Full price should apply only to remakes. Basic ports with minimal polish - of which this surely is (not even pushed to 60FPS on the PS4 version is shockingly lazy) should barely even be half price.
Bundling almost as old DLC, awesome as Undead Nightmare is, doesn't excuse this.
But that's okay, I got the One X version where Microsoft already did the best they could via their sterling compatibility 4K30 update, so I technically already own this version and have for years.
I'll grab the Switch physical release in about 2-3 years when it's readily available for £10 and they *might* have patched out the inevitable port problems it's going to have.
There's a reason it's taken this long to get anything done with it; the code base for RDR is incredibly fragile, according to the devs who worked on it it is close to breaking apart at all times. It is because they're running out of IP to reshovel they've had to resort to this. Reminds me of George Lucas re-releasing the original Star Wars trilogy umpteen times with only minimal changes.
@deathtroll2: Worse than that, having fan mods pulled which actually, in some cases, do a better job of improving game performance and textures than the crap Rockstar shovel out at minimal cost. GTA Definitive Edition was anything but and for me marked the point at which they lost all credibility.
@joecollin: If you mean Xbox 360, that one was around 720p. The Xbox 360 might have output it to the TV at 1080p but it wasn't rendering it at that. If it had done, the FPS would barely ever have gotten above 20 anywhere lol.
I bet it'll still be only 30FPS and uses some kind of basic barebones texture upscaling/anti-aliasing. No dedicated PS5 version, back compatible only? Smacks of laziness. Something tells me the Xbox One X version is still going to be just as good.
Releasing the physical copy two months after the digital one is a nice way to price gouge people not patient enough to wait for the physical, then wait for the price to drop on that because it sure as heckfire won't come down on the store right away.
Nuts to Rockstar, I'll stick with the One X and PS3 versions I already own, thanks. Shame too, cos I'd love a Switch port but after years of taking the piss with fans (a decade later, no new GTA still, and 5 has released across 3 different console generations shamelessly) they don't deserve our money.
But hey, people still buy COD and FIFA every year right, even though it's shovelling out the same basic thing? Why should Rockstar be any different, right?
I think I see the point of the article in one sense - the Switch and the Steam Deck have their respective niches but it's opened the floodgates for a bunch of "miss the point" devices that aren't as balanced as those two, namely big heavy overly flashy handheld PCs which compromise portability and battery life for power way too much. And require all the games to be tweaked. It's just taking the problems of PC gaming with you everywhere and for me that's a huge turnoff, especially when I already have an OLED Switch and barely use it.
Notable exception but not quite noteable enough to sit beside the Deck and Switch - the Analogue Pocket. The design of that thing is incredible, especially the screen. It's like the Retina display of handhelds, it is actually portable, and if you want a brilliant little emulation station it's got you covered for a lot of things. It doesn't really have it's own platform which puts it out of the running, but it has an identity when so many of the other anonymous handhelds blend into the wallpaper.
All this proves that, as they have been doing for decades, Nintendo can still trailblaze to the point of having imitators especially in the handheld market. Sony looked like they might be able to do the same once with the PSP, but then fumbled it horribly with the Vita (a device I love) and God knows what they're doing with VR and Project Q. Project BS more like, but I digress.
@yearight: Yes I seem to recall an interview with her around the time she first got cast as Black Widow and making a point of the fact her "girls" 🍈🍈 and dying her hair helped her get the role.
Those same "girls" were part of her first scene in the first Avengers movie. The one that made several truckloads of money.
Don't recall her having a problem with being objectified either of those times, just now when she's pushing 40 and in a turkey of a movie. Maybe she should have just carried it off with class and not cared, like Kate Winslet.
I think the real problem here was the fallout of the pandemic making people wary of returning to the cinemas. Oh, and more importantly that the movie really sucked, and didn't really make much money compared to other Marvel movies either via streaming or theatrically.
The script was terrible, the story laughable, and the usual problem of "woke"/"progressive" pandering which includes straight white male bashing and/or the men as clueless buffoons who have to bow down to the almighty "strong, diverse female characters" as The Critical Drinker would put it. [WARNING: NSFW/some bad language, but well worth a watch if that doesn't bother you.]
So... less equality-driven than the 90s, then, where strong male and strong female characters could work side-by-side? It's like the 1950s "get back in the kitchen" misogynistic male attitude towards woman, now gender-flipped and applied to male characters of movies of the past 5 years or so. All men being clumsy comic relief while the women do all the work is both insulting and stupid.
I can't wait to see that Bond movie where they try and recast straight white male Bond as a black woman and it flops - I wonder if that'll be the point where Hollywood realises it's gone way too far with the overcompensatory post-#MeToo bias in their movies to try and appease folks, but I doubt it.
zeke_pliskin's comments