I wish developers would learn that just because they’re well paid doesn’t mean they’re getting the full value of their work. Your CEO didn’t become a billionaire by paying you the full value of your labor.
There’s always room for more and unions can get that.
This is from a Swedish perspective, but: My experience with unions has been that they think it’s more important that nobody is paid more, than to pay everyone what they’re worth. In other words they’d prefer everyone being paid equally over raising the minimum wage. Their motivation seems based in jealousy more than a sense of justice. The money they collect from their members is spent on offering stupid IT courses that nobody (except unskilled people) needs, or stuffing their own pockets.
I like the idea of a union, but to me it seems like the actual unions we have today either lack real problems to solve or forgot about them. Every time a representative comes to visit I just get angered by how out of touch they are. They should focus on their core values and get rid of all that idiotic fluff, so they can lower their fees and recruit more members. But like any organization they grew fat and slow.
Ensuring that people know how to use Excel is not a problem that the union should be spending money on.
At my office we can work at any hours of the day that we prefer, as long as we check with our coworkers and do our agreed 40 hours / week. When the union heard about this they told my employer that we must do all our work during daytime.
Their reasoning was that our liberal hours give us the opportunity to take on more obligations in our personal life at daytime (such as taking kids to soccer practice) which means we have to work in evenings to make up for lost time. And this, in turn, means we don’t get enough rest. So basically they don’t trust the employees to take responsibility for how much rest they need and want to stop them from doing personal chores during the day.
We (the employees) finally won against the union in this, but what I kept thinking during this ordeal was “jeez, don’t they have more important issues to address?” If they did, why would they be meddling with this.
I think you don’t understand unions or what they are fighting for. Your presumed freedom in working hours is exactly what the unison stated. If you need freetime to fix chores you should reduce your working hours and not work throughout the night.
Yes, but then that’s my choice to reduce my working hours, not something my union should force on me. It’s patronizing. All ~100 employees disagreed with the union on this. IMO that’s a sign that they are overreaching and forget who they are working for. They need to realize when they are done and just sit back and enjoy what they’ve accomplished, instead of mindlessly optimizing for the wrong target. At any rate, if this is the kind of stuff they pull I won’t want to support them, because to my mind they are making things worse, not better.
Eh, more of a case by case basis in the tech industry imo. Most game studio devs should probably unionize, but it’s not all horror stories everywhere. I’m not against unionization by any means and it’s always on the table, but when me and my coworkers already have great pay, great benefits, stable careers, and great work life balance I don’t really see what additional benefits it would bring. It’s an over-generalization to say that you’ll be earning more money as a union employee when you’re already making more than 90% of the population, I know first hand that some trades even make more than their unionized counterparts in my area.
It would being better pay, better benefits, even more stable careers and better work-life balance.
It doesn’t matter how much money you’re already making, or how good your benefits already are. If you have a Union, you can negotiate for improvements. There is always room for improvement, unless you’re working at a fully-mutual workers cooperative.
I know first hand that some trades even make more than their unionized counterparts
I’d be interested to learn more, do you have a source or anything?
I already negotiate. Every couple years I interview around, I get a job offer, I take it back it my employer and they either match it or I leave. I’ve personally increased my salary 6x since I’ve joined the industry about a decade ago, I know people who have increased it more. I don’t know anyone in a unionized field who’s managed to achieved anything like this. I don’t know that it’s impossible, just seems to be much more rare. I’m a specialized individual in a specialized industry, I already have bargaining power and I definitely reject that my compensation, benefits, job stability, and WLB would be better if I had been unionized this whole time.
I’d be interested to learn more, do you have a source or anything?
Like I said, first hand. Purely anecdotal, I’m sure it isn’t the case for all union jobs.
I'm not in games, but if/when things start to turn, it's far easier for myself and the people around me to just leave for an employer that treats us right than to try to unionize and force the current one to behave. Those are the benefits of having a job that's very much in demand though, not to mention one that can be worked from home and isn't dependent on geography, so the union isn't necessary because the employees already hold enough power. If the employer has a monopoly on your jobs, being able to unionize is a powerful tool in your toolbelt.
the funny thing is actual ability to pay is varying from business to business. AAA development with in-house engine is simply inferior as a business compared to mobile gamedev or producing shitty battle royale clones with Unity. If some business can’t compete with big tech or low-effort money grabbers, does it mean it has to go?
This does suck though. To start, a counter-offer-based model begs discrimination. You should be getting yearly raises commensurate with (at absolute bare minimum, not even necessarily accounting for inflation) the increase in productivity from year to year.
This is to say nothing of work environments. Unions could reduce or end crunch. Not just as hard blockers, but mandating the kind of project management that doesn’t require crunch.
This does suck though. To start, a counter-offer-based model begs discrimination. You should be getting yearly raises commensurate with (at absolute bare minimum, not even necessarily accounting for inflation) the increase in productivity from year to year.
I see that a lot with just the starting percentages of yearly raises. Most companies never keep up with market value, and by the time you’ve spent ten years there, you’re making much lower than the industry standard.
The worst is employers who have some 1-5 scale for yearly performance and they gatekeep bosses who try to give out too many 5s. It’s not a competition among your peers. If the whole team is doing good and working hard, then reward all of them.
I don’t know about discrimination, you’d have to provide actual statistical evidence of that for me to believe it.
I do get yearly raises, they’ve beaten inflation by a lot every year except for one. I left that job and took a 30% compensation increase elsewhere.
I rarely see crunch time. I have no problems whatsoever with the frequency and intensity of it, but if it became a problem I’d leave and find a job elsewhere.
I don’t work in silicon valley, but they make a lot more than I do and my wage doesn’t feel suppressed lol.
The job market in tech is alive and well in my experience. There was overhiring during the pandemic which ended with some layoffs, I don’t see that as the market turning, but we’ll have to wait and see.
I know Lemmy wants everyone everywhere unionized, but for me in my industry the arguments for it are hand wavy at best. I find it disingenuous to tell people in this industry that they don’t have bargaining power as an individual.
It’s not that you don’t have individual bargaining power. It’s just that if you were unionised, you’d have much more.
The extent to which you are arguing against overwhelming evidence cannot be understated. You are arguing against something less controversial than evolution.
We know that unions promote economic equality and build worker power, helping workers to win increases in pay, better benefits, and safer working conditions.
But that’s not all unions do. Unions also have powerful effects on workers’ lives outside of work.
Edit: Lol this dude ran back and added sources to previous comments after I called him out on not providing sources. Before the edit he claimed collective bargaining can get 50% raises for everyone.
Right, and what percentage of unions are successfully negotiating 50% pay raises? Surface level nuance free thought experiments aren’t going to convince me here
It was an analogy. The point is that a union gives you stronger negotiation power than you have alone. By not being in a union, you’re getting worse outcomes than you would have in a union. All of the statistics we have demonstrate that unionising results in a big increase in wages and benefits. You’re basically saying “no” because you think you know better than the science. This is just like anti-vax sentiment.
You’ve sent zero statistics and I’ve yet to see any statistics or even anecdotal evidence that pertains to my industry. All you’ve done is promise ridiculous benefits like 50% salary increases through unrealistic analogies. My experience is purely anecdotal, but frankly it’s better evidence than pipe dream analogies.
But sure, go around calling people anti-vax because you don’t know how to put together a proper argument, I’m sure that’s how you get people to change their minds about unionization. Why would I continue this conversation at this point? If this is something you’re passionate about I’d rethink your strategy.
The extent to which you are arguing against overwhelming evidence cannot be understated. You are arguing against something less controversial than evolution.
We know that unions promote economic equality and build worker power, helping workers to win increases in pay, better benefits, and safer working conditions.
But that’s not all unions do. Unions also have powerful effects on workers’ lives outside of work.
Why on earth do you think I’d continue this conversation at this point? You’ve called me an anti-vax flat earther, I don’t know why you decided to resort to insults before sources, but it’s clear you aren’t discussing this in good faith. No thanks.
Your position is completely indefensible, and you know it, but you continue to hold it because your ego is more important than reality.
Do you know of any other groups who prioritise the preservation of their ideology over reality?
If you had any actual arguments against me, you would use them. But since you don’t, you’re just acting oh so indignant and high-handed that I had the temerity to call you out on your bullshit.
Maybe next time, if you don’t want an education, you should keep your ignorance to yourself.
Every couple years I interview around, I get a job offer, I take it back it my employer and they either match it or I leave.
I don’t even have to do that. My employer always give me good raises and even better bonuses. Every year.
Benefits are great. PTO is great. Work-life balance is great. No layoffs whatsoever. It’s not just about making money for the company and the owners, but the rest of the employees as well.
I don’t need the strife from trying to start a union here. Save it for companies that have pushed their employees too far. Unionize where it’s going to have the greatest benefit.
That’s great, I’m finally at a point in my career where I think it’ll be the same. As long as there isn’t a major culture shift, I could see myself staying at this job for the next 10+ years
Ever talked to the cleaning staff how they’re faring? Your suppliers in Cambodia (or wherever)?
It’s not that hard for capital to see reason when it comes to specialised, educated, and sometimes right out irreplaceable workers, but that doesn’t mean that capital suddenly developed a conscience.
You know perfectly well what I meant and the intent and purpose behind my comment. Try again.
And even if you’re working in a five person co-op outfit and someone of you indeed does scrub the toilet: What about the dishwashers at that Chinese takeout you order at every other day. How does your actual supply chain look like, even if it’s pizza and coffee.
What are you arguing about exactly? Not a single comment in this chain is anti union at all, and the comment you replied to even argued for unionization where it will have the greatest benefit, i.e. all the jobs you just mentioned.
Why are you acting like this is some sort of prisoner’s dilemma where either everyone unionizes or no one does?
And I never said anyone was. That’s something you came up with.
All I wanted to do is remind people is that capital giving a fuck about your ass doesn’t mean that said capital is benevolent, or you shouldn’t organise, because it’s still going to fuck anyone over it can get away with fucking over. Like the cleaning staff.
How can you force the bosses to pay cleaning staff properly if the engineers aren’t striking for them? There’s a gazillion desperate scabs out there and I can’t even blame them, how can you blame someone with two jobs for wanting a third to pay rent.
…that, btw, is why the likes of the IWW organise companies and industries, and not trades.
Not without class consciousness, no. But yes that is how it often works in countries that aren’t the US. Occasionally, it also works in the US, e.g. the Hollywood strikes right now. Was it the writers I think who got a proper offer right now and they said they’re going to continue until others got theirs, too.
I definitely reject that my compensation, benefits, job stability, and WLB would be better if I had been unionized this whole time.
Why? What is your reasoning for rejecting this? Can you justify it? You’re just saying “no” without any thought or explanation. Do you just refuse to believe that things could be better?
And frankly that’s not how this works. You’re the one trying to convince me that a union is in my best interest, the burden of proof is on you and you’ve given no substantial evidence.
I read your whole comment, but at no point does it explain why you think you wouldn’t be able to negotiate improvements with a union. What you have written essentially amounts to:
“I was able to build a really beautiful cabinet with hand tools. I reject the notion that power tools make it easier to build cabinets. I know people who have power tools but they haven’t made cabinets as nice as mine.”
If you have multiple people as a group who have the power to completely sink a business negotiating together, they stand a much better chance of improving conditions than any of them do alone.
How are you reasoning against such a self-evidently true claim?
My point is that skilled individuals in specialized fields already have strong individual bargaining power, something that you continue to underestimate in this thread. Collective bargaining is not risk free with one outcome, this is a fact that all the nuance free analogies in the world won’t change. If the sector is overall happy with individual bargaining power you’re going to need more proof than supposed “self-evident” claims.
Let me fix your analogy. A power tool salesman walks up to my door and tells me I have to throw out my hand tools because I can build cabinets much faster without them and then calls me an idiot for not wanting to throw away the tools I’ve mastered over the last decade.
I’m in the same field as you are with years more experience. Not only that, I have experience in management in the same field.
I am not denying that you have individual bargaining power that I’m sure you’re leveraging successfully.
I am just pointing out to you that if you were unionised, you’d have even more bargaining power which would almost definitely have resulted in a better outcome for you.
Collective bargaining may not be risk free, but it’s lower risk than individual bargaining, by definition.
There’s plenty of proof, and I don’t see why I need any more. You’re just refusing to acknowledge it, like a flat earther faced with the results of their experiment refusing to accept it. Just because you say “no, I don’t like this scientific proof” it doesn’t mean that I’m somehow failing to back up my argument when I refuse to give you more proof. You have THE proof of the matter. Accept it and be right, or reject it and be wrong. It’s up to you.
As for your analogy, being in a union does not mean you lose your individual bargaining rights, you can continue to negotiate your salary individually if you wish to do so. You do not lose any power or rights from being in a union. You only gain power.
I’m in the same field as you are with years more experience.
Lol is this the point in your argument where you call me a kid?
Collective bargaining may not be risk free, but it’s lower risk than individual bargaining, by definition.
Lower risk often means lower reward, and I already consider individual bargaining in my field low risk.
There’s plenty of proof, and I don’t see why I need any more.
You’ve provided exactly zero links in this thread.
like a flat earther
And there it is! Again! So far you’ve called me anti-vax and a flat earther because your unlinked evidence and shitty anologies aren’t convincing me of unproven theories in my field. This conversation is over and you’ve done more to hurt your cause than help here you condescending prick.
I appreciate the good faith you’re putting into this. I tend to lean your way, but it’s interesting to see this discussion play out. Thanks for being respectful. I appreciate it, even though (up to this comment) I’m just observing the thread.
Until this moment you haven’t asked me for any sources for my claim, whereas I have asked you multiple times for yours. Your basis is “just my vibes” and now you’re acting like I’m an asshole for pointing out that your position (arguing against science based on vibes) isn’t rational. Now by claiming I haven’t backed up my claims, despite pretty much accepting that they were valid until this moment, you cast me as irrational, and instead of asking for proof of my claims so you can amend your perspective, you just loftily declare that the conversation is over, because you know fine well that if it continues, your world view will be completely compromised.
Anyone who wants to see the proof can simply Google “average wage difference for unionised workers” or anything like that. You can do the same thing. I’m guessing you already have, but decided “that doesn’t apply to me” because you’re oh so special.
Lower risk often means lower reward
For investment and such, yeah sure, but not everything follows the same pattern. Unionising and collective bargaining is a perfect example, because it consistently has been shown to lower risks and increase rewards, again and again.
Act all indignant if you want to. You’re giving me a perfect platform to demonstrate the superiority of my ideology against your very weak, irrational reasoning. If you think that I’m somehow hurting my cause by revealing the inherent incoherence of your position, then yeah, sure, I’m really destroying my cause right now.
Just because you’re paid well doesn’t mean others are not being mistreated
FTFY
without unions there could be a huge salary disparity between devs in the same role, in the same company, even in the same project. I’ve personally witnessed more than 2x, heard about even more.
Sometimes it’s more than justified with individual’s performance and impact, sometimes it’s not. Some people are just better skill-wise, some people are better at applying pressure on their employer, holding business-critical knowledge hostage or simply negotiating.
Point here is - while unionizing might make things better on average, there would be a very real pushback from people who are benefitting from current system and this is not necessarily management. For management in some cases it would be even a net benefit, since they don’t have to deal with primadonnas and someone tying things to themselves just for leverage.
As an engr manager, I’ve often seen disparity as a result of being hired during good years vs bad years for the company. Or when someone gets a better offer to leave, the company may change their pay but no one else’s. Or hiring externally vs a transfer from another internal team. Or whether the team is coding for frontend web vs dev tools, even if using the same language. Or if female.
It’s always a challenge for one person to fix – with HR, with the department head, with yearly budget. And sometimes fixing one disparity means not having the sway to fix another as well.
Which is to say – pay transparency and unions are good for everyone. And if the company can’t afford to treat the employees equitably, then the company shouldn’t exist. (Or it should reduce its avocado toast budget.)
I hope this doesn’t make them think they can do this again though. This should make them realise they should’ve always gave the Devs more time to cook or been more realistic with scope from the get go
A publicly traded company prioritizing consumer satisfaction over short term profits? Learning from their “mistakes” after they still got a shit ton of money for it anyways and probably will if they do it again? I’m not banking on it.
It being released in a essentially a beta state with a terrible UI? half the loot being a bitch to access because you always cast igni? Game breaking bugs and glitch’s? Hard crashes?
I don’t think they have released one game that was actually release ready yet.
CP2077 was far worse, but that doesn’t mean the Witcher 3 was okay, it was still absolutely botched.
I’m not downplaying anything, but comparing a dumpster to a dumpster fire and saying they are the same thing is, at best, a little misleading.
The release of Witcher 3 was bad, but it was industry standard bad. Cyberpunk shipped straight up broken and incomplete. It has been fundamentally reworked at least twice since launch.
I don’t think anyone is apologizing for The Witcher 3 at launch, but let’s not pretend they are the same thing. There are more shades than black and white.
It’s more like both are tornados and one is an F3 and the other being an F5. You’re being disingenuous in defending CDPR for continually inexcusable work.
An industry standard bad? What’s that even mean? At that point in time games were shipping complete still and not in a beta state.
Its always hilarious the excuses people come up with, neither are excusable, yet here you are justifying one… yeesh, give your head a shake.
Haha ok so you’re just one of those people whose understanding of the universe isn’t capable of expanding beyond “this good, that bad”.
I haven’t defended anyone and never intended to. I’m just saying get your comparisons straight. “Hey this game has a bunch of annoying bugs” =/= “Yo this shit is effectively non-functional and empty”.
I didn’t know a a progress breaking bug at 80 hours in is annoying…? That falls in the latter, non-functional. What about not being able to pick up loot? That’s non-functional…. You’re excusing shitty devs lmfao, this isn’t about good or bad, this is all shades of shit, or like I said previously tornadoes.
Sounds like you just aren’t educated on what the issues actually were, rose coloured glasses or something…. So not only disingenuous now.
In my experience it was much less buggy at launch than for example Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. I didn’t experience any game-breaking bugs, just ones that harmed immersion. There was a bit of T-posing, the occasional floating prop/animation bug, and once I got launched into the desert when climbing through a window. No crashes to desktop, no broken progression. It probably helped that I was happy with the game they delivered rather than getting hung up on what may have been promised.
bethesda games are known to be shit and buggy since forever and they mostly don’t even fix em after years it’s just how they operate . which isnt something ppl should normalize even sea-dogs / not developed by them - morrowind - oblivion all had these issues bethesda is really not a rolemodel on these things
Yes, just wanted to contrast the reception they got. Bethesda games don’t generally attract as much ire for the bugs. People expect them and tolerate them (to an extent). Cyberpunk 2077 was a totally broken mess according to the internet, while the Elder Scrolls are the greatest thing ever.
I had crashes to the desktop about every 4th area transition in Oblivion and it still didn’t bother me too much, since it had just saved and took less than a minute to get back into the game.
Some bugs - even total crashes - can still be put up with just fine.
Anecdotally, I feel like there is some survivorship bias going on here. I’ve seen plenty of complaints about Bethesda bugs over the years, but people that are truly bothered by it (me!) have sworn off all their games and thus have no reason to talk about them anymore. The only ones left playing are those that still have some enjoyment/respect for Bethesda games. Cyberpunk felt like more of a “mainstream” hit so it makes sense there was more backlash.
Because bethesda ( unfortunately ) got grandfathered in to making very good open world games FULL OF BUGS AND kinda got away with it undeservedly so ( kinda like how pokemon gets away with making mediocre games coz they were the first . like imagine call of duty ( as shit as they are ) making 2 versions of games and sellling you different weapons on each and you gottta payy 140 dollars :D if you want full content. but ppl are kinda waking up starfield was criticized more than their last games etc… ( id say cyberpunk was still worse than most elder scroll games though ( but still totally agreee with you different fan bases treat games differently both arent ok.
What I think is astonishing to some people lately about Cyberpunk, is that they got most of their information from the popular channels on the internet. Despite its name, these channels (reddit r/all, Twitter, etc) are a (loud) minority of the actual opinions.
Pretty much every one I talked to IRL about Cyberpunk was aware of the controversy, but had a much more nuanced opinion than I was seeing online. Many of them enjoyed it and weren’t really experiencing that many bugs (myself included). But this wasn’t an “allowed” opinion online. Anyone who said the game was enjoyable or they didn’t personally experience many bugs were attacked for being a CDPR fanboy (myself included) and down voted.
Honestly though, I believe the early issues with the game were mostly on consoles. On a decently specced PC, the game would run nicely right after launch, with some bugs, but nothing game breaking. I got it right after launch day and enjoyed myself quite a bit with it. The police and the way the cars drove were the things that bothered me the most.
I remember hearing even some high specced pcs were having issues and you had to essentially be lucky that you had a configuration that they had the time to optimise for. Just having the best gpu wasn’t enough, for example
I don’t remember it being that bad on my 1070 mobile laptop (8th gen Intel i5 H if I’m not mistaken), but it was sub 25 fps also. On my PC it ran better, but after upgrading to a 3080 with a 5800X3D was when it ran smoothly at higher resolutions, although the game also had received some updates by then.
True, though that shouldn’t give anyone dev or publisher the right to release a broken game on consoles because it works on PC. Either postpone the PC release date until the console issues are fixed, or release as a PC exclusive until the same. Part of the reason the game was so successful with phantom liberty is that they stopped previous gen console work so they could only focus on hardware that could actually support the game. As with many devs, their partnerships fucked them, getting pressure from Sony, MS, and Nvidia to release the game before it was a polished product
I played it on a pc that was ok at the time and the physics engine glitched out so things that were supposed to be sitting still on top of/next to each other would randomly collide and sometimes fly off. Still had fun with the game though.
I had some cars that were following an invisible road above where the real road was a few times, and although that broke immersion a bit, I also still had a lot of fun with the game.
Hang on, that is a single player game? I now auto-discard AAA games up front because most of them are online multiplayer affairs with fancy in-game items to purchase and silly anti-cheat gimmicks that give Linux users a hard time.
Yep. You can play alone, couch co-op with controllers, or with friends online if that’s what you’re into. I’ve logged a couple of hundred hours alone and another hundred or so couch co-op.
I played through the whole game with my gf and didn’t see nor read anything that would indicate that.
Regardless of if you play, solo or with up to 4 people there are 4 characters in your party. Your main character can be one of the predefined ones or not. You will probably have/want a mix of both.
First play through will take more than 100h and you will still have plenty to see for subsequent playtroughs. It’s literally impossible to see all of it first time regardless of how you play.
Just get it, it’s not just a GOTY, it’s one of the best games in a long while.
No. My girlfriend and I are 140 hours in and still not finished, and I’m amazed at how smooth the coop works with the story. You can each be different places doing different things, or you can travel together, you can each have your own relationships with npcs. A lot of conversations with npcs will repeat depending on who’s talking, but important story ones won’t. As long as you mostly stick together and make choices together, you’ll have every option a single player game does.
Have you played A Plague Tale (innocence, then requiem)? It’s one of the best story driven games I’ve ever played. It’s entirely linear, so plot urgency doesn’t feel artificial like it does in open world games.
Same. Something I can play, save anywhere to deal with life, and pick back up when time allows. I was one of those weirdos who really enjoyed Doom 3 when it came out (with the ducttape mod; that was one mechanic I didn't like) and grew up on old Commodore, Amiga, and PC single-player games and NES/SNES/Genisis RPGs. I want that again.
Until they ditch the “live service” model, this will continues. How many big title games today are really sold in a complete no BS state where DLC actually means extra contents? No much I guess.
That stems from the revenue model, and not by gamers.
I feel like Paradox games falls into this category, problem is everyone is so used to playing the okder title with all of the dlc that people feel the new title is barebones and unfinished.
Yeah but if you wanna buy say, Stellaris, with all its DLCs, you’re looking at at least $100-$200 depending on the sales. You pay for that bigger game.
Definitely. Age of Wonders 4 was awesome to play at launch, but it definitely feels more “complete” now that all 4 DLCs are out. It feels like it was clearly hacked to pieces to be sold separate.
Minecraft falls squarely in this category. I paid 15$ some 12 years ago and am still getting a yearly update for free.
And yet if you go in the MC community, one of the most common complaints people have is that the updates are never enough and the Devs are lazy etc… I guess this goes to the point of this article, people can easily be trained to have unrealistic expectations.
I’m not crying for Mojang/Microsoft but I can’t imagine how it feels to be an indie dev and have people shit on you because the work you do for free is not good enough.
And yet if you go in the MC community, one of the most common complaints people have is that the updates are never enough and the Devs are lazy etc… I guess this goes to the point of this article, people can easily be trained to have unrealistic expectations.
Tbh I think a big part of the problem is Mojang’s failure to communicate with it’s players, less so the lack of features being added.
I don’t know, they have an annual event, affiliate youtubers who distill the news as they come, “leakers” on twitter. You can’t really expect a studio to pull a 1.16 every year, but short of that it seems there is no way to please the MC community.
Minecraft is a special case. They promise a lot and what we got is a version of the game that’s microtransaction hell. Texture packs, mods, maps, etc all cost outrageous amounts of money in the console/windows10 version of the game. The community is mad because they’re clearly spending way more money on making content for the store than doing any actual updates for the game. The most we get is something like a new mob every six months…
As far as i know the full game is entirely playable without spending a dime more than the price of the game. You can join an infinity of multiplayer servers or play the game solo from start to finish and beyond, and you still get the yearly update which, despite your statement, includes much more than “a new mob every six months”.
I personally don’t mind that cosmetics and entirely optional non-game-advantaging additional content are paid, as it is what bankrolls the studio to keep pumping out free updates every year. How do you propose they finance this otherwise ?
As far as i know the full game is entirely playable without spending a dime more than the price of the game.
That’s not the point, they took something that was free and community-driven and locked it down so you can only install things from the store where everything costs money. Only specific people even have access to make mods in that version.
as it is what bankrolls the studio to keep pumping out free updates every year.
They’re not a small indie company. Mojang earns hundreds of millions of dollars per year. They can afford to do something with the game other than pumping out dozens of microtransactions a month. They could optimize the good version of the game but actively choose not to. They promised a proper modding toolkit for the game but never made it because it would harm their paid store. The game practically lives off its modding community and in the last 10 years they’ve done nothing for them.
I don’t know, the bedrock version started in 2011 way before Microsoft bought the studio. It was never free or community-driven, it is cheaper than the Java version, but it doesn’t have access to the free modding community. This sounds like a relatively good non-toxic deal to me, either you pay upfront or you suffer the micro-transactions. If you don’t have the money, you can still play the full game for a relatively low price.
Your implication that they don’t optimize or develop new content for the base game is simply unfounded and proven wrong every year like clockwork.
Gamers™ are like baby birds constantly screaming for mom to vomit the next meal in their mouths. They want an 80 campaign they can marathon through in a week, then demand the Devs get immediately to work on the sequel which the absolutely want NOW NOW NOW
“Good” is subjective. I know CoD is mangled corporate moneygrab trash, but it’s still really fun, so I play it. The only reason I bought Cyberpunk was because I knew everyone was going to be talking about it and I wanted to be able to be part of the conversation, and it didn’t disappoint.
I'd like a HL3, but not yet another competitive pvp game. So not sure if that would be the right approach if they can't even hit the same target audience.
Valve hasn’t released nothing but tech demos since Artifact, and that was a huge miss. And excluding Artifact, Valve hasn’t released nothing but tech demos in over a decade. So you could say Valve hasn’t hit the mark in over 10 years.
Alyx came out 4 years ago, and is recognized as one of the best VR titles of all time. It's a full 15 hour game, so not a tech demo. I'd say that's a hit.
Super Hot and Beat Saber don’t cause motion sickness. If you have no idea about how the different kinds of VR movement affect nausea and haven’t developed any VR legs, then that’s absolutely on you. Especially given that Alyx remains accessible to people prone to motion sickness by giving you the option for teleport locomotion and snap turning instead. I know my limits and while I can use smooth locomotion, I still use snap turning. Don’t blame the game if you don’t know your limits and it’s essentially your first VR game in which you don’t stay in a single spot.
They don’t often shoot either. I would agree when they do shoot they tend to hit though. At minimum, it’ll be interesting to see what the studio with such a large stream of revenue finally decides to release. Even if it’s horrible, it’ll be a moment to remember.
Meh. A competitive monopoly has a better outcome than the near monopoly PS4 got when it came to exclusives. Yeah a lot of existing IP will be for one or the other. But for third party studios, they will be much less likely to make exclusive games if the console market is more balanced between the two. Nintendo is kind of in a world of its own. And with the steam deck helping push PC into a base level standard, I think we might see some opening up of high quality third party stuff.
Honestly I’m okay with this one, but it’s mostly because Activision Blizzard has great IP with some seriously awful management … and Microsoft actually has been doing much better in that department for games.
Yeah… In practice, every time a company gets anything that even slightly resembles a captured market, they stop investing in quality and starting shafting consumers.
Make no mistake, that is Microsoft’s end game. And that’s why they’re buying Blizzard.
Luckily, Activision Blizzard already stopped investing in quality and started shafting customers quite a while back, so worst case scenario (in this particular case, your criticism is still valid for most others) nothing changes, best case scenario Microsoft actually cleans house and the market becomes slightly less anti-consumer with one of the worst offenders gone…
Microsoft even with Activision Blizzard would not have a captured market. Valve, Crytek, Sony (which now holds Bungie), Epic, Electronic Arts, CD Projekt Red, Take-Two, and Ubisoft are all still quite potent AAA capable studio just in the PC space … along with tons of independent studios (e.g., Ghost Ship Games, Shiro Games, Hello Games, Re-Logic).
The Microsoft internal doc leak said they’re mostly after King Games (mobile games) anyways. I’d wager at worst Microsoft will let the traditionally Activision & Blizzard studios do their things… at best they’ll clean up the executive teams and let the devs “play” a bit more with the IPs.
The enshitification of Mojang has begun. Ridiculous privacy policies and bans in singleplayer. And the biggest introduction under MS was the engine rewrite, which was already underway when they were acquired.
I mean, it’s had plenty of success with its own IP… Heard of Starfield? Minecraft … and it’s nth successful Spinoff? Forza Horizon 5? Sea of Thieves? Flight Simulator 40th Anniversary Edition? Age of Empires IV? Age of Empires XYZ DE? Fallout 76?
The only major “flop” I can think of that wasn’t corrected (at least so far) is Halo Infinite and … that largely seems to be a 343 issue. There’s also Redfall, but that was a new IP in an over saturated space … it’s not like they’ve stopped developing IPs, fixing games, and trying new things.
Go look at Fallout 76’s reviews, it was unpopular at launch (IIRC) but it’s doing very well now … and that’s the point, they kept the lights on until the majority of players were happy.
Minecraft has had several games derived from it, that were entirely different games set in the Minecraft universe.
Microsoft bought Bethesda 3 years ago. To say that they had no ability to influence and/or didn’t take a risk on Starfield is … lazy at best.
And yes, they own Redfall as well, time will tell if they fix that one or it’s just a straight up failure.
How many games game out this year? Thousands. There is absolutely zero possibility that MS or anyone else is anywhere near holding monopoly status on the production of entertainment software. Even if they bought EVERYTHING new creators would enter the space the very next day.
My only argument against your opinion, is that he actually has a trackable history of poor performance as a CEO and a trackable record of very bad monetization schemes. He’s the reason EA is the way it is.
This isn’t the first company he’s ruined the reputation of.
Granted, the board that elected him is still there. That’s an issue that will persist for a while.
My only argument against your opinion, is that he actually has a trackable history of poor performance as a CEO and a trackable record of very bad monetization schemes.
…which could be because he has offered this service to many boards in the past.
What is "feminist propaganda" and what would COVID-19 have anything to do with the game? What would either of those have to do with the game? Isn't it based on the legend of the monkey king? Are they afraid they'll make a meme of him spreading COVID to kill his enemies or something?
In the conspiracy theories groups China is a hot topic, and I believe this is them telling influencers (who they give a free copy) to stick to the game instead of talking about the country they happen to live in. And I would assume if people stuck to the game few of these topics would be relevant.
Now if an influencer had an issue with say, allegations misogyny at the studio, I would expect them to -
not accept the game from the studio
maybe create content on why they refused the offer of a free game and things they think would need to change to allow them to work with the studio in the future.
You would have thought that by now they would have realized that explicitly banning people from talking about a subject is basically a method to guarantee that they do.
It’s a Chinese game developer. These are the things they’re sensitive to. COVID started in China and I guess feminist is a big fucking red flag for women in China?
It’s a Chinese game developer. These are the things they’re sensitive to. COVID started in China and I guess feminist is a big fucking red flag for women in China?
The Black Myth: Wukong sexism controversy stems from employee reports that developers at Game Science have been making sexist comments for many years, and there’s a suggestion the company doesn’t want women playing its games.
I wonder if any of this has been corroborated. I feel more conflicted about this kind of stuff recently because for every one asshole saying awful shit there are hundreds of other people that poured years of their life into making a game like this.
It’s Chinese developer so I wouldn’t be that surprised that their sexist it just seems to be a very common viewpoint in China.
They obviously know it’s unacceptable because they don’t want to be brought up on it. But rather than improved they’re just going to ban discussion of it or at least try to it won’t work of course. We’re talking about it after all.
It is kinda funny how people have no issue paying for it all together as bundle, but separate it so people can pay for things individually is silly and everyone is suddenly offended?
I would rather have a story for $10 and $1 outfits I can ignore, than to spend $30 on a story and bunch of cosmetics that don’t add to the game.
This is just marketing, nothing more. They make more money forcing you to buy everything than letting you pick what you want.
Eh… It’s more than just paying, but that a lot of the stuff which is now a standard microtransaction used to be integrated into the total experience, so you’d unlock outfits and such for finding secrets or completing challenges. That sort of content was integral to the over all experience, not just an extra to tack on as an afterthought.
That’s also just an affect on the market of people wanting more choice and not wanting to be forced to pay for stuff they don’t want.
Of course it can be swung in a negative light too, because it affects developers bottom lines, and they always want the most money possible. CDPR is no different.
The outcome of splitting the content is that there are a lot of people who want to have everything and they will end up paying far more for a la carte than for an expansion. The people who wouldn’t have bought the expansion still buy nothing, and pretty much nobody just buys a couple of things to save money.
Microtransactions is a system designed to prey on completionist whales. Barely anyone only buys a couple of things and doesn’t end up spending more than $30 over time as the content is drip fed and the new hotness comes along to replace the old hotness. Those that don’t spend anything, or just buy one thing before catching on, weren’t going to spend the $30 anyway.
It is false choice that negatively impacts the game experience.
The outcome of splitting the content is that there are a lot of people who want to have everything and they will end up paying far more for a la carte than for an expansion
So if they want the content, they can support the devs so they make more.
The people who wouldn’t have bought the expansion still buy nothing, and pretty much nobody just buys a couple of things to save money.
So no lose there, but they could buy an outfit if they liked it and want to support the dev.
…… that’s actually the majority of gamers…… 2% of the player base accounts for most of the purchases, that means the other 98% is still buying stuff, just not everything. So that’s not even remotely close to reality, most people pick and choose the content, which is literally why this because a thing, because the market wanted it….
just like the market wants nothing but superhero movies? This doesn't work anything like a free market. people would buy full games if they where available, devs just figured out they could drip feed the content and make significantly more money at the expense of a good product so you don't get to choose the good product because it doesn't exist. That's not the market choosing crap it's the market makers only providing crap.
They still buy full games though, using old as seats to make new content for an “old” game is a great way to have more income come in. Most would probably prefer to make a new game, but that takes longer as well.
So if it’s a dlc a year at $15 for 4 years, or a game every 4 years for $60… what’s the difference in the end? Other than what you think is going on inside your head? It’s the same content, same price, same everything, you just get content yearly instead of every 4 years. Bonus for everyone since they can than use that money after the first year to maybe make the other better.
I can’t possibly roll my eyes any harder at this statement, with gaming companies practically competing to go under as fast as possible over the past decade.
What…? Most people want more content more often with more options, not everyone wants a release every 4 years that’s the same content and story rehashed.
Unless the entire game is developed by an independent studio and is entirely funded on microtransactions, buying micro transactions is just there for more company profit on top of the regular game sales by stripping content out of a full release. It isn’t supporting the development.
People did have issues paying for it all together, back when they were called “expansion packs.”
I don’t mind paying for more of the game. I do mind paying for fixes to a broken game. I don’t mind optional cosmetic upgrades, but I don’t like pay-to-win, even in single player (looking at you, Nintendo amiibos).
But regardless, people are going to complain, and many of their complaints will be valid.
People had different issues with those, that was because online was a portion of it, and people thought devs were holding content back just to make more money. Obviously some did that, but they started painting every dev with that brush and they needed to adjust to save their bottom line from being affected.
Every change has been a reactionary effort to adjust for the market changes and people suddenly not wanting what they just wanted a few years ago, and using it to their marketing advantage. Of course not everyone is going to be happy, it’s just funny that certain devs get defended for doing what everyone else does since their marketing gets eating up.
I think some people like to know when it ends. Microtransactions can make it seem endless. Once you’ve done that a few times it makes you want to know about as much as you can upfront.
You know, the way you phrase it I’d be fine. Only in your example, instead of 60 for it all, it is now 60 for 80% of the story, another 2x15 for the remainder, and 10 per Outfit.
Oblivion had a LOT of post release paid content, most of which was decent value per $ spent, including a full on expansion. So while horse armour was a warning sign for things to come, Oblivion ALSO showcased the good side of paid post release content
Ads used to be run at the streamers' discretion, and they were beaten by adblock. Now adblock doesn't work on Twitch, because they did the smart thing and embedded them into the stream. Also, a few years back, even though streamers have an incentive to run ads, because they benefit from it too, Twitch implemented mandatory thresholds for number of ads that need to be run or else you lose access to some tier of monetization, so most streamers leave it on auto pilot now. It means that whenever the same stream is running on YouTube, I'm watching on YouTube so I don't miss anything.
I mostly watch YouTube streamers. Once in a while they’ll do a Twitch stream and holy shit it’s night and day. 0 ads on YouTube and 30 second and even sometimes 1 minute unskippable ads constantly interrupting the stream on Twitch. I honestly have no idea how people put up with it. I cancelled cable because I didn’t want to watch ads, I’m not going to a site that does the same.
My adblock blocks the ads, but I still get that stupid purple screen. What really annoys me is that it’s a minute and a half long. Twitch really wants me to disable ad block so I look at an ad on a Livestream for almost two fucking minutes.
I minimize and do something else until then but that’s asinine.
hold on, you mean to tell me a platform that exists and is known purely for LIVE streaming content has put ads OVER the livestream interrupting your view? what kind of idiot would have approved such a service killing move?
As a mod, you can postpone an ad by 5 minutes 3 times. You can’t postpone it by 1 minute, you can’t choose to play them during downtime, you can’t do shit but pray an interesting moment doesn’t happen during the 1 minute.
Citing it as “an injustice to domestic publishers”, Vietnamese studios reportedly say that local game development “will die” if Steam is able to keep releasing games without the same government scrutiny as domestic games…
Yeah! It’s so unfair that one person can put their heart and soul into making a game on their own, self publish, and be successful! No way anyone else could possibly do that!
Can the lawyers on the receiving end of a DMCA takedown take the other party to court for a frivolous suit? I thought one of the problems was that there is no recourse for those on the receiving end of a bad DMCA takedown?
What I think would happen is the modders send a DMCA takedown, and EA either does take it down, or they file a “we’re not violating copyright, promise” form and then that’s the end of the DMCA. If they file the “we’re not violating copyright” form, then from there the modders can file a normal copyright violation suit if they choose.
Right, EA would file a counter-notice. Then the modder would have to get lawyers involved and file an actual legal complaint, and EA would respond with their lawyers.
But once they file the counter-notice, you could just stop there. They could sue you for filing in bad faith, but I’ve never heard of that happening.
Nothing. Modders suddenly feeling they should be paid is really entitled and kind of crazy. Hey I made some fan art of a marvel character, should marvel pay me?
Modding isn’t a job, and you can’t make money off of someone else’s game
It’s not work . I’m currently modding a game, it’s a hobby. And I’d be entitled as hell to think I should be paid for it.
This “pay the modders” thing will just lead to more micro transactions. You want to download that created wrestler in the new game? It was made by so and so, you now owe. $9.99. fuck that
It’s not about pay the modders so much as if the developer of the game took your mod, put it in the game proper, claimed it was their work, and charged people for it.
I found several definitions where this meets the definition of “work”, but I’m interested to hear your argument about how “time and effort spent doing a task” is not work.
This is the wrong comparison. If you painted a modified version of an existing painting, the original painter can’t take your work and sell it against your will.
No it’s not. The modder didn’t sell anything. Wanting to be compensated if somebody else makes a profit from your work that you put out for free is not the same thing as selling it.
No, because they weren’t even offering it for sale. But they also weren’t offering it to be taken to be sold by somebody else for a profit. Which is what the studio did anyway. So now, after the fact, they can either pay a compensation and credit the modder, or they can remove their stuff from the game.
They’re still taking something they didn’t make and selling it as though they did. I have every right to write and film a Batman movie, spend as much time I want making it professional, and then show it to people, as long as I don’t charge them for it. That doesn’t give Fox or whoever the right to take my movie and charge for it instead. Even if I did break the law by making people pay for it, the actual owners would only be entitled to that money, not to go make mroe money off of it themselves. It’s still my work even if it uses concepts invented by someone else.
There’s a reason every franchise under the sun has mountains of fanart and fanfic without the companies that own them trying to take control of it: it’s blatantly illegal.
But the rub is, under fair use you can’t profit from it though, so as soon as you accept payment, now they can sue you. So in the end, they win and get it for free regardless.
If the rights holders enter into a contract and pay you for your work, I don’t think they can turn around and sue you for making a profit off of it. I’m no lawyer, but I don’t think the law is that far gone.
But how can they make a contract? Signing it would violate fair use exemption before that could be argued.
Corps are abusing a conflict within the laws, it’s not even a loophole, it’s just the unfortunate way the laws that protect each person/industry don’t agree.
Contracting someone to use an artwork they made of your character would implicitly grant a license for them to make commercial profit off of that transaction.
That isn’t what a DMCA is for. Someone being compensated for the work they’ve done is unrelated to suing a company for using your art/code/work without permission or reference. Weirdly aggressive to modders though.
Edit: for your edit, you can’t monetise a mod for someone’s else’s game directly but you can absolutely make money modding. And even if their EULA enables them to do so, taking a modders code without at least a reference is pretty dogshit. Literally a million dollar studio ripping off people who did it out of passion knowing full well they wouldn’t get compensated. I’m surprised a EULA can protect them legally for doing it tbh.
The dev has a storied past^[1] of sexism and misogyny, so this shouldn’t come as a surprise. The COVID stuff is amusing but unsurprising considering it’s a Chinese studio.
Reading through that made me feel gross. It does seem to be acknowledged by women in China as a cultural issue (as well as globally online).
Sexism is, and continues to be, a global problem. But the difference, as both Zhong and Monica F. pointed out, is that the Chinese government and overall cultural attitudes continue to actively discourage women and their allies from fighting back. There’s no one telling harassers “no.”
This feels like the second round of this going around as the AI articles / lazy sites pick it up.
It’s a doc ‘sent’ to one guy who had 12 followers on medium before this started blowing up. It was edited after it was sent out to be the real marketing email of the company instead of a gmail address. The doc is still owned by that gmail account, which isn’t typically how companies operate.
I guess they’re getting their viral moment so good for them for generating content?
eurogamer.net
Ważne