Lets discuss Far Cry Primal

Back when Far Cry Primal was announced, I was so very confused. So soon? What's the new theme going to mean? Is it a full game? Those were all answered, but the confusion still sits with me. Then something happened to remind me not to take the internet all that seriously. In between the confusion, and optimism, somewhere down the line people felt they knew the game so well as to instantly start absolutely hating on it for the same reasons they did  pre-released Far Cry 4 ("Ew, its a reskin"). Well exactly as I predicted, what they were really doing with Far Cry 4 was improving and adding over top of a game everyone loved. Turns out it worked, it was great, and in fact tied for my GOTY 2014 spot as an incredible experience compared to the FC3 entry I felt mixed about. However... Primal is still weird. Its taking that same idea in a different direction. Its still building and adding, but its also going hard on a far different theme and thus also taking out things and recontextualizing lots of the foundation. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but this close to release, its got me well enough as to hold off of Dying Light (yet again) and ponder on it a bit. I thought I really wanted to think out loud some more on it and post all the weird, good, and bad I'm finding in this.

The good...

This is just great

Well have you seen the premise!? Its about damn time! For a good long while I've been one of those weird guys that occasionally sits off to the side while people discuss WW2 vs modern military shooters and I try to say "What about romans, knights, or any old civil wars?". I don't believe we should be as trapped to settings as our mediums (not just games, but pretty much everything short of books love to cling to a couple of settings or themes). We have such a rich history, a massive planet, such interesting and unique artists from different cultures, and so many different interests that its just plain stupid to get hung up on rehashing the same settings over and over again. So to hear someone bringing out a game set, and well established in a pre-historic setting under the frame of a first person action game is nothing short of an amazing occurrence. I also strongly emphasize this is framed over a first person action game, not some lame puzzle platformer, or some loosely labeled adventure game restricting you, but its an entire world you're seeing through and controlling like you're actually there. Immersion, presence, and input are all established in this fresh, uncharted territory. Without even talking much about it, this is already a huge thing to thank the developers for and a strong reason to look optimistically at this product.

So how do you turn a first person shooter into a pre-historic game without guns? Well the bow and arrow is a good start, then there's throwing spears, but it mostly comes down to some fictional liberties and melee combat. I think it'd be fair enough to just ditch the label FPS at this point. Instead they've gone out of their way to re-invent or even completely add new elements. Animals can now be tamed and added to a pool of animals you can sort of collect and then summon forward, changing the field of battle through their pros & cons. You've got an entire new dimension of combat to learn through them, essentially figuring out which of your furry pals does what and where they'll be best suited. Plus it sounds like each weapon can have a ranged variant with its own effect, like clubs being stun based throwing weapons.

Better than a pistol

Other things have been added and omitted entirely, some of which is really good. The hunting and wildlife has supposedly been more enhanced with predator and pray being more of a focus, you can track animals, and even pit animals up against each other. Radio towers that people got fed up with are ditched completely, with fog of war and outposts (bonfires) playing over their elements instead. While I don't know a lot about it (as I want some surprises) there's also a tribe system at play. Previous events where you walked around and bumped into a hostage event now come off as more of an AC:brotherhood style rescue to get new people at your aid. They will end up contributing to some higher cause to help you in the end.

The bad...

Disappointment?

People are all bashing it in for being a "reskin". Somehow even when you do a completely rare (if not just outright ignored) setting, you change one of the basic principles of the genre, and you add entirely new features or recontexualize everything, its still somehow considered the same game. WOW internet. Still despite their shallow perception that's so unexplained and out of the left field that its no wonder Ubisoft doesn't take internet feedback very seriously, there's actually still a grain of truth to it. Its a tiny grain, but its there and comes with some doubts. For starters... what the hell is with the melee system? It looks exactly the same as before. You run up to people and either hack at them until the splat down, or it connects into some kind of excessive chain animation. You know what would be nice for a melee centric game with no guns? How about a melee system with some actual effort put into it. Its lazy re-implementation of the same melee system because it seems easier to do that and get inventive with non-melee methods, than to actually make melee combat something special. That's a real shame.

Of course, then there's just the fact that some inconsistencies come into play. They oddly enough wanted to make the game so realistic that you can't have dinosaurs or an actual language, yet they apparently don't mind owl recon bombers. Yes, owl recon bombers. Oh and you're the one flying them thanks to what I think is some kind of shaman given power. Yeah, that's waaaaay more of a stretch in logic compared to "we wanted dinosaurs, because we think that makes games fun!" or "well they speak English because a lot of people hate being stuck reading subtitles". Even for the sake of fun, owl bombers is a bit... weird. Wanna know why its there? Well, it seems like tradition is why. Far Cry 3 and 4 took off loving and inspiring other games to integrate in a recon system before you sneak about. By taking you back before history, you tend to lose actual recon equipment. So what do they do? Well animals was an inventive companion system, so they decided to make super birds that make it somehow even easier than a telescope. Its a seemingly automatic sky vision scope that sure does the job way easier and less interesting than a scope ever did.

Oh and about animal companions, did you know taming them is as easy as throwing them meat and pressing square? Yeah, reminds me why AAA is slipping away from the vocal favor of gamers. They don't want us to have to think, or try anything interesting or it might scare away the masses. If it can be answered with a context prompt, then so be it. Such a huge missed opportunity to sit there and decide beast taming was left up to a one button push and an abundance of meat. Its clear they want to do something special, and flesh out various areas for it, but they seem terrified to take anything too far. In the end, they want you to feel amazing for doing so little. away from FC3's first idea of putting a rookie in front of a gun and having him be just amazing while his military trained brother dies at the start. Its funny to think this is the same franchise that introduced a unique concept as gun jamming at one time. They had to change that, but now they're on this kick of empowering the player. That's fine, but only if you empower their ability, rather than do it by limiting their actions. Here, its limiting their actions to make earning any animal a cake walk.



*sigh* Really guys!?

Finally, the last thing I wanted to moan a bit about, is actually what they didn't copy from the other games. Some of us actually want sequels to improve by keeping/improving the good, weird right? I guess I just want a bigger "reskin"? Anyways for a full launching $60 game with roughly the same looking world size and campaign, we're losing the multiplayer and map editor, as well as the co-op multiplayer. Now the PvP multiplayer sounds fine. I mean they pretty much screwed over the loyal community twice, and don't seem to be in a hurry to fix stuff, so might as well just stop wasting money on it. Its especially complicated when you change the entire theme to something that just wouldn't work... again, mostly because the melee isn't very functional. However the map editor is a franchise staple and was very close to perfection. They had a great MP one in far cry 2 & 3 that was loved, then an amazing single player or co-op variant in FC4. So it was getting real good, and now without MP, there was less to worry about adding. Nope, its just not happening, and I can't seem to find any reason why. I really tried to look into that one, couldn't find it. Yet FCP's team is calling this a full project, and a serious game. There's even a $70 version, so you could technically be paying more for less. I wasn't big into anything extra but the map editor, but this is still just a bad value and I feel it must be noted. I loved FC4's multiplayer, but again I can tolerate its absence. The map editor? That especially strikes me as a bad sign. These were one of the only guys that did it (but thanks for securing the future Doom), it was a loved feature, and now there's this smaller compact game that is showing up faster and charging the same without it? Seems like they decided to cut it all out to push FC near an annual status, and I have that nagging feeling we wont see it come back now. In the end the game truly does look like it should be slightly off the normal price, not raising or meeting it.

Conclusion...

In the end, I don't know whether Primal is a wise investment for me. If I take it in, it'll probably be over Dying Light. Maybe I can rent one or the other and figure something out. However on the whole, the situation reminds of almost like what people say about indies, except this is more of a AAA alternative. Instead of a small group making a tiny unique project on a budget, Ubisoft seems to be using Far Cry 3's formula and engine as a cheap base to make a still fairly expensive experiment. There's a lot of refreshing ideas and thoughts put into it, and I bet there's some good heart to it all, but they're still sitting there trying to make sure this thing sells to the masses to make it worth their marketing time. They're still trying to put out another big open world game, and still following various formulas they think tick the boxes off for mass consumers. However there's still just an undeniable charm of something special and different in place... well, okay I guess undeniable to sane individuals, but I'm trying my hardest not to take the "ew, reskin! My grandma could have modded this and made it free." crowd seriously.

Far Cry has normally been getting increasingly better for me as it goes on starting from 2 (1 is in its own territory of awesomeness and flaws). Far Cry 2 was fun, but got dull as it went along. Far Cry 3 was overrated and had some frustrating nitpicks, but was still a lot of fun and I finished it. Blood dragon was crazy cheesy fun, but felt a tad bit too short and underbaked to take very seriously (Oh and that was an actual reskin, but don't tell the internet, they loved Blood Dragon the most). Then Far Cry 4 happened. I ignored the idiots who just cried about it being Reskinned DLC quality, and for very good reason. Far Cry 4 turned out to not only fixed everything I hated about 3, but it kept giving me more and more surprises and fascinating additions. It gave us arenas, dynamic firefights and hostage rescues, sidequests that had context, environmental story telling that made the world feel like more than a hallow sandbox, the story and choices were great, the stealth so well-tuned that I can consider it among action stealth games like Dishonored & MGS, the separate mystic campaign was fun, and the map editor simply amazing and perfectly accessible. It was a blast, and became my GOTY for that year technically (but barely) beating the Wolfenstien game I spent so much time telling people would be the best thing ever. I consider it not only amazing, but honestly its one of the best if not THE best and most content stuffed FPS games you can get on current systems even now to this day.

However I think that's where the improvements end, and as I look at Primal I'm having a hard time seeing it beat that. It doesn't seem to have the same character to it, lacks all the side activities that caught my eye, we know it lacks everything outside the main campaign, then there's just that inconsistency. When I saw FC4 I knew what it was doing and I cheered it on, and was still amazed and surprised by it. When I see FCP, I think they're truly confident and all, but I get that same feeling people do with a new IP... we don't know where it'll go ourselves, and we only have the base ideas and know there's likely some clumsy flaws left in the way. This probably wont be a killer full blown sequel, and its kind of sad that something as good as FC4 will probably stay at FC4. Maybe it doesn't need to be though. I'll still judge it as its own thing, and hopefully it'll turn out fine. Heck, maybe its theme will somehow lend it to just being more fun at its core and it wont need the extras to beat FC4. Who knows?

Is it fun in its own way though?

The part of me that really wants this would love it for a lot of reasons. The unique setting, a whole new world to explore full of shamans and tribal conflicts, the novelty of various animal companions that fight at your side (as well as just the full bestiary that such a system would need), and of course what few fun things may be left to surprises like the tribal system and learning how to cope with the weird setting's unique traits. Maybe the night time is really fun since it takes a bit from those survival games now? Heck I just recently found out you can set a furry animal on fire, and that's just... strangely satisfying to think of trying in a game. On the other hand, there's a part of me that's just annoyed with some things and I'm not sure that's a good sign this early. I'm annoyed with some shallow systems I can clearly see, and question certain other priorities. I mean a lot of it comes down to that comparison again where you have incomprehensible voice work, yet owl bombs. Seeing voices thrown out the window removes a lot of the eccentric characters, and strong voice work the series has had going for it lately, as well as just the typical annoyance that comes with being glued to subtitles. In the previews already I'm sometimes feeling a disconnect with the words and the actions because once you read their story bits, you're left waiting for them to act and wondering where the proper timing for it was supposed to go. Meanwhile I can't help but feel like I'm losing some of their visual personality because I'm focused on the bottom of the screen rather than their hand and face gestures, which look really important when I do see them. Yet despite all that trouble and risk for something authentic, they want to make recon even stupidly easier as a substitute for lacking the scope? Oh and beast taming is just a joke. That's just... not even fun, why did they do that? Moves like that are just frustrating to see, and I can't help but wonder about the game. Will I overcome the lame super-conveniences like one button animal taming, and generic "survival vision" #46 in order to enjoy throwing a club across an outpost, or am I better off slogging through Dying Light's similar set of pros & cons? I just don't know. We'll find out soon enough. I really hope it does end well though, because it would be a real shame to see this concept go to waste.

Its still up in the air...

When the bytes bite...

 

 

So guess what? Recently Treyarch has announced their Black Ops 3 DLC is pretty much coming out and ready via an update patch. News story can be found here (along many other places) on the matter. My response, I'm going to admit, is impulsive as can be. Take this article with a grain of salt (and expect it a little less organized) if you want, but this really just was the last straw for me. I'm actually deleting this game and possibly even selling it. Yes, selling it. I don't usually sell games, don't trade them, don't get ripped off on the deal, but as it is now I feel like my $40 (yup got it on sale, still feeling stung now) is resting barely spent with this game and now I may be looking at something I'll never play again because of this patch. To me, green paper looks like it'll get me closer to entertainment than this game could thanks to this latest move. Ebay looks like they can give me $30-ish or maybe even $40 if I'm lucky with it, and right now I feel like I'll take that over the slim chance that I'll set this back up as a fully functional game in the near future. So you might be wondering though, why am I so angry over an update? Why am I angry that they're giving us more content via DLC? Well its actually got nothing to do with the DLC existing, and very little to even do with Black ops 3 itself, its rather just about the way everything has unfolded into this one very, very, very inconvenient little situation. Its not about it adding to this game, but rather what its doing to take away from everything else by forcibly adding this in. The problem that possibly upsets me the most, is that this isn't something I'm just going to fix by selling black ops 3, rather its a problem because its happened to various amazing games and its going to keep happening unless just maybe more speak up about it. Black Ops 3 is just one that works extra hard to tick the boxes which upset me.

To make this more practical since I still haven't directly said what was upsetting me, we're talking about space, memory, convenience, installation, content, and just generally getting to the game you want... and the fact that with every single new generation, it would appear its getting worse. This update is one of a few cases where it just crushes things for me. I'm not big into COD. I like it, I thought for $40 I'd get a good kick out of it, there was a lot of content worth enjoying, and its something I know anybody around me can jump in and enjoy (I bought this around the time I replaced my stock controller, thus had co-op capabilities). After playing it for the first 4-5 days after the purchase, I mostly put it down. I still came back as recent as the 31st of January to play some dead ops arcade 2 and a bot match. I mostly do kind of that. I get on, I play some bots, I leave. That's typically my COD experience beyond the first week, but it really does scratch that itch of a good quick dumb fun bot arena. Unfortunately this one in particular is built poorly so that you need to be connected to receive a lot of even the most trivial of features, like gun painter (relevant later). I took a big risk this time, because now more than ever it takes up some big space. 50GB at launch, and I estimated around 6gb more for fixes. That's a huge game space. I could fit two ubisoft open world games, MGSV, tons of indies, or about three remasters within that space. However its just something that happens, occasionally one of the big AAAs throws a big 50GB at you, or so close that a patch puts it there. Typically, I have about two games per that size installed at a time. It just takes up THAT much, and obviously there's got to be room for capture footage from those games as well. I still want other games out there installed to choose from, so I don't have a PS4 full of 50GB games, and honestly I've been scraping by on space for a long time now. I usually have to delete something to put another thing on, even if I technically have the space for it (I'll talk more about that later, it is very relevant to some of the problems). I didn't get until about two years into owning the PS3 (120GB slim model) for this to happen to me, and that was also at a time where I got more games put on the system thanks to my dad also owning and buying games that we shared with each other. So... things are definitely harder on space.



This was supposed to be a better experience...

Naturally as a casual player of COD, I expected at some point to remove COD for an install later. I haven't yet, but knew it would happen one day. However... I didn't expect to load it up with a 14GB waiting time AFTER the base install. Sure I can still play whatever worked out of the disc without that, but there are two problems with that 1) Thanks you "known shippable" bugs and AAA for releasing more buggy games than ever into the public that almost need patches to play right. 2) Everything online related is shut down until you're patched up. For an online focused game like COD, especially with artificially constructed locked off features like the freakin' emblem maker of all things, you can't enjoy all of what you paid for until that patch is done. Even to a hardcore fanatic that never deleted this off their system and plays online daily, its 9GB worth the time wasted versus just downloading it off to the side after you paid for the DLC while you play some normal matches like you should be able to do in a sane world. So I'm complaining about a 60-ish Gigabyte game that tests your patience if you dare to delete it or get in on it late, is that all? Well no. In case it wasn't already obvious, people are pissed that teams like this are forcing this DLC content on everybody while still charging you for it.

 Furthermore, its worth taking a step back when looking at this. We've got an entire $60 game crammed with a ridiculous amount of content inside it ranging from 8+ multiplayer maps, a zombie map, dead ops arcade 2, a full campaign, a remix of the campaign, runner mini-game, cut-scenes, all the voice acting and sounds in the entire game, 30+ weapons with tons of attachments and skins, and of course all the base programing that works every single one of those things. It all comes in around the full force of a bluray disc at 50GB (I think technically 47GB or so). Now what are we getting from the DLC? 4 maps. I'm hearing conflicting reports that it might be 5 plus zombies, or 4 including zombies, but that shouldn't be a big difference either way. It ends up being 9GBs. That's nearly 1/5th of the base game. To be fair, one of those maps is a zombie map which definitely has a lot more content than just some normal MP arena, but its got no damn right to be declaring its about 1/5th of the base game in size. This isn't anything new really. By this logic, why are network patches now 2GB? Why did AC Unity need an 8GB patch near the first day for its fixes? And don't say its because it was just that buggy, because The Witcher 3 was fantastic before it patched some extra bugs and minor features with a size that literally doubled their whole game. This isn't reflective of the content they're fixing, its just that these patches are horribly optimized. When another one comes, and another one comes, and another one comes, they all add up. Then you're telling me you're forcing DLC we may not even buy on top of this!? Yeah, I get pissed about it. Oh and as for black ops 3, that means we're probably looking at the game ending at around 80-90GB of space. Yeah you thought I was just complaining about 4 maps? Nope, I got the future in mind to, but Black Ops 3 sure doesn't care about your future since it might easily eat up 1/5th of your entire console's harddrive without any care in what else you wanted to do with that space.

The little known team behind Hardware Rivals finally clued us in as to the optimization case when they decided to hurry a patch out near the launch. They remarked that it doubled the size of the (small) game because of its timing.... and like most patches, it didn't actually fix everything as they later patched it again to fix more matchmaking issues. However that patch was smaller and yet included more gameplay relevant content. It all came later after some resting time, feedback, etc. Unless the first one had some major overhaul deep inside it, this perfectly proves that optimization and patience goes a long way to trim this stuff down even if its new content. Killzone Mercenary on the Vita had a similar case, hurrying out a day one patch that took up over 1GB, and they apologized for it, updated it way more, and by the end everything (including added content) was compressed into around 500mb. Yes that's right, optimizing this stuff is the difference between a massive annoying download for little simple fixes, versus entire game changing content alongside fixes that rolls in at what could be just a little bigger than the save file of a modern open world game. Of course I don't expect that to always be the case, especially since we're talking about a vita versus PS4 game there, but you get the idea that optimization goes a long way. Again, Witcher 3 wasn't exactly handing you an extra copy when they decided to hand out a game doubling patch. Actually you know what, let that sink in. I pick on COD for breaking the straw, but Witcher 3 is another unbelieveable case. In the same world we have Killzone Merc rushing out a 1.5GB patch and apologizing for it with a massive compression later, we have a massive open world game like Witcher 3 that manages to make more patches in total that eclipse the very game size itself (mostly in one patch) without any of that being major gameplay content.

Got a potion for this mess Geralt?

The major difference though that upsets me here is that Witcher 3 is an open world RPG, and COD is a multiplayer FPS. One is a game you get sucked into, and then you're finished with by credits (I'm not that focused, but a major majority are and I'm still not settled with it yet). The other is something you may just wait to have friends over, or play to kill some time.... or are completely addicted to. COD is made from the ground up to be very accessible, appeal to a wide audience, but also kind of servers as the master of nothing. COD really isn't likely to be the blood and backbone of your gaming, and you'll want to be playing more alongside it, or may not even want to be actively playing it at all. A guy like me has other things I like to enjoy. If I decide an occasional dip is worth the money, and I want to play it occasionally, that should be fine and done. Its straight forward capitalism. Well guess who is suddenly locked out and feeling cheated of their money when we're looking at a future in which it might take me 30GB+ of download just to play a match with a friend, or to get a quick fix of some fast paced TDM fun, but I got to wait on a patch that downloads three expansions I don't even own. Its not just me though, it effects everybody. It effects the guy that just bought the game late and is finally getting in on it only to be met with a huge wall. It effects the people who have data caps. It effects fans who have had a tough day and just want to get home and play a simple match. It effects the milder fan who bought Witcher 3, runs home happy, and then is forced to sit in front of a screen asking him to delete one of his favorite COD games or else he can't enjoy this new game, then he has to sit there frowning in front of a download page as one game that does this scummy thing is deleted to make way for another that does this thing, converting the entire joy of getting a new game into complete frustration. This is bullshit.

Don't give me any of this "its the cost of higher technology" dribble either, a lot of this is in how things are being made or rushed with too many outliers and inconsistencies lingering for me to buy into that talk. Yes memory requirements get bigger, I know and accept that. However things are not going well from various angles, and unoptimized rushed patches for buggy games are just the start. A lot of the supposed excuses behind this fall flat when you look at those that come from outside the norm, or put in the extra effort. Nintendo is running PS3 grade stuff without any of the hassles PS3 went through at the time, but if you talked to devs and sony that made you install games its because the "loading speed needed it". This was also evident by the end of the life cycle, nearly every game just ran off the disc just fine like Bioshock infinite, big shock: they didn't need to install big MBs or GBs to run. Xbox one isn't able to run games before PS4 can, even though they're mostly the same systems, that's because of the way they were built rather than because it had to. I could go on and on, and I originally did, but I'm detracting from my main point by lingering on similar issues. My point is that I believe the tech is screwed up because of carelessness, its not a requirement for the future. This memory hogging comes from bad optimization, the DLC is forced on us because of idiot decisions, games leaped in massive sizes even from their superior computer counter-parts with no stated reason, and games are forcing installs even from the disc because the systems were made to do that whether it was really needed or not. Then there's the fact that the memory inside the very system itself is a false reading, as well as the required space to install a game. The space you need to install a game is double of what it says. So if you have a game that is 20GB, it needs around 40GB to even bother trying to put itself on your system... that even includes games that don't actually need that data but just install it by force. Its something in the system itself that just doesn't even bother to even begin copying over that data if there isn't WAAAAAAAY more than enough available. I could kind of be okay with this in downloads, but this is just stupid when its coming right off the disc. Then sometimes you have to restart the system before it can recognize the space was free if you actually delete enough. Again, that's not the cost of super sophisticated technology, everybody's computer can delete content with an active memory update. Then it changes (even if incrementally) a lot of times you check the memory storage, even if there's been nothing changed. While we're on the topic of incompetent design, lets not forget the fact that this are the guys that knew this was coming and yet choose to ship us 500GB in every model for a good length of time.

So forgive me if I'm not playing ball with the idea that this is the way things need to be. I'm pissed about this, and I either want solutions or at the very least honest explanations as to why consoles or games are being made this way. ...and heck, honestly if this truly, really is all a result of advancing technology... well, I didn't ask for it to this extent. Take Black ops 3 back down to lower textures, less particles, and 720p resolution if you must, I just want to be able to pop it in and enjoy it when I want to. It doesn't exactly use current gen for anything spectacular, its just more COD with a good mix of balances, tweaks, and lots of content. Its a shame I have to make room for a freight train just to play some Dead Ops Arcade 2 once in a while.



Looking at it in 1080p < Playing it at my convenience

Basically to try and bring this all to a close, I'm mad with how things have progressed, and I'm not sure why we wait until a giant clunky update to make a small complaint that gets lost. I'm done with that. Its literally to the point where memory space is a buying factor to my games. This happened some in last gen, but its far worse here and now. Now its actually to the point where its not just a buying factor, but a contributing factor to deteriorating a game I bought and want to enjoy. Meanwhile I have to look at a big AAA game and think to myself "Which game can I swear off for a while in order to play this one? Will that be enough?" ...only the problem is, I guess you also have to be a medium that sees into the future and knows what kind of updates they'll role out for it. That in mind, the bugs, the push for certain online games, and oh yeah maybe even the thread of episodic games people are talking about, it seems like games are using advanced technology and rising costs as an excuse to ignore proper releases. Convenient gaming that you just buy and enjoy is becoming very rare, and at this rate I wouldn't be surprised if the next game that you want to enjoy is forcing you to make a schedule just to enjoy it for a little if you're not already forced into that position. You'll need to number crunch each game's memory use, provide space for upcoming pieces of it, pay maybe double on the season pass just to make sure you don't get cut off from the community or friends, hope that you're able to keep good internet access day in and day out for when you want to play it, hope that PSN's servers didn't collapse playing red light green light with itself again, and that the random matchmaking puts you in a match that gives you what you wanted from the game. If you check all that off your list and it stays consistent, then maybe you'll be able to play the game the way you want it on your own time. Oh and you want to know what adds the sweet icing on this little issue? The fact that after I started this article, and before I finished it, the servers for the game went down around the new DLC launch. Its fixed now, but I feel like the point stands. Thankfully, I don't feel like I'm simply rabid mad anymore; I don't need to rock the boat when the captain of the ship is drunk and doing a fine job of that himself.

Don't take this the wrong way. I'm grateful for a lot of the great games out there on the PS4, a lot of the fun times I have had, and the true improvements made. My aim isn't to scare you away from newer consoles, but rather to ask why we're stuck on this crappy two steps forward and one back method of travel. Its not even just about the consoles themselves, but a multi-problem escalation of various poor decisions that don't respect the very market that's supposed to be buying this stuff for some fun time. Meanwhile the funny thing is that in the end, the one lot that is totally clear of all this flak are the same guys I expected to drag us further into this crap: Indies & indie-likes. They had to be sold through digital retail, which meant mostly fixed prices, full downloads, and you never really knew if they used the tech right due to resources. Now they're pretty much the only guys doing anything right, and even if its simply by comparison their download nature is a blessing when you realize their entire game is about the length of a AAA game's patch, or even less (actually, its almost always less in my experience). They've had more frequent sales, they release complete and polished enough, and they're usually games you can pile onto your HDD drive and just load up and play on your own time with no hassle. The very worst case is that maybe there's some small online integration with leaderboards that stalls you if your connection isn't working well. The way things are going, I'm kind of in the mood to ponder if another games crash on the AAA side of things would be good or not. Probably not, but again... its just one of those moments where you're just fed up with the way things have been going. I hope something changes for the better soon, because... well it really is a shame that I've actually got to think about selling a game to salvage its value, simply because its been updated into a situation I don't think I can handle.