IMHO, worthless though it is, I don't get why Diablo-likes are called ARPG's. They have lots of A and no RP. (They are Gs tho.)
Because in 1996 experience points, leveling up, character attributes, and magical loot were all closely associated with RPGs. Over the intervening roughly 30 years those mechanics have been adopted by games all over the spectrum. However the genre-name for Diablo-like games stuck due to convention.
Also Diablo being called an ARPG predates Dark Souls by 10 to 15 years.
A Soulslike (also spelled Souls-like) is a subgenre of action role-playing games known for high levels of difficulty and emphasis on environmental storytelling, typically in a dark fantasy setting. It had its origin in Demon’s Souls and the Dark Souls series by FromSoftware, the themes and mechanics of which directly inspired several other games. Soulslike games developed by FromSoftware themselves have been specifically referred to as Soulsborne games, a portmanteau of Souls and Bloodborne.
For the same reason that YouTube music refuses to play offline content stored on your phone until there’s a live internet connection - particularly helpful when you’re outside of coverage.
That reason is that you are the product and playing without being tracked doesn’t make any money.
Unless something has recently changed, I was unable to play music that was downloaded inside YouTube music but refused to play if there was no internet access.
No, it’s not the same; not even slightly! Youtube Music is a monthly subscription, whereas Ubisoft presents the transaction as a sale. Ubisoft has no right to gatekeep your property away from you.
Live service and always online are two entirely different things, and the former isn’t inherently malicious, unlike the latter.
I’d, for example, consider all Paradox grand strategy games as live service with major updates dropping once or twice a year (followed by like twenty bugfix patches cause they fuck up every time, but that’s besides the point). Sure, every major update comes with a new dlc that isn’t exactly cheap, but you also get a lot of free content with each release. All their major titles are entirely different games now than they were at the 1.0 release.
What ubisoft does is just a tacked on battle pass that gets a few worthless items/skins so they can call it live service and have a justification for their always online verification model. That’s purely an anti piracy measure that fucks legitimate players more than pirates.
In the Paradox case, nothing is live, and they aren’t pretending it’s a service. They just put goods out at a rapid clip that you choose to buy or not. That’s why live service games are always online. If Paradox counts, then so do board games, and that’s absurd.
That’s what every game company has said about every game for decades though! A game disc which installs and plays the game was legally still some nebulous “this provides a licence to play the game which can be revoked at any time”, it’s only now that the companies actually have the power to revoke them at any time.
👨🚀🔫👨🚀Always has been. You never owned the software. Even when games were on cd or cartridge. The only thing that is your legal possession is the physical CD or cartridge and the license that came with it.
Always has been a blatant motherfucking lie, you mean.
Saying you don’t own a game you bought is exactly as batshit insane as saying you don’t own a paper book you bought. We wouldn’t put up with this shit for that, so we shouldn’t put up with it for games either!
Stop letting the copyright cartel steal our property rights and drive us into serfdom.
There are two different ownerships that are being conflated here. When you buy a book, let’s say it’s a new book, just released, and rapidly becoming a best seller. You own your copy of the book, you can read it, you can make notes in it, you can lend it to a friend but while your friend has the book you can’t read that book yourself, or you can sell the book again but once you sell it you won’t be able to read it anymore until you purchase another copy or go to the library. What you’re not allowed to do just because you have the book is make copies of it to sell or give away (which is somewhat challenging to do anyway with a physical book that has hundreds of pages), you’re not allowed to make and sell an audiobook recording of the book, you’re not allowed to go and make a movie based on the book. You’re not allowed to take the characters and write a sequel to the book and sell it. The author still owns the rights to the contents of the book.
In the early days of books, especially the 19th century as books became easier to produce and more people could read, a lot of this started to become problems. People with printing presses would see a book people like, get a copy, and start printing and selling copies on their own. They made translations and sold copies in other countries. People would produce plays based on the books, and depending on where it was performed the author might never know about it. This was all usually done without the involvement of the author and the author often was not paid from these. A surprising number of highly regarded and top selling authors wound up making very little money from their books because they weren’t being paid for most of the copies being sold. Many died poor. This led to the development of the concept of copyright and various other associated rights.
These rights became more complicated as media progressed. With audio recordings there are multiple rights involved: the person who wrote the song has a copyright on the actual music and lyrics, and the person who performed the song has a copyright to the recording of their performance. Sometimes these are the same person, sometimes they’re different.
The laws kept getting more complicated. With software, the developer or publisher owned the software, often because the developer was working under contract to the publisher or sold the software to the publisher. It’s kind of rare to sell the actual software to a customer, and is usually done only for corporate or government clients. In that case the entire rights to the software are transferred and the publisher/developer can’t sell another copy to someone else. Much more commonly only a license to the software is sold to many different customers, and what exactly that license involves can vary widely in the legal terms of that license (which most people never read). Some are very restrictive. It used to be that a lot of licenses specifically tied the copy that you purchased to the hardware you first installed it on. If that hardware died or you purchased a new model, too bad, you’re now supposed to buy a new copy. Some licenses said you’re not allowed to change the code of the software, some licenses allow it. Ten or fifteen years ago people didn’t really think about the idea of streaming gameplay and creating a video from a game was considered a derivative work and not allowed, like making a movie from a book. Now a lot of licenses explicitly allow streaming gameplay, but some older games that weren’t planning for it might not have the rights to stream the music from the game.
If you violated those rights in the past, the terms technically said those rights ended and you were supposed to stop using the license. In practice this was on the honor system and the licensor would rarely know about it, unless they sent an auditor to check compliance, which was usually only worth doing at large companies. With the internet, companies now have the ability to actually access your computer and monitor your use of the software you’ve licensed. They can even disable your access to this software. Unfortunately, of course, a lot of companies have gone the greedy route and used this to their own advantage and at cost to the customer. Not everyone does, though. It’s really important to know what the terms of the license say. If they say they can delete the game you’ve bought and not refund you, don’t buy from them. Don’t give them money for this crap. Let the game flop, even if it otherwise looked great. Support the developers and publishers who want to support the customers. Read the terms on your software; you should always have the option to say you don’t agree and get your money back if you don’t go through with installation. And the laws that allow bad licenses don’t have to stay as they are; some jurisdictions are friendlier to consumers than others.
It’s the same with paper books though. If you buy a paper book you don’t automatically own the rights of that work. You own the copy and can sell that copy or even make a copy for private use. But you can’t make copies of that book to sell, since you don’t own the copyright
Copyright is definitely being abused by the big corporations but without copyright small artists/software developers would constantly get their work stolen by those big corporations.
…which is the entirety of the important part. Once the store sells you the copy, that’s it: the copryight holder has no more right whatsoever to say what gets done to that copy. In particular, it does not have the right to dictate to you when, where, or how you may use your property, e.g. by requiring an Internet connection for the fucking thing to run!
The copyright holder’s temporary monopoly privilege should not be allowed to supersede or infringe upon the copy owner’s actual property rights in even the slightest way. Full stop, end of. The publisher’s business model is its own damn problem, not the customer’s. If it relies on destroying the latter’s rights in order to achieve profitability, the business deserves to fail!
Maybe because those terms are confusing. Is dark souls an arpg or a jrpg? Or both? I know that jrpg is a specific genre of Japanese games, but it’s still confusing. Are final fantasy games jrpgs? Kingdom hearts? Xenoblade?
It’s just easier to say RPG and not enter in a pedantic war with the community.
I’m just saying thank the gods for Screenshots, ‘Let’s Players’. because labeling everything as just “RPG” is the same as just labeling every type of meat as just “Meat” and graphics cards as just “Graphics Card” in closed packaging with only the companies names to differentiate.
I like specifications on the products I might be buying.
I agree, honestly. I also like specifications, but I don’t like the game to be inaccurately specified. I feel that it’s better if an umbrella term is used in the title instead of a more specific fake one, and then a short description describes how the game is played or what kind of experience I should expect in several words, instead of a single term. That, alongside screenshots, let’s plays, and all sort of resources are plenty help to decide if I should buy a game or not.
RPG is used for games where you take the role of a character, and it should somewhat tell the story of either the character or the world around it. That alone differentiates some games from others like rocket league or fifa, where there’s no story, you don’t take the role of nobody that matters, what matters is the gameplay.
Hack&slash was a term used for games where you killed tons of monsters with weapons, and then Diablo started using the ARPG term to say that besides killing tons of monsters, you also get to enjoy a story in a particular ambiance. Dark Souls games also fit the description where it’s more about the action than reading, but feel like a completely different genre, right? no isometric, itemisation is vastly different, the gameplay loop is completely different… This is why just reading ARPG means nothing to me nowadays, I have to dig into the description anyway.
Another example, is “Ys origins” an ARPG or a JRPG? both? It has fast paced combat where you kill tons of mobs and a story, but it has a very japanese style, however, JRPGs are being known for having to manage a party and usually turn based combat, sooo? idk, a 3 line paragraph and 3 5 second clips would be much better than just a term for me.
Sorry for the late response btw, I just forgot lol.
I’m betting that most or all of those have a TOS that doesn’t allow an account to change owners. You might be unsuccessful because people don’t want to end up on the wrong side of those companies and end up losing not only your account, but also their original account.
EA did this thing a while back where they saw people were still playing Bad Company 2 on PC on community servers. They updated the game to require a login to EA’s server on boot, then took those servers down. Always online is cancer.
They finally killed off BC2? So I can finally give up on the futile effort of reinstalling the game every year, in hopes that maybe I’ll find a populated server this time around?
I miss that game so much. Rush was so much fun. The maps were designed perfectly for that game mode, unlike future BF titles where it’s a tacked on feature. It was so good, that I found out the hard way that I actually don’t like Battlefield games, after wasting money on BF3, 4, and Hardline, and hating all of them. I just want more Bad Company games.
It was dead last time I tried playing (because of the login thing). Unless someone made a community patch to bypass the login prompt, I guess.
You’re pretty much in the same situation I’m in. BFBC2 was the last Battlefield game I liked, and it was because Rush was so much fucking fun in that. I hate how much the newer ones kind of mostly focus on Conquest, personally.
Conquest is not my idea of fun, either. It’s a lot of running back and forth between the same objectives over and over again until someone wins. To me there’s no thrill in that.
I like the concept of “push/bomb/capture the objective and move on to the next phase of the map” in any game that has it. Used to play a lot of Team Fortress 2 and Overwatch because of it. But now I’ve moved past those games as well. Overwatch has an issue where the meta evolves faster than I can keep up, and TF2 has the opposite problem we’re the meta doesn’t evolve at all because Valve doesn’t update the game. So I’ve stopped playing shooters for now until something new comes out that satisfies my desire for this kind of gameplay.
bin.pol.social
Najstarsze