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.
I've been increasingly frustrated with clickbaity coverage and headlines. Credit to Polygon for being just as obviously opinionated as Gamesradar but titling and writing their piece way more professionally.
I mean, yeah, Ubisoft's lawyers are arguing that the arguments of a lawsuit against them are wrong, that's hardly surprising. Given that they're being sued for taking down an online game they would certainly argue that they had no obligation to keep the game online indefinitely.
It's an interesting case and there are... creative arguments on both sides, but being mad that Ubisoft would argue that the text of their EULA applies seems so weird.
For the record, and because I'll be hounded for this, I've signed all relevant petitions to request regulation about digital ownership that creates an obligation to provide offline versions or access to server code. I'm all for making it illegal to build planned obsolescence into software. That doesn't mean I'm not bothered with bad journalism that I happen to agree with.
Be honest, you were ready to do some hounding, saw that tackled preemptively and decided to pivot. I can see the hounding intent from here. Those ears are so droopy you're becoming a better boy as we speak.
Yup. I can sit next to a fellow programmer for hours in a pit, but you put me next to some Account Service jackass who’s on the phone all day and I’ll snap!
i’m sorry that you have to deal with the outfall of this, OP. gamers are notoriously the most overly sensitive group to generalize, even when they’re meant to think “i recognize that this is pointing out bad apples in my community”. instead, they immediately start defending themselves as if you specifically named them
the sane response is to go “wow that is awful. the gaming community does indeed contain some terrible people, i am glad to be one of the good ones and will distance myself from this behavior”
the sane response is to go “wow that is awful. the gaming community does indeed contain some terrible people, i am glad to be one of the good ones and will distance myself from this behavior”
I’d say the saner response is none at all. This seems like a pretty niche community issue somewhere on the internet involving at most <100 people. I doubt anyone here is closer then 3 degrees of separation from anyone involved. Why would you expect any of the outsiders here to “take a stand,” based on incomplete information?
Yes, but how many of these niche communities are there? Hell, lemmy itself is a niche community and everybody here should take a stand against this sort of stuff occurring here.
On here I’d 100% agree, though if some member here got into some kind of discord drama that you weren’t apart of, why would you choose a side? You’ll have incomplete information, and no doubt one of them will claim they were harassed while leaving out some important details.
I don’t see in what way having a PSN account would make Horizon Zero Dawn safer on PC.
But I also wouldn’t mind so much if the few PC games I’d buy from Sony were linked to my PSN account as I’ve been a Playstation gamer since the first console.
Still, I wouldn’t want every publisher to require an account to play…
I don’t see in what way having a PSN account would make Horizon Zero Dawn safer on PC.
It’s safer for Sony’s stock price, as they can report higher numbers of people on the PlayStation Network and greater “player engagement”. What, you thought this was about improving the experience for the customer? No one gives a fuck about them.
This game was the most AA shit I’ve ever seen. In the PS2 days it would have got a 7.5 average from most reviewers then it would have had a not-insignificant number of people pick it up.
They are delusional for thinking a UE5 asset flip is a AAA game.
If you don’t have a vision, don’t try to turn money into more money by making a game. Everyone loses. Dumping money on assets doesn’t make your trope copy/paste any better than the other million cheap Chinese clones on an app store.
Not at that price point, of course. Ultrakill has a sub 2 million USD budget, its one of the most critically praised games on Steam, and its not even finished yet. I can’t look up Steamcharts at work but I have good reason to believe its more than made back its production budget.
Live service games are starting to turn into a very expensive scam and if you can’t make a good single player game, you need to cut costs somewhere. AAA production budgets are just too huge and the product isn’t good.
Also EA has to understand more and more people have experienced their garbage launches and will skip their gold plated launch prices because of the risk you end up buying a lemon that is subsequently abandoned.
Making sure the gameplay loop is interesting and the game performs properly is important. Focussing on all the latest engine features that requires people to have top tier hardware is only good for marketing. Marketing then eats up a tremendous amount of budget without adding anything to the offer they make.
The last EA game I bought was Jedi: Fallen Order for $4, and I still felt ripped off, because EA adds a mandatory online connection check to every game they release now, including Immortals.
I’ve been a die hard fan of both Bond and Hitman for a very long time. This game has had my attention since its announcement. I platinumed Hitman 3 in like 2 weeks. Look forward to doing the same as Bond.
The hitman series is fantastic, but I will buy a PC and pirate a cracked version of this if they make online necessary.
I lost a lot of progress when I moved house and bought Hitman 3, couple of weeks waiting for connection and then when I get it it constantly drops the server connection.
This game is likely to be incredible but do not IO do that shite again.
I really really liked ME1 and 2. Sure, there are some nits to pick, especially with the act 2 gameplay (stupid mako, silly scanner), but they are great games.
ME2 is a good game in isolation, but I think it played a big part in getting Bioware where they are now.
ME2 saw them move far, far more into the action-RPG direction that was wildly popular at the time, with a narrative that was in retrospect just running in place (ME2 contributes effectively nothing towards the greater plot and zero major issues are introduced if it is excised from the trilogy). I feel the wild success ME2 saw after going in this direction caused Bioware to (a) double down on trend chasing, and (b) abandon one of their core strengths of strong, cohesive narratives. ME3 chased multiplayer shooter trends, DA:I and ME:A both chased open world RPG trends, Anthem chased the live service trend, and the first try at DA3 chased more live service stuff before Anthem launched to shit and they scrapped the whole thing to start over.
All while, of what I saw first hand (of those I played) or read about secondhand (of those I did not play) none of those games put any serious focus on Bioware’s bread&butter of well written narratives. ME3 in particular is a narrative mess, with two solid payoffs (Krogans + Geth-Quarians) and the rest being some of the worst writing I’ve seen in a major video game.
ME2 was great. ME2 also set Bioware on a doomed path.
ME2 vastly expanded the universe of mass effect from the very bare bones level of the first game. It makes the reapers into more than vague robot threat that kills the universe every so often. It established other races as more than basic caricatures. You can keep the basic narrative intact without it, but you lose the sense of payoff in 3 without seeing krogan as a dying race, geth as a sentient race that deserves equality, and the truly desperate nature of the nomadic quarians.
3 was pretty good until the final ending that was clearly rushed in establishing the full reasoning behind each choice. Yes it had multi-player tacked on, but it was clearly a rushed effort and cutting it wouldn’t have fixed the story. The multi-player is also the best coop gameplay I’ve ever played and nothing has came close to the feel. You’re problems with 3 and other Bioware releases seem directly related to the broad direction EA was forcing everyone down.
Ah that’s true, I realize it now that you put it your finger in it: ME2 is really a “let’s tour the universe” kind of story fleshing out the background of known races (and adding new ones) and places.
This is very true. And it’s ironic because when I saw BG3 I thought that bioware paved the way for it. They had everything to make a BG3 since kotor and nwn2, they successfully kick-started their own IP with ME and DAO, but they went on the path of ME3 and DAI instead.
They mistakenly thought the kotor and neverwinter nights ways were different. And then they failed at adapting to the openworld era.
gamesradar.com
Ważne