Was there a level of “meta” in the Director of L4D? My understanding was that handled the flow of an individual match, but there wasn’t influences of the matches on other matches.
Since this is about the overall campaign that encompasses a level above the individual matches.
Not from what I recall. It is neat how each HD2 mission contributes to the state of the in game universe. Just reminded me of the Director from L4D taken to the next level.
The title feels misleading, this isn’t the actual main lawsuit, the case is far from over. I doubt Steam will want to display the game again given that they are still in hot water legally
Didn’t want to watch the video so used kagi’s ai summarizer:
Onepeg, a gaming YouTuber, tagged KieranTV in a tweet claiming that Nexon’s case against IM had been dismissed in both US and Korean courts, which was factually untrue.
When KieranTV questioned this, Onepeg doubled down and accused KieranTV of historically taking Nexon’s side without cause.
Reports from Korean media indicate that while the preliminary injunctions from both sides were dismissed, the judge noted it was likely Dark and Darker illegally stole from Nexon’s P3 game.
The case has not been fully dismissed and will continue to a full trial on the merits to determine the truth of Nexon’s claims.
Onepeg apologized for misrepresenting the facts but KieranTV remains skeptical of his motivations given his repeated doubling down.
KieranTV’s consistent position has been to want the truth determined fairly in court, not to take either side without cause.
Coverage of legal cases can be complicated as the truth may not come out clearly even if the right party wins or loses.
Fans of the game have previously harassed KieranTV for his neutral reporting on the case.
Onepeg should have fact checked before tagging KieranTV and making claims about the case’s outcome.
Both sides will continue arguing their cases as the full trial moves forward.
I think there’s absolutely a space for an industry achievement/recognition award like the Oscar, Tony, etc. The Game Awards just seems like the most cynical attempt at forcing one into the video game space.
What I don’t get about all the criticism lobbied at The Game Awards is that other gaming award shows do exist, and have existed, but people don’t fucking watch them and then they criticize TGA for doing what other awards shows didn’t: get millions to actually watch it.
Yes the comment literally says “polished from day 1” 🤔 and mine explains that the game has been being polished regularly for months.
Which is great, it’s cool to see a GOTY level game come out and its even better to know what a GOTY game looks like - not perfect on launch, but immediately receiving the necessary fixes.
I’m pretty sure they meant day 1 on x-box. X-Box players get to play the polished version of the game from the moment they get it. They get the version that already has all of those patches on day one.
Unless things change drastically for their RPG division, I’ll repeat what I’ve said since oblivion. Bethesda makes great modding platforms, the content within the game is a loose theme that modders can play with.
Yes the new Fallouts are just TES in the Apocalypse.
Yes starfield is little more than TES in space.
I buy Bethesda games for mod potential.
If they said no mods to all future games I wouldn’t buy another one. I don’t play ESO and I have never touched fallout 76 for this reason.
I mean ESO isn’t a bethesda game, it’s made by zenimax.
And from what i remember it’s actually pretty decent for what it is, it definitely looks nice and iirc while it has microtransactions to catch the whales, it isn’t an absolute twat about it and there at least was a membership system that was/is quite reasonable.
Exactly. I wonder if it’s possible to make a commercial game that’s fully decentralized. Sell the licenses as NFTs, use activitypub for the masterserver so you just toot out your games, release the game and dedicated server as free binaries. I hate NFTs but they’d be more consumer-rights friendly than the current approach of steam owns everything.
Seriously, it’s a four-player game. Not some MMO clusterfuck. Not an arena shooter bragging about 128 codblops on a single map, like it’s Stand On Nuketown. You need matchmaking - you want anticheat - you’ll do some DRM bullshit. Other than that you should want to offload bandwidth and latency to your players. They’re all on the same team!
I’ve basically never seen a free to play title cost less than a paid one (for similar content). Typically free to play has some sort of completely uncapped money-sink as well. Given that Sims 4 already costs $500+ for all content, I can only surmise that Sims 5 will cost thousands for the same amount of content.
As part of its recently publicised cutbacks, BioWare has “let go of” Lukas Kristjanson, the lead writer behind Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2, and the writer of the first three Dragon Age games, Mary Kirby.
I wouldn’t mind it, typically that level of service comes with redundancy pay. Depends where he was based, if he was working in the US then he’d probably be left high and dry, because US employment is shit.
Could’ve been a mutual decision. They may have taken the hot because they were already thinking of leaving at some point anyway. That sort of thing happens sometimes.
Lol I don’t even have to imagine that. It’s funny you point out 23 years because that’s exactly how long I worked at my previous job before moving on in 2022.
Nah, the next CoD is most definitely coming to Steam. Blizzard had to know that these reviews were coming from the discourse online alone. Plus, pretty sure that it’s Microsoft’s decision to do so now anyways and there’s no way their going to limit their potential profits by locking out a platform like that just over some bad reviews.
How is everybody just now finding out how capitalism works? Any public company is LEGALLY REQUIRED to care only about shareholder profits. It is literally illegal for them to do anything else.
Fiduciary duty is a real thing. Agent/principal relationships require the agent to try and get the maximum return for the level of risk.
Even if a CEO doesn’t have a written fiduciary duty in their contract do, the company as a whole usually does.
The CEO of a public corporation reports to the board who report to index fund managers who have a agent/principal relationships with all of their investors.
The comment was basically shorthand for “a fiduciary duty exists between corporate leadership and shareholders, creating a legally-enforceable requirement that the only consideration be maximum potential return on investment for existing shareholders and risk.”
It’s absolutely true in practice. CEOs have gotten sued for not acting in the shareholders best interests.
And in relation to the original comment I replied to, are you truly saying that companies, esp. public companies, are not, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, beholden to making money for the shareholders? Any “nice” company will make less money, will not compete well, will then fail or be bought out by the less nice, more profitable company.
Im not a lawyer, but I’ve looked into this misunderstanding before and it stems from what constitutes "breaking one’s fiduciary duty to investors. While deliberately acting against the interests of investors is illegal, ive yet to hear of a lawsuit, let alone a successful one, brought by an investor for not making all of the money. Id be interested in hearing an investment oriented lawyers perspective since from what i understand, the full extent of fiduciary duty has not been tested that way in court
Board of directors and company officers have a fiduciary duty to the stockholders and the corporate entity.
Acts done outside their authority as stated in the articles of corporations are said to be ultra vires. They are absolutely actionable.
When the directors or officers breach the fiduciary duty to shareholders, they are liable under what’s called a derivative action, because it is derivative of the contract represented by the stock certificate.
As they continue to spend billions buying publishers and developers to shore up their Game Pass offerings, expect prices to go up and the deals to get worse.
The price of Game Pass is still four months for the price of one full priced new release game, like it was before. But now new games cost $70 instead of $60.
Game Pass is still $9.99 a month for PC, unless they upped the priced literally today. So $40 for 4 months, which includes new released games that are otherwise still sold full price, and narrative indie titles that most would only play through once anyways.
That’s how sub services always work. They get a user base via great introduction offers then slowly raise prices up to where they should be and hope enough people are brought into the ecosystem to not leave.
Also only releasing on one console is a relict of the past and misses out on so many sales.
We have the technology to compile to every current gen console + pc with the right engines. Square should release their games for all consoles at once.
Actual Good Hardware for a reasonable price. Or gimmick control schemes like the ps vita, Wii (U) or occasionally the Switch. I loved the first “The World Ends With You” on the NDS, tried emulating it, but the control scheme without a touch screen and the physical buttons are so weird, I bought a 3DS to relive that masterpiece since my DS Lite died.
eurogamer.net
Ważne