Remedy provides updates Max Payne remake and Control sequel

Shawn Knight

Posts: 15,218   +192
Staff member
In brief: Remedy Entertainment as part of its third quarter earnings report provided an update on the progress of some of its most anticipated projects including remakes of the first two Max Payne games.

Remedy developed the first two games in the popular neo-noir third-person shooter series, Max Payne (2001) and Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne (2003). The original was one of the first games to feature the flashy bullet-time effect made popular by The Matrix a few years earlier. Max Payne 3 would not arrive until 2012 courtesy of Rockstar, and lacked much of the tone and style that defined the earlier entries.

In mid-2022, Remedy revealed it was remaking the first two games to take advantage of modern hardware. They are being developed as a single title for PlayStation 5, Xbox Series, and PC, and will utilize the proprietary Northlight game engine. The surprise announcement generated so much interest that it crashed Remedy's investor website.

In its third quarter report, Remedy said the remake has progressed to the production readiness stage. The developer noted they have gained clarity on the style and scope of the game, but stopped short of announcing a release date or pricing.

Another highly anticipated project, Control 2, is not quite as far along. Remedy said this project is still in the proof-of-concept stage and that they expect it to remain in this state for at least another few quarters. "The plans for this sequel are ambitious, and we have seen good progress both in the designs and in the game build," the developer added.

Control arrived in 2019 for PS4, Xbox One, and Windows. The paranormal action-adventure game was later ported to additional platforms and received two paid expansions. Control 2 was officially announced last November and is being co-developed with 505 Games.

Remedy Entertainment's latest release, Alan Wake II, hit the scene last week and is off to a solid start. The PS5 version currently has a score of 89 on Metacritic with a user score of 8.6 out of 10. Pricing is set at $49.99 over on the Epic Games Store.

Permalink to story.

 
I really enjoyed 2.... I haven't played it in such a long time that if they did some upgraded graphics but the same game I'd pay $10-15 for it. If they add more REAL content like, extending the story or adding alternative paths, on top of updated graphics I would pay a little more. However if they just tweak graphics and don't add anything fun or useful and charge $40+ then forget it.
 
Nice.I waited so long for this moment.I'm usually cheap when it comes to buying games but have no problem when it comes to games like this or FARCRY, CRYSIS, HALF-LIFE, FEAR etc.
 
Why not drop 3 in there with just a res bump and call it a trilogy

3 was the last game I completed….of any videogame
 
Curious to see if future Remedy games are EGS exclusive as well (like AW1 Remaster and AW2) or if they're published by a third party and either do the temporary exclusivity or launch on all PC stores.

No beef against EGS with AW2, they put up the money to publish AW2 and they get to keep the title as exclusive to their store as they want, but I personally am off the multiple launcher merry-go-round.

I am most heavily invested in the Steam ecosystem so I've decided purely for my own convenience that if stuff doesn't launch on Steam I just won't bother with it.
 
Curious to see if future Remedy games are EGS exclusive as well (like AW1 Remaster and AW2) or if they're published by a third party and either do the temporary exclusivity or launch on all PC stores.

No beef against EGS with AW2, they put up the money to publish AW2 and they get to keep the title as exclusive to their store as they want, but I personally am off the multiple launcher merry-go-round.

I am most heavily invested in the Steam ecosystem so I've decided purely for my own convenience that if stuff doesn't launch on Steam I just won't bother with it.
Honestly, it's not the multiple launchers that annoy me, it's the practice of paying off developers to make it exclusive that annoys me.

I do find it somewhat a benefit that it goes EGS first though, when it gets to Steam in 6 months, it's patched quite well and some games get free DLC bundled in (Borderlands 3 for example) so it kinda just makes EGS buyers beta testers for me.
 
Best game ever the remake good idea.

90' years classic revenge hero story but here real reason killing all family child and wife.
So badly the movie not good but always making all director the another story.
 
I am most heavily invested in the Steam ecosystem so I've decided purely for my own convenience that if stuff doesn't launch on Steam I just won't bother with it.

I get it... Steam just works, and is pretty damn solid and very convenient, we don't need it - it is not a requirement to run software and nor should it be. But that also supports Valve creating a monopoly, which they almost did. In the end, WE DON'T NEED AN EFFING LAUNCHER! What happened to just having the shortcut to the damn executable on the desktop??? The game itself can offer updates, but we should be able to opt-out. I just wish launchers and stores for that matter would go away or be alternative options. We should still be able to just run the damn game by itself.
 
I get it... Steam just works, and is pretty damn solid and very convenient, we don't need it - it is not a requirement to run software and nor should it be. But that also supports Valve creating a monopoly, which they almost did. In the end, WE DON'T NEED AN EFFING LAUNCHER! What happened to just having the shortcut to the damn executable on the desktop??? The game itself can offer updates, but we should be able to opt-out. I just wish launchers and stores for that matter would go away or be alternative options. We should still be able to just run the damn game by itself.
Without updates you won't be able to use newly added features or even launch new dlcs.
Takes games like Ark for example, it had a million updates till it got officially released.
The advantages of having an app that takes care of the games outweighs all disadvantages
 
Without updates you won't be able to use newly added features or even launch new dlcs.
Takes games like Ark for example, it had a million updates till it got officially released.
The advantages of having an app that takes care of the games outweighs all disadvantages
Games could offer the updates from within the executable, or have a separate update executable. Either way, a launcher is not required. We never used to have them before and could still update games.

Can it be more convenient to have a launcher? Sure... sometimes, but with DRM protections among other crap breaking games it is very frustrating. I miss simpler times I suppose but some things were just better because they didn't harass the crap out of you back when we didn't have full always on internet access.
 
I miss simpler times I suppose but some things were just better because they didn't harass the crap out of you back when we didn't have full always on internet access.
Nostalgia has really got you there. It definitely wasn't simpler.
You had to backup your game files, and different games stored them in different folders in different ways.
Installing a game was actually slower and required four CD's so you had to sit there and manually change the disks.
Getting updates was finding the update file on the internet and manually installing it and praying it worked since sometimes they did things like, only recognise the default install location, installed your game on the D:\ drive? Tough luck, updates won't apply anymore.
How about pre-requisites? Some games would install, not bother updating DirectX or OpenGL or whatever else was needed and just not load with usually no usable error.

I'm just saying, you're thinking of it more fondly than it really was.
 
Nostalgia has really got you there. It definitely wasn't simpler.
You had to backup your game files, and different games stored them in different folders in different ways.
Installing a game was actually slower and required four CD's so you had to sit there and manually change the disks.
Getting updates was finding the update file on the internet and manually installing it and praying it worked since sometimes they did things like, only recognise the default install location, installed your game on the D:\ drive? Tough luck, updates won't apply anymore.
How about pre-requisites? Some games would install, not bother updating DirectX or OpenGL or whatever else was needed and just not load with usually no usable error.

I'm just saying, you're thinking of it more fondly than it really was.
Games were also a bit more solid when they came out on physical media though, so they often didn't require as many or any updates. I remember installing plenty of games, and once they were installed that was it I didn't have to touch them again. The worst crap I remember was drivers being issues, but never really had issues with games.

And maybe I am remembering it more fondly, but that doesn't justify some of the crap they do with these launchers - often times just as buggy and unreliable, DRM crap that prevents legit copies from running, unnecessary internet access requirements, and sometimes ads to try and sell you more crap or even worse, bloatware - though that was rare.

This is not to say some aren't acceptable and work fine, and that is certainly not to say that Steam is an issue; because Steam has really done a fantastic job with keeping games updated automatically and usually just working. Plus with Steam you don't have to go look at the store if you don't want to you can still have desktop shortcuts that launch the game directly except for games that still have their own launcher even with Steam like Ubisoft games.

In the end, nothing is or ever was perfect, but I really do find it more difficult to get games running today than I did 20 years ago.
 
Back