if I can help it, but something vaguely along the lines of Diablo or Warframe?

Because those would absolutely work offline. Half the time when I played WF back in the day, I was doing it solo. I mean, it's a crappy experience solo, because games like that get extremely repetitive and grindy, but there's no particular reason to force players to be online except that it encourages interactivity with other players, which is the only form of longevity these games actually have.

I'm also going to have to agree with Mooby here, and I'm kind of scared by that, but here it is: the gameplay is shallow and designed entirely around exploiting addictive behaviors. Don't get me wrong, you can still have fun playing with friends, but that's because pretty nearly any activity can be fun with friends.

 

[Syntax Error]

Don't get me wrong, you can still have fun playing with friends, but that's because pretty nearly any activity can be fun with friends.

This is only true for about 5-10 minutes. My cite: Numerous Bronights. A game needs to have some redeeming feature to keep playing it past the ten minute "lol this sucks so much, let's make fun of it" stage. Certainly not something that you'll be playing for months.

 

[ezelkow1]

This is only true for about 5-10 minutes. My cite: Numerous Bronights. A game needs to have some redeeming feature to keep playing it past the ten minute "lol this sucks so much, let's make fun of it" stage. Certainly not something that you'll be playing for months.

bean battles would like some words with you

 

[Souffrir]

This is only true for about 5-10 minutes. My cite: Numerous Bronights. A game needs to have some redeeming feature to keep playing it past the ten minute "lol this sucks so much, let's make fun of it" stage. Certainly not something that you'll be playing for months.

That’s where the addictive behavior exploitation comes in.

 

[pasports31]

Lol oh man...I forgot how lore dense Pillars of Eternity was. Just booted up Tyranny and it's an upward battle to figure out wtf is going on

 

[Mooby]

Diablo 3, while not a particularly good game, is an example of a good coop game.  Grouping with others doesn't really add much to the overall experience of D3 because it stands on its own if you play by yourself (online, but still solo).  All these MMO-lites are centered around grouping up.  The games are shallow if you don't add in the 'fun with friends' crutch.

You're basically asking people to put in the same time investment as an MMO without the flexibility of an enjoyable single player experience.  Stuff like Derp-stany and Derp-vision aren't like Team Fortress 2.  There is no reason they should be 'mandatory' multiplayer games aside from lackluster design.  Or, rather, insidious design intended to capture people into the MMO format.

And, yes, there is obviously a 'minimum floor' required for the 'fun with friends' crutch to work its magic but that doesn't change the reality that developers continue to use it to fill massive voids in gameplay and content.

 

[MysterD]

I'm also going to have to agree with Mooby here, and I'm kind of scared by that, but here it is: the gameplay is shallow and designed entirely around exploiting addictive behaviors. Don't get me wrong, you can still have fun playing with friends, but that's because pretty nearly any activity can be fun with friends.

Playing narrative-based, story-driven, and/or character-driven games are NOT fun w/ friends. These games just aren't fun w/ friends, as "friends" often want to skip cut-scenes - especially if they've already been through certain missions that had cut-scenes.

 

[Mooby]

To add: there are non-narrative/non-story-driven games (that also have coop) that still stand on their own solo.  See, e.g., Terraria.  It's not a binary thing.  It's how the developers start with their design concept.  Do they say 'okay we want to make a shooter with character progression and questing,' or do they say 'okay, we need to make some MMO-lite, what systems do we need to add to keep people hooked?'  Most AAA (and a lot of indie) developers/publishers are doing the latter these days.  Especially outfits like Blizzard and Ubi.

 

[MysterD]

If you're too delicate to handle anything but light-hearted food talk, then don't click. I don't want to offend your sensibilities with actual video game discussion.

Spoiler

You're conveniently ignoring that group play is a major component of these games. They wouldn't be the same games without it, or anything resembling them. You're simply ignoring the massive amount of multiplayer content. Have you done the raids in Destiny? Have you done the D1 Iron Banner weeks or The Trials of Osiris? Have you grouped up to farm the Dark Zone or done Incursions in the Division? These are the best parts of the games to many people and you're conveniently wearing horse blinders and acting like the multiplayer component doesn't need to exist.

It's just weird to hear this coming from someone in the PC community. Not like you're paying for PS+ or anything. It is absolutely weird when people evaluate these games while ignoring their multiplayer aspects. Most people here even got the Division and Destiny included in the their monthly subscriptions and got to experience much of what they have to offer without even investing in them. If you don't play it, then you didn't play it. If you don't like it then fine. But the game doesn't need to come meet you halfway; they are designed for you to come meet them where they are, and the barrier to entry (or startup) isn't difficult either.

It's like complaining when RDR:2 or GTA5 added gigantic online modes to their games that were already massive game experiences with exceptional value for $60 msrp. It's like okay, maybe the game just isn't for you? That's okay. I'm not trying to use these two as my main examples though, bc they were entirely single-player games before online content was added later.

I dunno, it's odd to see people ragging on games they received in their monthlies, or games they wouldn't spend 10 bucks on, play them for a couple of hours maybe, and then declare that they aren't great, or that they should be changed. These are some of the best games in history that other people adore. They don't need to be changed just bc it's not your cup o tea. Even FF14, one of the best subscription mmorpgs out there still fits the bill you're describing where ~85% of it can be played solo. However, it's still an mmorpg. One that millions of people happily pay $13/mo. to play because it's excellent.

It is weird to say "these MMOs should not be online". That's the only reason people continue to play them after finishing the campaign. People only continue playing these games, and discussing them, exactly because they are MMOs. That's how they remain relevant. It's why people play them for years. It's in their DNA. It's their identity.

Diablo 3 was a complete disaster though, I'll agree with you there. Definitely one of the biggest disappointments in gaming history and a lot of that had to do with implementation of the Real Money Auction House. Now that was shoehorning online aspects into a game that had no reason to exist except to make money.

Except the games in question are not "games designed around offline singleplayer". There is no way to do a "simple offline mode" for the games we are discussing. The whole premise is off. We're not talking about Bioshock 1&2 multiplayer here.

He is playing MMOs (MMO-lites, loot shooters, shared-world shooters, w/e the heck you want to call it, because they are often the best games) and then going "I don't like the multiplayer and online aspects". Then "these games should be offline". Well no, they shouldn't.

There are plenty of other single-player RPGs and campaign shooters out there to play instead. There is Pillars of Eternity, Divinity, Yakuzas, and then Doom, Metro Exodus, Wolfenstein, Prey, etc. Loot shooters work best online. It's why Borderlands 2 didn't have the longevity of modern loot shooters, Most people didn't pay (much) for its DLC either.

Having 5000 terabytes of storage and wanting all of your games to be offline singleplayer is definitely a weird hang-up, especially for a PC gamer. There is even way to do those things and it's called buying cartridges or discs and being a console gamer.

If I didn't like shared-world loot shooters then I wouldn't play them. I wouldn't tell the artists or other art enthusiasts that they should have created the core gameplay loops differently.

tl;dr highlight the first section of each reply.

By letting me get through PvE missions by myself all alone, these games are NOT doing much to make me "go play w/ friends." Games like Guild Wars 1 even had bots/AI that could go w/ you, if you didn't want to basically play w/ friends.

All the games that I've listed, the main missions (i.e. the ones you need to do to get through the game's main-quest) often do not need me to play w/ others to complete these. And when I can get through the main stuff w/out anyone else, this is where the problem begins. Even Diablo 3 on the consoles has offline support, while the PC version doesn't. I played PC version all by myself purposely and it proved exactly what I figured: PvE is still built to be played alone and can be easily done as such.

All these MMO-lite/MMO's games are doing are catering to curbing piracy and cheating - just to make gamers play "as the dev's intended" supposedly and to get gamers to play "their way."

Also, Borderlands 1+2 can be completed alone, PvE style. I'd know - b/c...well, I've done it.

There are games w/ online-offline optional support, which have multi-player aspects such as Test Drive Unlimited 2 - and these can be played offline just fine still. Just when in the open-world, you won't run into other racers and you cannot participate in the multiplayer-based sections of the game - and it's obvious, you never needed the MP stuff to finish the game's main campaign and main races either.

 

[MysterD]

Lol oh man...I forgot how lore dense Pillars of Eternity was. Just booted up Tyranny and it's an upward battle to figure out wtf is going on

I highly recommend you click-on and read all the high-lighted terms/names/whatever you see spoken in the dialogue, as they are Lore stuff and/or reveal choices you made that matter in Tyranny. I like that they did it this way, as I don't have to later check the Lore to see what they meant later - I can do it right then and there, on the fly, as it's right in the dialogue. Also...you will need to know who these groups, factions, people, terms, and/or whatever else are - so you can fully grasp the game's story, characters, game-world, and to be immersed into this experience.

Also, you definitely do want to read Lore entries, as you probably expected in a heavy narrative-driven, character-driven and story-driven game like this.

 

[Nothing-]

To be honest, I'm entering the conversation a bit late, and don't really care enough to go all the way back to the beginning, but assuming I'm interpreting this correctly, are we mostly talking about PvE games revolving primarily around randomized loot?

I dunno, we are all kinda responding in strawmen at this point, in a way of how exactly it pertains to ourselves lol. I was mostly talking to MysterD, the games he mentioned, and in the spirit of the talking points he has raised multiple times in the past.

Spoiler

Of course we'd all like more single-player, offline, big budget storytelling and RPGs. It's astonishing how games haven't been able replicate the success from Bioware (Mass Effects, maybe Dragon Age) during the previous decade. Or from Bethesda (FO3, New Vegas, Skyrim), 2K Games (Bioshocks), and Gearbox (Borderlands) from several years ago. But a lot of that is nostalgia, people have gotten older & routines have changed, the market has shifted, and it has also been an inability for fans to move forward. People really do get incredibly stubborn as they get older. There has been no shortage of fantastic video games though; people are simply stuck in their ways.

Anytime I hear someone say "there are no good, new games to play!" I know that I can dismiss and ignore everything else they have to say.

Millennials don't believe they should have to pay for things anymore. Everything should be free. Then they subscribe to dozens of different a-la-carte, on-demand, and f2p services instead. People want that new, hip water cooler hype game and they don't want to pay anything for it. So Apex Legends is born.

I'm also going to have to agree with Mooby here, and I'm kind of scared by that, but here it is: the gameplay is shallow and designed entirely around exploiting addictive behaviors. Don't get me wrong, you can still have fun playing with friends, but that's because pretty nearly any activity can be fun with friends.

I'd agree with Mooby more often but it's not exactly saying much, nor putting yourself out there, to only complain about games or make snarky replies instead of showing the ability to talk about the games that you like. It's easy to just criticize. I don't think he even likes playing vids lol.

That’s where the addictive behavior exploitation comes in.

And some people here are addicted to hoarding thousands of bundle fodder games for $1 at a time. People in here buy mystery bundles. It's no different. Others whom play a single mmorpg or a game-as-a-serivce usually spend way less money annually than people who buy bunches of games. Potato, potahto.

Spoiler

Especially if you want to get into it from a philosophical standpoint. PC gamers, people in here, aren't supporting the right kind of video game development in most cases anyways. They don't buy new games. They don't vote. So they have no point. Not when it comes to what is being developed, or the type of games that should be being made. They don't spend money paying developers for new games so they don't really get a vote. They just want things. It's all just a whine. The PC ecosystem is a byproduct of all that. Yeah, there are less AAA games being developed on PC these days. You got the world that you deserve. So developers have had to go about things a different way with revenue models designed to trick idiots.

Most of the people I know game hard on 1 or 2 things a year, and it's been that way for a very long time. Be it WoW, CoD + Madden bros, Destiny, Street Fighter, or anything else. They aren't spending much money.

None of us can help it that gen Z idiots are shelling out hardcore for gacha phone games and Fortnite skins. It got big with Farmville and Candy Crush long ago among over-the-hill non-gamers and those developers are going to do what they do reagardless. I have never been one to support League of Legends, DotA, or that style of business model. Look at Artifact, Pee-yew Valve wtf!!

Meanwhile companies like Nintendo, Rockstar Games, CD Projekt Red, occasionally even Atlus or Sega, are still making the best valued games money can buy for $60. They pack a whole lot of content in one complete package. Some companies are still doing things the right way.

 

[MysterD]

Diablo 3, while not a particularly good game, is an example of a good coop game. Grouping with others doesn't really add much to the overall experience of D3 because it stands on its own if you play by yourself (online, but still solo). All these MMO-lites are centered around grouping up. The games are shallow if you don't add in the 'fun with friends' crutch.

The thing is: Diablo 3 added Lore stuff and NPC/AI banter, which wasn't a thing in older Diablo games. This actually made D3 game even more friendly to be a SP-campaign experience than ever before - which are all the things you put into a game to appeal to gamers that like SP-experiences.

Plus, you know...there's also the fact that you can still complete the game on the PC no problem w/out ever dealing w/ other players period. I'd know, I've done it.

EDIT:

To add: there are non-narrative/non-story-driven games (that also have coop) that still stand on their own solo. See, e.g., Terraria. It's not a binary thing. It's how the developers start with their design concept. Do they say 'okay we want to make a shooter with character progression and questing,' or do they say 'okay, we need to make some MMO-lite, what systems do we need to add to keep people hooked?' Most AAA (and a lot of indie) developers/publishers are doing the latter these days. Especially outfits like Blizzard and Ubi.

Definitely.

A lot of dev's are shoehorning PvP stuff (like Destiny 2 did w/ their competitive MP) into mostly PvE games to try to get the MP-crowd also involved. Especially when companies like Activision, Blizzard, and EA are looking at turning their games into full-blown "Live experiences" and "Online-Only experiences" to try to curb piracy & cheating; and to try to sell more content later (DLC's, Season Passes, Annual Passes, Expansions, MTX's, Etc) - which is probably also why we don't see DICE anymore letting loose Mod Tools for their MP games anymore; and also why another reason that Fallout 76 is online-only and really doesn't have mod-tools/mod-support...yet (if it ever even will).

Let's also face it: Destiny 2's PvE is where it's at. If you're doing the PvP, you better own a good deal or all of the DLC's, Season Passes, Expansions, Annual Passes - if you even want to have a chance at taking down other players and/or doing well in the competitive MP section. B/c of this non-sense, PvP in Destiny 2 felt like a waste for me and I was better off w/ PvE, which was still purposely and obviously built to be "easy enough" to solo a lot of the main-stuff and side-stuff - which is exactly my point on why games that are online-only which can be solo'd should still be able to work offline, whether it's done at launch or much later when the game's old and player numbers have dwindled down to not much of anything.

EDIT:

It's nice to have game-content actually preserved and able to work offline at some point in time, in case I want to replay these games later or so I can finish-up these games that I never did finish.

It's nice that my old copy of Hellgate: London still works in offline-mode, you know?

EDIT 2:

Having 5000 terabytes of storage and wanting all of your games to be offline singleplayer is definitely a weird hang-up, especially for a PC gamer. There is even way to do those things and it's called buying cartridges or discs and being a console gamer.

Why do I want to deal w/ the inferiority of consoles, that often run games at 30fps and/or maybe some games at 60fps?

I enjoy having all this PC power behind me, able to say "Yep, I can run Yakuza 0 at 120fps w/ G-Sync" and do it no problem. Oh, and they recently removed Denuvo DRM/anti-tamper, too.

It's nice to run GR: Wildlands, Far Cry 5, and any other demanding games at 60fps instead of the often console-like 30fps w/ much better graphical fidelity, if possible.

Plus, I do have a BR burner and discs; DVD burner and discs; and SSD's, HDD's, and docks to handle those. If I need to back-up games I downloaded, that's what they are there for. I can always buy more, if need be. I'm not limited by a console-box, thanks to the PC's nature of allowing for expanding.

 

[Nothing-]

Let's also face it: Destiny 2's PvE is where it's at. If you're doing the PvP, you better own a good deal or all of the DLC's, Season Passes, Expansions, Annual Passes - if you even want to have a chance at taking down other players and/or doing well in the competitive MP section. B/c of this non-sense, PvP in Destiny 2 felt like a waste for me and I was better off w/ PvE, which was still purposely and obviously built to be "easy enough" to solo a lot of the main-stuff and side-stuff.

Just stop dude. LOL

 

[MysterD]

I mean I would love to have a simple offline mode for this game when there comes a time when the plug is pulled, let's be honest these games will not have servers forever I still want to see how long bungie keeps the servers going for the vanilla Destiny on PS3 and X360

Exactly. I'd love see see Destiny 1 hit the PC myself.

I'd guess, like Destiny 2, a good deal of the Destiny 1 game can be played solo...where you can finish the main campaign/quest and a fair amount of the side-stuff solo. Sure, I'm sure there's multiplayer raids and other stuff - but I doubt that the whole game's built around that. Most games aren't, as even the current batch of online-only games are mixing SP-campaign stuff, Co-Op campaign stuff, and MP competitive stuff - to try to get as many crowds as possible buying their game.

And when the times comes when nobody's playing a game anymore, I'd like for its SP-based content to be able to be played, without worrying about companies having the servers for me to play on.

I mean, hell - we all saw how quick Flagship's always-online part of Hellgate London's plug got pulled, right? Thank God it also had Single-Player offline support - as that still can be played.

And modders been keeping that game alive forever anyways.

 

[Gedemer]

What’s funny is the best PVP weapons in Destiny 2 are the base game ones...and the free ones that you can get without DLC.

And I know this cause I am still playing it

 

[CheapLikeAFox]

I skipped over most everything, but having just played a Division 2 mission on hard with a group, I can't imagine doing it solo.  That defeats the argument that there's no reason to have online required in the game.  If you want to run through it just for the shallow story, then sure, do it single player, but the fun in the game is trying to beat it on harder difficulties.  Timing your skills, learning enemy behavior, etc.  I don't do too many MMOs or RPGs but stuff like Division appeals to me and does it pretty well.  The loot is fun and all, but I get more satisfaction out of actually finishing a mission. 

 

[Nothing-]

Dinner for 1, on this balmy -3 degree March afternoon.

 

[gilby]

Dinner for 1, on this balmy -3 degree March afternoon.

That is one really odd looking pizza.

 

[Master Miguel]

Is that a 70 year old woman eating dinner on her tv tray while she watches jeopardy?

 

[Syntax Error]

That’s where the addictive behavior exploitation comes in.

Eh, you could add loot crates to Bloody Boobs but it's not going to make us play it any more. Really, the games that get played regularly are played regularly because they are legitimately fun and rewarding when played in a group. Yeah, sure, stuff is more fun when played with friends but we also have literally hundreds of other choices of co-op/group games including ones with loot drops, etc.

 

[MysterD]

I skipped over most everything, but having just played a Division 2 mission on hard with a group, I can't imagine doing it solo. That defeats the argument that there's no reason to have online required in the game. If you want to run through it just for the shallow story, then sure, do it single player, but the fun in the game is trying to beat it on harder difficulties. Timing your skills, learning enemy behavior, etc. I don't do too many MMOs or RPGs but stuff like Division appeals to me and does it pretty well. The loot is fun and all, but I get more satisfaction out of actually finishing a mission.

Some 6 hours in or so, Division 2 is going just fine w/ me playing solo on missions at Normal, so...

...my thoughts will still stand about this since I'm able to solo missions, I think this game should work offline.

If the game's main missions at their suggested levels for each main mission just cannot be completed at the easiest difficulty setting (that's Easy in this game) when going solo - then that might make for a much better reasoning as to "This game's meant for co-op and online-only play."

If this from what I have experience w/ the Open Beta is still consistent in the final game where it's fine to solo it on Normal and Hard is really the difficulty for Co-Op - then they might as well named "Normal" the "Solo Difficulty" and "Hard" the "Co-Op Difficulty".

 

[lakers714]

Spoiler

Except the games in question are not "games designed around offline singleplayer". There is no way to do a "simple offline mode" for the games we are discussing. The whole premise is off. We're not talking about Bioshock 1&2 multiplayer here.

He is playing MMOs (MMO-lites, loot shooters, shared-world shooters, w/e the heck you want to call it, because they are often the best games) and then going "I don't like the multiplayer and online aspects". Then "these games should be offline". Well no, they shouldn't.

There are plenty of other single-player RPGs and campaign shooters out there to play instead. There is Pillars of Eternity, Divinity, Yakuzas, and then Doom, Metro Exodus, Wolfenstein, Prey, etc. Loot shooters work best online. It's why Borderlands 2 didn't have the longevity of modern loot shooters, Most people didn't pay (much) for its DLC either.

Having 5000 terabytes of storage and wanting all of your games to be offline singleplayer is definitely a weird hang-up, especially for a PC gamer. There is even way to do those things and it's called buying cartridges or discs and being a console gamer.

If I didn't like shared-world loot shooters then I wouldn't play them. I wouldn't tell the artists or other art enthusiasts that they should have created the core gameplay loops differently.

tl;dr highlight the first section of each reply.

Spoiler

I never said it was going to be an easy way to just get an offline mode bu most of these online games are all stored offline data and the big online component are these checks that the game does every second between client and server sides. Of course it would take a great deal of time and money to have an offline mode. I completed all of The Division 1 without a single other player in the game and I was never forced to do play with people it was optional, I said these games should have an offline mode for people who desire it.

Borderlands 2 still get's way more players playing than The Division on Steam and that game came out almost 7 years ago so I really don't get your point on having longevity every game that is long been done with support will have less players it's simple logic.

Yikes with that Storage and Console Take so Im going to pass on that.

I never said I didn't like the loot shooter genre or the online portion of it, it's just that with time these games will be unplayable because of Internet Required Servers that can be yanked any time and that's it no more of it it's that simple. I see Division as a Online RPG Shooter with Co-Op/PVP not some huge MMO with long tails like Wow etc. If I trying to make more money I wouldn't add an offline mode either since it makes no sense financially

 

[Z-Saber]

This year's amateur short story competition sucks.

 

[Syntax Error]

Some 6 hours in or so, Division 2 is going just fine w/ me playing solo on missions at Normal, so...

...so you never tried the Black Tusk mission :lol:

 

[Souffrir]

Eh, you could add loot crates to Bloody Boobs but it's not going to make us play it any more. Really, the games that get played regularly are played regularly because they are legitimately fun and rewarding when played in a group. Yeah, sure, stuff is more fun when played with friends but we also have literally hundreds of other choices of co-op/group games including ones with loot drops, etc.

I think limiting our attention to loot crates as the sole exploitative design in most of these games is a little naive. I mean, the original Diablo was tapping into many of the same addictive behaviors that loot games are today (though obviously it wasn't exploiting it nearly as purposefully). There's a whole "one-more-[x]-so-I-can-get-[y]" mentality that this style of game taps into, one you can fall into without ever paying the publishers a dime beyond the entrance fee, but which nevertheless keeps you coming back for more. Lootboxes and other microtransactions are kinda just along for the ride next to that sort of base-level RNG-based positive feedback loop.

Don't get me wrong, there does still have to be a minimum level of quality in gameplay and aesthetic design for people to get into something, but those can be much, much shallower than a more robust, less-loot-focused system and still keep more people engaged for longer thanks to those addictive behaviors.

 

[Gedemer]

Anyone know if the AMD Rewards Div2 code will be direct link to Uplay, or just a game code?

I want to get the Gold Edition for 3 day early access...but already have the base game from AMD Rewards *that i want to sell*

 

[Mooby]

I'm fairly certain it is direct link to U-Play.  The RE2 key was a direct link to Steam account.

 

[Syntax Error]

I think limiting our attention to loot crates as the sole exploitative design in most of these games is a little naive.

Likewise, it sounds like people are trying a bit too hard to assert that people are playing these games despite themselves instead of, you know, playing them because they sincerely and legitimately enjoy the game.

Anyone know if the AMD Rewards Div2 code will be direct link to Uplay, or just a game code?

Pretty sure it's direct link. But since the Div2 is the last to launch, you could just give someone access to your rewards account.

 

[lakers714]

Anyone know if the AMD Rewards Div2 code will be direct link to Uplay, or just a game code?

I want to get the Gold Edition for 3 day early access...but already have the base game from AMD Rewards *that i want to sell*

Im sure its going to link to your Uplay Account

 

[Nothing-]

The Division 2 beta is awesome. It looks and plays great on PC. I'm pretty sure that's what I'm going to spending at least the next couple months playing when it releases.

Spoiler

I never said it was going to be an easy way to just get an offline mode bu most of these online games are all stored offline data and the big online component are these checks that the game does every second between client and server sides. Of course it would take a great deal of time and money to have an offline mode. I completed all of The Division 1 without a single other player in the game and I was never forced to do play with people it was optional, I said these games should have an offline mode for people who desire it.

Borderlands 2 still get's way more players playing than The Division on Steam and that game came out almost 7 years ago so I really don't get your point on having longevity every game that is long been done with support will have less players it's simple logic.

Yikes with that Storage and Console Take so Im going to pass on that.

I never said I didn't like the loot shooter genre or the online portion of it, it's just that with time these games will be unplayable because of Internet Required Servers that can be yanked any time and that's it no more of it it's that simple. I see Division as a Online RPG Shooter with Co-Op/PVP not some huge MMO with long tails like Wow etc. If I trying to make more money I wouldn't add an offline mode either since it makes no sense financially

Right. You said that these games should have a "simple offline mode", and that's wrong.

I see Division as a Online RPG Shooter with Co-Op/PVP

ummm, yeah..

 

[hal]

Since Massive jumped ship from Steam to Epic "exclusive" (except not since you can buy through Ubi), the joke is to wait for Epic's finances to falter when Fortnite gets dethroned and they'll have to start going fire sale on their game store.

The only problem there is that Epic is swimming in money from the Unreal Engine. They are like Valve in that they really haven't had to publish anything for quite some time and that allows them to do more or less only whatever they want to do.

 

[Syntax Error]

The only problem there is that Epic is swimming in money from the Unreal Engine.

That and, from what I've read, Fortnite's numbers haven't really been hurt by Apex.

 

[eulogywerd21]

Did I do this right?

 

[gilby]

I think limiting our attention to loot crates as the sole exploitative design in most of these games is a little naive. I mean, the original Diablo was tapping into many of the same addictive behaviors that loot games are today (though obviously it wasn't exploiting it nearly as purposefully). There's a whole "one-more-[x]-so-I-can-get-[y]" mentality that this style of game taps into, one you can fall into without ever paying the publishers a dime beyond the entrance fee, but which nevertheless keeps you coming back for more. Lootboxes and other microtransactions are kinda just along for the ride next to that sort of base-level RNG-based positive feedback loop.

Diablo merely adopted the one-more aspect of the roguelikes before it.

 

[lakers714]

The Division 2 beta is awesome. It looks and plays great on PC. I'm pretty sure that's what I'm going to spending at least the next couple months playing when it releases.

Right. You said that these games should have a "simple offline mode", and that's wrong.

ummm, yeah..

Like I said they should've "Added" an offline mode added to it I mean if you want to pick at words go at it.

 

[Souffrir]

Diablo merely adopted the one-more aspect of the roguelikes before it.

I didn’t mean to imply it originated from there, I was just pointing to an easily recognizeable example from before this exploitation began to be used knowingly in video game design.

I mean, if we want to go back to the origins of the gamification of that instinct, I think dice—or whatever randomized game device preceded dice—is probably the first place to look.

 

[Mooby]

The Division 2 beta is awesome. It looks and plays great on PC. I'm pretty sure that's what I'm going to spending at least the next couple months playing when it releases.

No shame in being one of these 'watercooler' gamers, breh.

 

[INMATEofARKHAM]

...so you never tried the Black Tusk mission :lol:

Going to be honest... I found the characters to be poorly geared, wrong weapons types, wrong weapon within those types, wrong gear specialization (as in only 1 of the three pieces, etc) to be a true judge of difficulty... Also we still only had three skills available.

I honestly think this mission is completely soloable without too much trouble. (People on reddit have already done so... and that makes sense. Knowledge of spawns and better loot makes everything easier.)

I honestly think something like Diablo II structure is best... Multiplayer characters need to be locked onto servers so people cannot just edit better gear on them... but all of these games as service have short life spawn. As soon as they aren't profitable you'll never be able to play them again... and that's a shame.)

 

[MysterD]

Going to be honest... I found the characters to be poorly geared, wrong weapons types, wrong weapon within those types, wrong gear specialization (as in only 1 of the three pieces, etc) to be a true judge of difficulty... Also we still only had three skills available.

I honestly think this mission is completely soloable without too much trouble. (People on reddit have already done so... and that makes sense. Knowledge of spawns and better loot makes everything easier.)

While I haven't gotten to the Tusk mission - I've found the missions I've done so far can be done, if you fail, just by checking your gear and re-trying. I'm lazy w/ re-gearing and only re-gear often when I die. I pick-up everything just about, so....it's not like the loot drops suck here in Division 2 OB (Open Beta); they seem to always be spitting out something better from enemies.

Nice to see it's solo-able, as people on Reddit have seemed to get through it.

I honestly think something like Diablo II structure is best... Multiplayer characters need to be locked onto servers so people cannot just edit better gear on them... but all of these games as service have short life spawn. As soon as they aren't profitable you'll never be able to play them again... and that's a shame.)

Yep, I do think D2 structure, Borderlands 1+2 structure, and HG:L structure is the best - allow for optional online/offline play, so that your game doesn't become a coaster after a few years, if it tanks and all. I can still go back to these games, whenever I want b/c there's an offline mode.

But for "cheating protection" - D2 had it best, as MP characters are online-only; SP characters are offline-only. If you get banned from a MP for cheating, exploiting, or whatever reason - well...you still got the SP offline to play and you aren't messing up somebody else's game.

Problem w/ D2 was....well, it was still a crap-show online for cheating (b/c it ain't online-only) and tons of trainers were out there - so, I went to the SP and stuck w/ the SP. I would guess the only good thing about D3 PC being online-only was cheating probably was less rampant b/c it was (and still is, on this PC platform) an online-only game.

 

[Syntax Error]

Going to be honest... I found the characters to be poorly geared, wrong weapons types, wrong weapon within those types, wrong gear specialization (as in only 1 of the three pieces, etc) to be a true judge of difficulty... Also we still only had three skills available.

Sure. Was referring more to MysterD saying "Hey, no trouble so far!" based on essentially the tutorial and finding it funny. I don't even know if the mission is intended to be just another mission (albeit at the end game) or a group mission. I had the impression it was more of a plot mission that, for the beta, they're encouraging people to group in to see those dynamics in action. On the other hand, it sounds as though they're going to have more plot-driven end game material that is designed for groups or 8-man teams so, if you do want to see it all, it probably won't be solo.

 

[INMATEofARKHAM]

Sure. Was referring more to MysterD saying "Hey, no trouble so far!" based on essentially the tutorial and finding it funny. I don't even know if the mission is intended to be just another mission (albeit at the end game) or a group mission. I had the impression it was more of a plot mission that, for the beta, they're encouraging people to group in to see those dynamics in action. On the other hand, it sounds as though they're going to have more plot-driven end game material that is designed for groups or 8-man teams so, if you do want to see it all, it probably won't be solo.

Its foolhardy (on my part) to judge what the raids/incursions will be based upon what we saw in Div 1... but they really had no story content in any of them. The closest was one were the Cleaners had a couple important bad guys you needed to kill. Everything else was you just saving JTF (or trying to) from their own incompetence.

The crazing thing about the Divsion's incursions there are people who have soloed all of them, or as far as you can go... The last one (Lost Signal?) is the only one that truly requires more than one person.

As for the Div 2 endgame mission... I really didn't catch much story in it so it might be like the equivalent of the Legendary missions in that all of the normal story based enemies are replaced with LMB enemies... Now, while I suspect this will be the case I'll be deeply disappointed if we don't see unique story missions with them too.

Some general feelings. I've played, more or less, the same beta three times now... Each time I've come away more impressed with the game, mostly because its gotten better and better. The third story mission, not included before, was telling me the history of broadcast TV while I was in the middle of a firefight. I honestly love the attention to detail. (It takes place in Newseum.)

 

[Syntax Error]

Its foolhardy (on my part) to judge what the raids/incursions will be based upon what we saw in Div 1... but they really had no story content in any of them.

Yeah, they were trying to change that. So I heard. From one or two of the bajillion articles over the last months that I'm not about to look up now. But basically one of the Div 1 complaints was that the story was over after level 28 or so and this time they want to make the end game material relevant to the story and not just "Bad guys are doing bad things, go stop 'em!". The beta mission is hard to judge because you're just plopped outside the door and don't get any preliminary cut scenes, radio chatter, etc to give it context beyond the intro cinematic.

Nothing about MysterD has ever given me the impression that he is the sort to solo incursions or heroic missions or other end game group content. That's no slam on him; that describes 99.5% of the players (myself included). "A guy on Reddit did a thing" isn't a good barometer of what most people's experiences will be. I've soloed a couple Legendaries to the end but that was (a) cheesing the special event mods and (b) using gear that I got from a whole lot of group play which sort of negates the "I'm not planning on grouping" aspect of it.

Everyone I've played the beta(s) with has come away feeling positive about the game. Looking forward to it. Running a mission on Hard was challenging but satisfying to beat so looking forward to that. "Stuff is more fun with friends" aside, the game feels like it rewards (as did Div 1) teamwork and tactics and getting into roles versus "Four people soloing the same mission simultaneously".

 

[CheapLikeAFox]

I found the museum annoying mostly because the blurbs would reset every time someone walked by.  Maybe museums work like that but I thought most would at least allow the blurb to play and then be triggered once someone else walked by, not reset every time it sensed movement.  

I found the normal mission on hard a lot more challenging than the high level mission.  I played sniper on the high level mission and found it fine.  A few well placed shots with the regular sniper took most guys out and I saved my special sniper for the higher level enemies.  

The hard mission was crazy.  We only beat it when I took a big risk by res'ing Parallacks (and getting knocked in the process) but I was low on ammo so I didn't think I could finish off the boss on my own.  Worked out.  He res'd Syntax, I got res'd, we beat it.  Teamwork makes the dream work.  

 

[Syntax Error]

I thought the museum blurbs were stuttering intentionally in a "This place is busted" sort of way but maybe it was because we had multiple players in it.  I never did it solo.

 

[INMATEofARKHAM]

I thought the museum blurbs were stuttering intentionally in a "This place is busted" sort of way but maybe it was because we had multiple players in it. I never did it solo.

I listened to a couple in full. The one mentioned above and one about the history of the printing presses. It must be a multiplayer thing.

 

[smackattack]

I skipped over most everything, but having just played a Division 2 mission on hard with a group, I can't imagine doing it solo. That defeats the argument that there's no reason to have online required in the game. If you want to run through it just for the shallow story, then sure, do it single player, but the fun in the game is trying to beat it on harder difficulties. Timing your skills, learning enemy behavior, etc. I don't do too many MMOs or RPGs but stuff like Division appeals to me and does it pretty well. The loot is fun and all, but I get more satisfaction out of actually finishing a mission.

The last of the Division 1 bros did exactly that. We managed to steadily improve not only gameplay but character skills. We actually managed to pick off the achievements for finishing all the legendary missions flawlessly.

 

[Tibor]

...so you never tried the Black Tusk mission :lol:

Time will tell but easy and maybe normal endgame will probably be soloable, at least that mission will. The gear they give you in the beta for all 3 classes wasn't that great, at least the gun choices weren't. The sniper class and maybe demo guy running an SMG and AR could probably do it. It will definately need certain gear and skill combos but my solo build in D1 was only hurt when fighting bosses alone with no other badguys around as I relied on the cannon fodder to regen health.

The D2 UI and its various bugs on PC aren't helping with end game coop. That system in D1 was always weak with the awkward UI but maybe the new clan system in D2 and raids will make it better. Or it could just be silently running a pug with 3 other people endlessly saving Ramierez at Lexington during a global event week. An offline Division1/2 would be a nice feature, even if just storyline.

PS Assault rifles are still king in D2.

 

[Mooby]

This Derpvision 2 talk might be a non-starter for me because I think it uses Denuvo.

 

[Gedemer]

Time will tell but easy and maybe normal endgame will probably be soloable, at least that mission will. The gear they give you in the beta for all 3 classes wasn't that great, at least the gun choices weren't. The sniper class and maybe demo guy running an SMG and AR could probably do it. It will definately need certain gear and skill combos but my solo build in D1 was only hurt when fighting bosses alone with no other badguys around as I relied on the cannon fodder to regen health.

The D2 UI and its various bugs on PC aren't helping with end game coop. That system in D1 was always weak with the awkward UI but maybe the new clan system in D2 and raids will make it better. Or it could just be silently running a pug with 3 other people endlessly saving Ramierez at Lexington during a global event week. An offline Division1/2 would be a nice feature, even if just storyline.

PS Assault rifles are still king in D2.

My pro aim and DMR say otherwise

 

[Syntax Error]

Time will tell but easy and maybe normal endgame will probably be soloable, at least that mission will.

As I said upthread, I think that mission could very well be a standard mission and not intended (in the final game) as a group thing. I was just chuckling at MysterD saying "Hey, no problems yet" when he was playing the first handful of levels. Regardless of whether or not the Black Tusk mission in the beta will ultimately be soloable when people reach it after launch, I don't think he soloed it during the beta.