post
It's like the movie industry, now. They only have a job as long as the game is in production, and all they get is the weekly paycheck.
When I was a teenager, I really wanted to work in the video game industry. Really glad I don't. I still want to learn to make video games, but I never want to work for any video game company. Especially any that have been around for say.. 20 years and/or publicly traded.
Yeah, I went to school for it. Never broke in. Ended up with a much better and wayyyy more stable job.
Couldn't imagine trying to get in now that every studio is owned by like ~3 companies.
They did their thing. No use of them anymore :)
He went on: "It is a gross but all too common sight to see, another corporate game hitting the top of Steam while the team is left looking for work and cut off from any possible profit sharing.
And, there it is.
There go my hopes of a post launch performance patch.
The game runs like arse even on a 9070XT.
60-70fps with egregious cutscene pop-in even after the INI engine tweaks mod on a 5090 is criminal.
Game runs fine for me (4070 Super), but I can't play more than 20 minutes without hitting bugs.
I'm not sure I'd say not being able to play longer than 20 min without hitting bugs is "running fine"
Lmao I built my computer 8 years ago, and it was mid tier even then. Runs it just fine. You may need to tweak some settings.
I think we have a very different opinion on what runs fine. I wouldn’t be PC gaming on eight year old hardware. My PS5 and Series X are five years old and I don’t much like how they run modern games.
I’m sure your setup is fine for you but ZCOM has obvious performance issues represented by the Steam user reviews. Ignoring that isn’t truthful.
Okay, what would you like details on?
It runs without stuttering, the controls are responsive, there's no lag. Like, what do you suspect I'm experiencing that I'm not telling you about? I'm unsure what could be different about my set up from all of the people having issues. Perhaps I'm just lucky?
Unions. Not just for blue collars anymore.
All devs should be entitled to royalties
Honestly, I don't understand why any studio wouldn't do this. Not only does it mean you can differ some pay until later effectively (obviously you still need to be competitive, because people don't like gambling with their livelihood), but it actively encourages devs to make the best game possible. If they're just working for a salary, they have no skin in the game. Give them a reason to make the absolute best thing they possibly can make.
This all sounds nice but isn’t the case in any other industry, why should game dev be different?
I made a statement on what they should do, for best results from employees, not on what they actually do. It should also be true for all other industries. I think all company profits should be shared with employees, and ideally owned, if not totally then at least in part, by employees. Give them a stake in the company, and a reason to care about how it's doing, and they'll put more effort in.
The fact this is incomprehensible to the capitalist class isn't surprising though. They view humans as resources (hence the Human Resources Department), not as people with their own wants and desires.
Hollywood perfected royalties. If structured right, you can promise everyone at the company 200% of the games profit and never pay them a cent.
For example, you sell all rights to the game to a shell company owned by the studio's parent for 1¢.
Gamerant is saying the studio was low on funds and facing a $20 million dollar lawsuit from a former exec when the workers were furloughed weeks prior to launch, that dozens of employees have already been brought back, and that Bit Locker is claiming to want to bring the rest back.
This was their first game, and if they do bring back the team members (with back pay) now that the game is a sucess, I would actually be much more understanding.
This game has absolutely horrendous performance problems.
It baffles me that people are rating this higher than games like KOTOR and Republic Commando.
I guess because it’s new? Xcom has s big fan base too
Well the gameplay is very different, and maybe people like the way star wars feels when applied to XCOM type strategy games?
People are not looking at the performance in isolation when rating games.
Performance is a stinking mess but gameplay is a joy. It's not XCOM but it's great in its own right.
Meh, i can tolerate shitty fps and even some stutter on turned based games. It's not ideal but not as much of a deal breaker.
I would still say it's worth buying at least from my personal experience. I'm still really enjoying the game despite the performance but it's probably heavily dependent on your system.
Games having dodgy performance on release is effectively normal now.
It makes more sense to rate based on the gameplay otherwise 99% of releases would be 1 star.
But how likely is any optimisation going to be forthcoming if there's no-one working on it?
Now?
The first video game I ever l played was Pong.
Dodgy performance on release has always been the case. Would like to hear the tale of the Atari ET game?
Being able to remotely update games after release definitely lowered the bar for release considerably.
Im not saying there were no bugs before that, definitely not.
Can't remember any particular performance problems with ET - it's no more flickery than any other 2600 game, sound plays fine, screen changes when you fall in a hole are prompt, all that kind of thing. Now, utterly bizarre and unintuitive gameplay, yes; it has that in spades. Also quite unfinished, but Howard Scott Warshaw only got five weeks to develop it so I'm prepared to point the blame at Atari for that.
That's not really detrimental to a game this like though. Some pop in and occasional hitching isn't going to cause a character death or a missed shot, it's just mildly annoying. It's definitely no kotor, but it's fun as hell.
A wise man once said devs that are afraid of losing their jobs dont go on to make great games. I was going to purchase this game but now ill wait till its on super sale.
What's the point? You can't even enjoy your laurels. Just fucked the minute release hits so they dont have to pay you. Fucked up. Nobody should work for a game corporation.
I think we're approaching a point where games are going to be made like movies.
Teams assembled for one project, everyone does their bit, and are then discarded when they're no longer needed.
Big publishers will probably have a pool of people they can push between projects depending on what's needed. Ubisoft appear to do that, when you look at the credits in their games, there's like 10 subsidiary studios involved. For smaller studios, you'll probably be let go between games until you're needed again. Maybe they'll keep your information and rehire you because you did a good job of hard surface rigging or whatever last time. Maybe they hire an excited school-leaver to sloperate a clanker. Who knows.
Approaching?
AAA has been following that model for a decade.
They don't give a shit about the people that work for them and fire them as soon as it's convenient.
They fire people and allow them to re-apply for their job because then they don't have to pay continued service rewards.
Major difference is that in Hollywood, you don't hire a bunch of, say, VFX artists for a movie, you contract the company that retains them. They'll generally still have jobs when the movie is over. It's mostly just the cast, director and writers that work on a per-project basis. Games industry is somehow worse than Hollywood.
A lot of them do seem to do that. The credits for most games are ludicrously long and thank dozens of subcontracted companies.
I honestly don't think your average AAA studio could even tell you how much AI slop is in their final product. It's not none, and hasn't been for years.
Leveraged buyout. Any dev still on payroll is a liability, and it's not like these guys make Ultimate Team. EA's got a lot of debt to service.
EDIT:
Actually, they might not be wholly owned by EA. I'm uncertain of the relationship here. It could just be that the developer stretched their budget down to the last second, before they're paid out.
Uncertainty around the TTRPG's performance is to blame.
TTRPG does not apply here. They meant it's a tactics game.
The unfortunate reality of it now, like having to keep your CV constantly updated and ready if ever to be laid off at any time. And it's worse than ever.
Yet another certified bruh moment,
The devs keep getting stabbed in the back by evil greedy CEOs
I won’t even buy the game then
You'll be surprised how many Star Wars games got canned in the last two years. I can't really say because of NDAs and don't want anyone in trouble. The whole industry is in trouble.
"the whole industry" lmfao no. Just shitty AAA studios that can't function without a c suite fucking up everything to milk as much profit as possible for their shareholders. Blessings to the indie devs, and fuck the rest of them. Hope they burn and give real studios a chance.
I was considering buying this as a massive fan of XCOM 2.
Was.
I'll just keep playing Cyber Knights: Flashpoint thank you very much.
Check out Xenonauts 2. It's positioned as a spiritual sequel of classic X-COM, rather than modern XCOM, though so there are differences.
Probably the best difference, and I don't understand why modern XCOM did this, is classic and Xenonauts have larger squad sizes. This is huge, because the entire genre is about gambling on actions. If you only have four actions, taking a 50% shot, but potentially being in danger, is an issue. If you have 8+ actions (8 squad members minimum, and you'll often get multiple actions per member), a 50% shot is a lot less risky. It's more about setting yourself up to get many attacks, rather than one perfect attack. There's a lot more opportunities to mitigate risk.
It also has a much stronger strategic game, which I feel is largely lacking in modern XCOM. It's all about tactical battles. This game, in particular, I think is almost entirely tactical battles, with little strategic opportunity, and no strategic layer IIRC.
I actually prefer the smaller squad sizes and more barebones strategic level. Having a more RPG-like structure and more focus on a small number of characters is my jam. I looked at xenonauts, I think it's absolutely amazing for a specific kind of player, and I know that I'm not that specific kind of player.
Menace's solution to this is to basically remove the option for most weapons to miss entirely. A squad in that game is treated like a single unit, the equivalent to an XCOM/Xenonauts soldier. When you attack, it's the same percentage roll applied to every bullet in the burst for each soldier. This means a single attack might have 40 individual dice rolls. The question is not if you hit, it's for how much. Seems like a nice way of solving that issue without adding a whole bunch of units.
Cyber Knights does something similar: an attack with most weapons is a burst with each bullet's chance to hit being individually rolled. This normalizes the chance to hit so it's not all or nothing.
Loved xcom ufo defense. Didn't even bother with the newer games because of the squad size. Xenonaughts is a great recommendation, thanks for being here for us all.
If CEO fire whole team, how will you create a new success?
Good teams are not conodity.
So to reduce time spent looking for new jobs, devs should make sure games take even longer to develop and are in even worse shape at release so they have to hold onto the team for bug fixes.
For anyone who wants this style of game, but doesn't want to support this, Xenonauts 2 released version 1.0 a few months ago. It's trying to be more classic X-COM, rather than modern XCOM, like what this game is copying (and simplifying even more). It's easily the best of the genre I've played, and it'll also run on pretty much any system you've got fine.
Xenonauts 2
Eh, played the shit out of it and happy to give them money. But holy shit is the late game kinda poop.
I haven't played much of XCOM 2 or this game, but the late game of all of these games is usually not the best. Honestly, this is true for most strategy games. How many Paradox games actually make it to the end, for example?
It's essentially something that's impossible to balance in a fair way. Either the game scales automatically to match you, in which case your effort is meaningless, or it doesn't, and it's either trivial or impossible.
I just started a new game recently though. When I last played the end game didn't even exist IIRC, so I can't comment on it.
This one is just a drag even compared to others, there is just something missing altogether vs even old xcom.
Maybe Xenonauts 3 will fix it, or whatever they do next. It's still far better than Modern XCOM, from what I recall. Modern XCOM does some things well, but it's also dumbed down.
Yeah, lets hope. They have a good game, but xeno 1 and 2 are just too much the same game. I found that the big ass suit Koolade manning though was was neat but after 150 times it gets old. Also the balance is really off in Xenonauts 2 I do hope they can do a bit more.
I gave it the 2 hour test run on Linux and I get getting blackscreens and stutter so unfortunately it went to refund town.
I haven't run into any game breaking bugs on PS5 (Pro, at least). It's unfortunate that it seems like PC has had the brunt of the bugs.
I've definitely seen some shadow bugs and texture things, but the game runs smooth for the most part otherwise.
I hope they get a chance to fix the issues.


top 97 comments