https://www.pcgamer.com/helldivers-2-drops-to-mixed-reviews-on-steam-but-more-people-than-ever-are-playing/
The server issues and broken matchmaking haven't stopped players from diving in.
This is clearly terminid propaganda and I will be reporting all helldivers who do not reccomend to the ministry of truth!
But being serious, the game is amazing, solo, with randoms (a patch released today that fixed matchmaking with randoms) or with friends but the servers make it unplayable if you can only play at peak times, if you are outside of the USA (like me) you can check https://steamdb.info and chances are, if it is anytime from 12-17:30 UTC, the queue is only about a minute and the player count will be at a low point.
But, even the CEO of arrowhead, the developers, are telling people to not buy the game.
If they haven't removed the atrocious GameGuard anticheat, then I won't be buying it. They could have picked another AC and they decided to pick one of the worst ones.
I mean, he's not telling people to not buy the game. He just said if you're strapped for cash it won't hurt to wait.
Nah, he's saying they don't have the capacity to support all the players, so anyone who could better use that money somewhere else should just wait, since they won't have a good time right now anyway.
Surprisingly based.
Genuine question (I haven't played it): If it's a co-op PvE game, what reason could there be for not having the option of client-side hosting? You wouldn't need to have a queue and have lower requirements for server maintenance. You could play on official servers or community servers.
Because it's a live service game and has GMs who adjust in-game events in real time. Everybody is playing in the same world, which requires everyone on one server. The world and story adjust based on what all players accomplish.
That's pretty fuckin nifty. Wave shooters aren't really my thing, I burned out on L4D and DRG pretty quick, but this one will probably have some future consideration. Love the armor as well, big destiny vibes.
Because it’s both tactical and strategic co-op. That’s part of why a lot of people like it - if you’re playing the game, you’re helping the fight.
Because if you have to play on their servers, they have more opportunities to upsell you on microtransactions.
This is Socialist Robot propaganda! You have been reported to my local ministry of truth office scum.
I refuse to buy co-op games that have the online requirement/live service bullshit. It's only done to sell you battle passes and shit.
Dismissing out of hand is the same kind of blindness as buying without checking the reviews. You can get the premium currency through play and there's no time limit to the "battle passes". It's about as good as it could be implemented.
No, dismissing because of shitty monetisation is great. It could not be implemented in the first place.
Buying a game without reading reviews is like buying a game with these shitty monetisation schemes.
Did you read his response at all? I'm a third of the way through the current battle pass, which does not have a premium track, and I've only played for a couple days. No money spent except for buying the game initially for less than a standard AAA price.
The game could also just not have a battle pass. How are people already so indoctrinated into their existence? No paid games should have extra monetisation in.
It's literally just a progression system. The pass never goes away, the paid currency doesn't even correlate with pass progress. It's literally just a progression system.
This is Socialist Robot propaganda! You have been reported to my local ministry of truth office scum.
I think I want to like it more than I like it.
The loop is just pretty dull. The stakes never really feel that high.
Totally understand why some people dig it though, especially those playing with pals.
And yeah, can you imagine buying a ticket to see a film and being told there's not enough room in the cinema, so stand outside and just wait. I'm not sure that's a great experience.