Oh BS. No, if you have to SELL a product and an individual who wants it has to look at it and say “Yes, this is something I will spend my own personal money on,” you have to deliever a quality product to get them to make that choice.
If it’s bundled into a thousand other items that a person has access to, you don’t need anywhere near as much polish, especially as it’s easier to appeal to an individual buying agent or small team then it is to appeal to the wider masses of the consumers, and the agent might not even play the game or talk to someone who did.
This, BTW, is also how most government corruption works. You get a ‘friend’ on the inside to ‘arrange’ a contract for you that is very much in your favor and you and your ‘friend’ settle up later. Frequently through intermediates, such as your cousin buying your friend’s brother’s house for 200% over market.
Since 2018, daily average controller use has tripled from ~5% to up to 15% of all sessions
~42% of these controller sessions are using Steam Input (enabling over 300 supported controllers, custom button bindings, and community configurations)
During that time, the controller landscape has changed:
59% of sessions are using Xbox controllers
26% are using PlayStation controllers
10% are on Steam Decks
Steam Decks alone is probably a noticeable bump, and as @Riku pointed out, fighting games, side scrollers, racing+ make up controllers are the likely contributors.
no. idk what you’re going on about, but, again, it comes down to whether or not the creators take enough pride in their work to put in the time and effort to make it great and/or have the integrity to not give into greed if they know they can’t maintain a high standard of quality. no one is forcing anyone to take more money. they’ve decided to take the money because, again, they want to make as much money as possible; that’s why “selling out” is a thing.
if they stretch themselves too thin and aren’t able to keep up to demand, who’s fault is that? the company that just dropped a bunch of money on them? no. it’s the creator’s fault for taking on something they can’t keep up with for the sake of money.
That money either comes from the consumer, or it doesn’t.
If it doesn’t, if it comes from ANYWHERE ELSE, the motivation to please the consumer drops off. Often the motivation is to please someone else, such as the person who controls the money.
IE, You hospital only loosely cares if you are pleased. They care a GREAT DEAL if your insurance company is pleased.
first of all i agree it´d be a genre thing:
fighting games but even resident evil 2 remake and the survival horror genre would be a prime candidate, like darktide and many others, ghost of tsushima etc.
second i´d wager the whole playercount on consoles combines is higher, so people switching to the “greener (144fps) grass” want to keep their input device and are reluctant to re-learn controls.
these combined though aren´t representative of how many use controllers in darktide, the times i´ve been bench warming, the majority was using m&k to various degrees of skill, the obvious had a visible console#number combination in the endscreen.
very very few were steam logo but still moved like your usual controller pattern.
not objective, true, to small a number over a couple thousand matches, true, but i´ve seen what i´ve seen.
There are literally no reasons for not including option to dissable cross-play.
If ever queues becomes to long, one can just disable it, on their own volition.
Wasn’t the lack of option down to a licensing issue, linked with Microsoft and external to Fatshark? Mind’s a bit hazy on the specifics, but I seem to recall it was along the lines of “Microsoft says no”.
So, in terms of good reasons for Fatshark, the business, there’s a pile of green reasons. For the consumer, the player, you’re precisely right. And that kinda sucks. I don’t personally subscribe to the console hate I’ve seen (but I also very rarely play without a pre-arranged team of friends anyway so it’s a somewhat unique viewpoint), but I can still agree that the option to sign out of crossmatching, perhaps with an explicit warning of “your queue times may suffer please think very carefully about this” should be in the players’ hands.
heck, we tried to play SIN coop back in the day and the loading wasnt finished after 30 minutes of walking to the grocery store, stock up on red bull cans and strolling back at a relaxed pace.
I think you can balance it around a controller. I do both controller and MNK on auric and t5. Some people might just be playing above their skill level
there is for fatshark, it places an artifical barrier that limits matchmaking speed. fatshark can’t control how good players are so they focus on making sure runs are filled in the most timely fashion.
Yea I think that’s a fair take on it. I also get the idea of “what would it hurt to have it optional?”. At the end of the day, we are all just trying to play with similar performing people, in general
again, no lol you’re simply not understanding what’s being discussed here. hospitals are either public(aka government owned) or privately owned. comparing a public hospital to a business is pointless, and comparing a privately owned hospital is even more pointless because it’s simply a for-profit company/organization vs another for-profit company/organization lol in that case, your example would support what i’m saying more than what you’re trying to say. if you were to even try to use a hospital at all in this case, you’d have to use a public(government) hospital, which just wouldn’t support your argument at all anymore.
public hospitals are funded by tax payers with the intent of providing service to all segments of the population, regardless of income or a specified demographic. privately owned hospitals are funded by corporations whose intent is to provide a higher level of (quality)service or care for those who can afford it.
if you want to use privately-owned hospitals in this case then sure, let’s do that. a big corporation decides to fund and open their own hospital with the original intent of providing the best service possible at “x amount”. as their profits increase they go, “hey, we can make even more money if we charge more for our services. we can make even more money if we start cutting back on things”. “things” such as staff, equipment, etc.; all this is, AGAIN, done by CHOICE for the sake of money(greed). they want more patients paying their (premium) price because it makes them more money. the shareholders are still considered to be owners of that hospital. if they truly wanted to they could maintain the high quality of service to the masses at cheaper prices; but guess what? that doesn’t get them more money and money is the intent from the start- just like every business.
like i said: at the end of the day, it’s about the money for the vast majority people/businesses and there’s nothing stopping the owners from providing a truly quality product all the time other than greed. you can always make compromises to meet a high standard of quality but money often takes precedence over those goals.
Look into what I said a bit more. You’re going to find out it’s true.
Basically, you aren’t the customer at the hospital, your insurance company is. You are, if anything, the product. Like the service and come back? Great. Don’t? No problem there’s a line. Insurance company has a problem? Oh crap we need to FIX THIS NOW.
Get a doctor in their offtime, they will tell you all about it. Get a few drinks in them and they will tell you how they really wish some patients would just freaking die because they are old and absolutely at death’s door but they or the family hold on beyond reason.
But they will absolutely tell you that you matter less then the company paying the bills.
A government hospital is actually worse, see the VA. Hell, a close family member once had a date with a VA doctor who said he worked there because he could play Frankenstein and never ever fear lawsuits. She ghosted him after that. Such little need to please the patients to the point they could quietly experiment on them.
I’m kind of sorry you’re having this much trouble with understanding indirect funding and it’s effect on the motivation to please the end user. Indirect economics / money moving around in novel ways is currently dominating the world, from politics to products, and it’s honestly why so many things are so very, very bad.
And while it’s true that they COULD, on pure pride, still put the work in, we’ve ample proof that such is extremely rare quality in individuals and companies.
If Fat Shark is able to maintain it’s funding it’ll have even less motivation to make the changes the players have been demanding for years and they have quite clearly not wanted to make. If they needed to sell the game to individuals it would matter more then selling it to some manager who wants to increase his catalog by 15% and doesn’t ever play it.
