If we can generate content with Ai I’m sure we can generate views too. Just an endless ouroboros of Ai generating and viewing it’s own shit to milk ad money.
I think even better is the multitude of sites that have just copy/pasted the wikia ‘Oblivion Console Commands’ page as ‘new content’ for Oblivion Remastered - but quite a few of the listed commands don’t work on Remastered.
I know they copied the wikia page and not the UESP page too as only UESP mentions you occasionally need to wrap refid’s in quotes for Oblivion. (if you’re using a refid as the first part of a command ie. “abc123”.moveto player) which you’ll need to know as PRID is dead.
edit: bat doesn’t work either! This is a travesty! Won’t someone rid me of these turbulent quest items!
It’s also inspired by „the wanderer“ painting that has been referenced a million times without most people even realizing that yes, someone did that first.
I read it’s badly optimised and even monster PCs cant run it smoothly. It crashes a lot. It’s 55€… for a remaster, not even a remake.
At least you can see a Mountain of skyrim.
Even steam reviews from the first day fans are only around 80% positive, which says a lot for the early stage (KCD2 is at 94%, oblivion GOTY is 95%), and most complain about Performance issues and that they cant get more than 60fps
It’s a hard pass for me and feels like a money grab.
Why would they even pick it up as their choice of they dont expect better results? Maybe because it’s the least effort, the cheapest solution? I’m just speculating here, but when I expect UE5 to always suck, it wouldn’t be my choice if I had quality in mind.
You’ll expect it to always suck because you’re the consumer. UE has, since UE4, put itself in the position of being the number 1 go-to engine everyone thinks about when doing amazing visuals as easily and cheaply as possible. Even indie devs instantly think about Unreal when thinking about good looking graphics.
So yes, I blame the engine for making itself a cheap, lazy way of making great looking graphics, because it’s even effecting how GPU’s are being developed.
And that’s why there’s only garbage coming out these days from the big studios, yes.
Why do you use that to defend them? What do you gain from defending the greedy?
The game drops to 20fps on a 4070 btw, and you’re here pretending it has to be like that because a lot of studios put the least effort they think they can get away with.
How do you explain that modders will be fixing a lot of the issues, like they always have to do with Bethesda games? Wouldn’t that be impossible if it’s the engines fault?
Why have you submitted to mediocracy? Why do you accept it and even go as far to defend it?
No wonder they think they can get away with it, because apparently they can with people like you making excuses for the.
Oblivion and Skyrim are 200 years apart, but geographically border each other. Classic Oblivion didn’t render Skyrim, but that was more for technical reasons than anything else. If you get high enough up in Skyrim on a clear day you can see the entire continent.
It’s a license to play the game, so when you pirate it is like sneaking into the movie theater. There’s no additional cost to the producer, but theoretically a loss of revenue from the license (movie ticket) you didn’t buy.
All that ignores the fact that they sure do pretend they are SELLING the game when it’s convenient.
I think a better comparison would be a “Drive-In Theater”, because with pirating you’re just seeing the film, not using their seats/venue (servers) so it’s like you’re sitting in the neighbors yard watching it from their porch. Still costing them what would be considered a “viewing purchase” for the data but you’re really not putting a strain on the theater itself by “attending or sneaking in”.
I agree with this point, and it’s also why I think the class action suit makes sense. Some of the people who bought The Crew got a physical copy, which is now just a useless disc. It’s still just a license like you said, and I agree that it feels like they’re selling the game.
It’s like if the movie theater sold a DVD for a movie, but the disc will only work while you’re in the theatre. Pirating might still be a crime legally but I don’t think anyone should feel bad about doing it here, Ubisoft absolutely does not deserve your money over slimy business practices like this.
the fact is, that most people who pirate, wouldn’t pay for it if they couldn’t pirate. It’s not a loss of revenue in most cases. I sure as shit wouldn’t pay for media if i couldn’t pirate. I’m poor as fuck.
No one should own an Ubisoft game. Its a company thats at the top of the list with Nintendo as far as the level of hatred and vitriol they have for their own paying customers goes.
Half Life 2 works offline just fine. You can even run the exe directly without Steam open. You just cannot compare the two. But yes, if Steam get shut down you obviously cannot download them again. Same goes for games on GOG. You could archive them, but you can also archive games from Steam, it’s all the same.
I wasn’t saying you can’t play them, just that you don’t own them. This is still true with DRM free games. GOG’s agreement is different to Steam’s in that you own your purchase
You don’t think you own every house with an unlocked front door, do you?
It’s a nice sentiment but seriously - the whole “if buying isn’t owning then pirating isn’t stealing” thing is both overused and has always annoyed me. How are the two related? You can still be stealing regardless of if you have an option to buy or not. You could still steal an item that isn’t for sale.
What we really should be focusing on is whether pirating in and of itself is stealing, and whether it should be a crime. This overused phrase is distracting from the issue at hand, imo.
A user obtains the game through legitimate means by “buying” the game. However, they do not own the game, and are in fact, just renting something. This is despite decades and decades of game buying, especially pre-Internet, equating to owning the game and being able to play the game forever, even 100 years from now.
By pirating the game, a user has clawed back the implied social construct that existed for decades past: Acquiring a game through piracy means that you own the game. You have it in a static form that cannot be taken away from you. There’s still the case of server shutdowns, like this legal case is arguing. But, unlike the “buyer”, the game cannot suddenly disappear from a game’s store or be forcefully uninstalled from your PC. You own it. You have the files. They cannot take that away from you.
The phrase essentially means: You have removed my means of owning software, therefore piracy is the only choice I have to own this game. It’s not stealing because it’s the only way to hold on to it forever. You know, because that’s what fucking “buying” was supposed to mean.
I think Ubisoft is clearly in the wrong, but you’re not making a good case. You’re conflating very different meanings of the word “own”.
In terms of legal ownership, only the copyright holder owns the intellectual property, including the right to distribute and license it. When a consumer “buys” a piece of media, they’re really just buying a perpetual license for their personal use of it. With physical media, the license is typically tied to whatever physical object (disc, book, ROM, etc.) is used to deliver the content, and you can transfer your license by transferring the physical media, but the license is still the important part that separates legal use from piracy.
When you pirate something, you own the means to access it without the legal right to do so. So, in the case at hand, players still “own” the game in the same sense they would if they had pirated it. Ubisoft hasn’t revoked anyone’s physical access to the bits that comprise the game; what they’ve done is made that kind of access useless because the game relies on a service that Ubisoft used to operate.
The real issue here is that Ubisoft didn’t make it clear what they were selling, and they may even have deliberately misrepresented it. Consumers were either not aware that playing the game required Ubisoft to operate servers for it, or they were misled regarding how long Ubisoft would operate the servers.
Ultimately I think what consumers are looking for is less like ownership and more like a warranty, i.e. a promise that what they buy will continue to work for some period of time after they’ve bought it, and an obligation from the manufacturer to provide whatever services are necessary to keep that promise. Game publishers generally don’t offer any kind of warranty, and consumers don’t demand warranties, but consumers also tend to expect punishers to act as if their products come with a warranty. Publishers, of course, don’t want to draw attention to their lack of warranty, and will sometimes actively exploit that false perception that their products come with a perpetual warranty.
I think what’s really needed is a very clear indication, at the point of purchase, of whether a game requires ongoing support from the publisher to be playable, along with a legally binding statement of how long they’ll provide support. And there should be a default warranty if none is clearly specified, like say 10 years from the point of purchase.
I’m not trying to frame this in the context of the lawsuit, even though that’s the point of the original article. The Crew’s nonfunctionality is just a consequence of our lack of ownership.
Perhaps this article would explain things better than I could.
Ultimately I think what consumers are looking for is less like ownership and more like a warranty
No. That’s not true. Otherwise people wouldn’t be reciting this phrase over and over again.
Consumers want to fucking own shit again! Renting everything is the entire fucking problem.
No, make it a entirely employee-owned company, so they can vote the execs out, sanitize the culture, and keep the thousands of worker out of unemployment
The workers, the gamers, and the industry are glad you’re not in charge of anything, punishing them for things they have no control over, and wasting good talents and infrastructure.
You want to use the “throw everybody out and see what happens”, and you claim how much better things would be under your governance.
You’re talking like a Elon Musk wanna-be, even using shitty metaphors that mask all the complexity of the problems, and the cruelty that these kinds of decisions imply.
You want to throw 20k employees out without any consideration for the economic and personal consequences, not to mention all the other companies around who will see their business sometimes heavily impacted.
All this to make a stupid metaphor. You’re 14 at best.
You needlessly want to punish tens of thousands of people for the acts of a few hundred. It’s cruel, pointless and very damaging, and your tirades from a high-school essay only support the shallowness and immaturity of your thinking. I won’t waste any more time on you.
It was deliberate choice by them to make even the single player campaign online homie. It ain’t an mmo, and it never should have been built like this.
Don’t even play like that wasnt fucked up, ok? If your actual argument is “i think companies should get to do what they want” them say that, with your whole chest, not this Weak socratic-method-bootlick-bull…
Take that stand and defend it. Or you could also stfu
It was deliberate choice by them to make even the single player campaign online homie.
As one would expect from an online racing game. Anyone buying it would know in advance that single player offline modes do not exist when they bought the game.
It ain’t an mmo, and it never should have been built like this.
It kind of was and it was intended to work as it did by the company that made it.
If your actual argument is “i think companies should get to do what they want”
My argument us that this is a game designed to be played online only. When you bought the game the packaging/materials do not talk about offline play so you shouldn’t expect it to work in a way it expressly isn’t designed to do. Adults should be aware of what things do when they buy them.
It ain’t an mmo, and it never should have been built like this.
It kind of was and it was intended to work as it did by the company that made it.
Adults don’t dance around semantics in debate when they’re called out. I told you to stand up and this is your response? Mebbe you’re not even hidin! Maybe it’s the only way you can talk?
I guess you disagree, but I find your speech pattern embarrassing and tiring.
Your perspective seems to be you should get whatever you want regardless of the actual product you were sold and the terms of that sale. That’s not rational. You bought an online only game. If you wanted a single player offline mode to exist then you should have bought a game that had one.
My perspective is quite clear. I’m calling you a liar and (because liars are such) a loser, in no uncertain terms. Pretending authority is your only tactic. As the likely old-head here I deny you my permission to “be the adult in the room”
Eh, the argument was never civil. I don’t like the whole schtick of “showing immense disrespect buuut not actually name-calling” i see so many lowbrow edgelords employ. That sulky teen shit makes me maldy as all get out. I get there’s gotta be lines somewhere an i crossed em, but i gots to call a spade by its name.
Let’s compare with Destiny 2’s back cover, a game that is a MMO and thus “cannot be owned” by the players. Hey, a “Online Play (Required)*” sticker that is not present on The Crew! The fine print has a bit that states that “Activision makes no guarantee of regarding availability of online play or features, and may modify or discontinue online services at its discretion without notice.”
FF14 . It clearly states on the rectangular bit above the T Rating: “Users are granted only a limited, revocable license and do not own any intellectual property in the game or game data”
You deceived consumers, Ubisoft. “Online Play Required” is not there, so the game should remain playable offline.
I did and have read about it and disagree. I dont think anyone was tricked and thought they’d have the crew forever. This all seems very self entitled in my opinion. Point out any technicalities that you want to, people should have expected the game to be sunset eventually, and that it would be gone after that, just like every other online only game.
Which was a deception in the first place, because it clearly distinguishes between ‘1 player’ where it doesn’t say anything about needing a network connection, and 2-8 player where it says network and playstation plus required. It also says network features can be removed at any time, but nowhere does it say 1 player is a network feature. It specifically does not say that.
Why weren’t people upset when they first bought the game and realized they needed to be online to play it then? Why did it only become a talking point after the fact? You could argue it was shitty to make it a network only game and I might agree, but to say people were deceived and didnt realize it couldn’t be played offline until the servers were shutdown is absurd.
They probably were upset, but not upset enough to do anything about it because they still wanted to play it. I personally would have refunded it right away, and lots of people probably also did that.
Oh boy. If you look at Ubisoft’s stock prices, it’s way down.
Like high 80s in 2018. And now it’s 8, roughly 1/10th if it’s value.
They aren’t going to survive another few years at this rate without some bangers. How stupid their leadership has been, with NFTs, with their sexual harassment lawsuits, with bonehead anti-consumer practices is just accelerating this downfall.
See, boycotts do in fact work. They may not work instantly, but they do work if it’s your actual customer base doing the boycott. The Bud Light boycott also worked. The Target boycott currently has their stock in a tailspin, regardless of what they are claiming are the company’s actual issues.
gamesradar.com
Aktywne