An offline mode is the only way I'd consider buying and playing Nightingale; I do love survival games, but I need them to be offline adventures balanced for single-player experiences! As an introvert the last thing I want to do is encounter another person in a game.
And this is what Sony was afraid of, why buy on PlayStation when I can play it on XCloud with gamepass for a fraction of the price? Especially if all I care about is the campaign which doesn’t take lightning fast reflexes and can be played with a small amount of latency.
This is also why the EU was worried about cloud gaming competition, but Microsoft played the long game with gamepass and now it doesn’t matter if their stuff is on other cloud platforms as long as they get that gamepass sub.
The thing is, this whole buyout was Microsoft spending “fuck you” money. They can’t beat PlayStation right now, so they’re playing dirty, shifting their business elsewhere and buying out the competition. Their whole business strategy is just hoping nobody gives a shit at this point, and if someone does give a shit they’ll just pay the fines and continue.
Off topic. Is the anti cheat as invasive as people make it out to be? I'm no computer wiz but I've stopped playing pvp games with root kits but don't actually know enough. Also anti cheat in a pve game lol.
No, it doesn’t, and you’re betraying your ignorance of the topic by making the suggestion.
First of all, when we refer to rootkits, we’re talking about the fact that NProtect, by design, gains an absolutely staggering amount of access to the kernel space of your computer. VAC, by comparison, does not demand anything like the same level of access. You’re making an apples to oranges comparison, and when questioned on it responding with “But they’re both citrus fruit, right?”
No, they’re not, and the fact that you think they are means you don’t know nearly as much about this subject as you think.
But putting that aside for a moment, suppose one day you went hang gliding. Then, upon telling me about how much you enjoyed it, I immediately demanded that you play Russian roulette with me, and got seriously offended when you refused. That would be insane, right?
So you see how a person consenting to one risk doesn’t obligate them to consent to others? It’s not an all or nothing state between “My computer is exposed to exactly zero vulnerabilities” and “My computer is exposed to literally every vulnerability ever”.
Every single program you install on your computer brings some potential amount of risk, but a) that risk is MUCH higher when the program demands the kind of kernel level access to resources like your memory that NProtect wants, and b) that risk has to be commensurate to the benefits offered, and it’s hard to see what benefit I’m being offered by a notably cheaply made kernel level anti-cheat in a purely cooperative gameplay experience.
I gave a concrete example of an exploit using Steam, and you’ve provided a hypothetical while arguing that your hypothetical example is much more risky (and compared it to hang gliding vs Russian roulette).
Specifically how much more of a risk is it to have kernel level anti-cheat installed than it is to install software like Steam and games on your system? Since you are claiming in-depth knowledge I would actually like to know more specifics for future reference. I don’t find the hang-gliding/russian-roulette example super helpful personally.
…it’s hard to see what benefit I’m being offered by a notably cheaply made kernel level anti-cheat in a purely cooperative gameplay experience.
You don’t see how it would affect your enjoyment of the game to have someone insta-killing all the enemies in a match, or generating 1000x more rewards than you would normally receive, breaking the progression permanently?
For some reason FOSS bros don’t have any issues with capitalism or security when it comes to Steam, they think Gaben shits gold or something idk. It’s weird. Steam is virtually a monopoly and has had security vulnerabilities in the past but they just plug their ears and ignore it.
Yes it is. Its literally a free for all rootkit on your system. Anything you run can exploit it. Its an open invitation to take over your system. The only way I'd run this, would be under linux with proton emulation layer.
Setting aside that there really shouldn’t even be an anticheat in a PvE game (unless progression allows you to unlock items that are real world currency based on which I could see why they’d want to stop people from accessing it without one of their two methods) the concept of a rootkit doesn’t equal “software with admin privileges.”
A rootkit is a package of different (specifically malicious) programs that are designed to hide themselves from your system.
Is the anticheat designed to be invisible when installed or running? No. Is it designed to specifically be malicious? No. Therefore it’s not a rootkit.
There’s a difference between software designed for malicious purposes and software that has the ability to be hijacked for a malicious purpose. These two aren’t the same and everyone with even a smidgeon of actual IT security knowledge would acknowledge that at the bare minimum which no one in this thread seems to have done yet.
This isn’t just semantics, rootkits are defined by their purpose not their permissions. Bunch of script kiddies in this website pretending their ability to install Arch makes them professional Comp Sci degree holders.
unless progression allows you to unlock items that are real world currency based on which I could see why they’d want to stop people from accessing it without one of their two methods
This is the reason I believe. There’s a premium season pass that has some later game unlocks which they probably want to incentivize. That, and there’s a meta-game that depends on the community making concerted efforts to progress the story. I’m assuming that they don’t want a modder to unbalance that.
Yeah, it’s definitely getting difficult to identify the difference in PvE and PvP from a security and financial standpoint in the modern live service landscape. Games that don’t include direct competition still have aspects of them which can be messed up by other people with cheats.
A somewhat similar concept is how easy it is to stop at the space anomaly in NMS and get handed a stack of Starship AI valves that will immediately skip you past early-mid game progression in a lot of gameplay loops. It has nothing to do with paid currency which is why they don’t stop it but the idea is similar I guess.
Setting aside that there really shouldn’t even be an anticheat in a PvE game (unless progression allows you to unlock items that are real world currency based on which I could see why they’d want to stop people from accessing it without one of their two methods)
I can think of another reason. It’s a live service game where it’s the community vs the game masters. They want to tell a story within the game and direct us with community challenges. Right now there’s a challenge to protect planets from automaton invasions. We lost the first planet, won a few but it’s not looking as much of a clearcut victory like the first challenge was. There’s a real chance we fail this challenge and maybe that part of their plan?
So what would happen if you let cheaters run amok? Now you can’t tell a story where the community fails, because cheaters can guarantee wins. If you make it so hard cheaters can’t win you’re going to make it completely impossible for the community and that’s just not fun. So what can you do to make it fun for the community? Crack down on cheaters.
I just don’t see another rational reason to have anticheat. Even the real world currency isn’t that useful because it’s mostly for buying armors for cosmetic purposes. There’s really not much to gain from circumventing the real world currency.
Off topic to the off topic. OS masterminds out there, does rootkit anti-cheat translates to Linux over Proton? I assume not? If Proton is not originally run as root, it shouldn’t be able to elevate its privileges, correct?
It is absolutely absurd. There have been a lot of games that aren’t polished come out in the last half a decade that got a LOT of flack, but this one cannot be played without a connection to the servers and no one can connect to the servers. I have 15 hours logged and probably 4 of that has actually been playing. The game is by every definition LITERALLY Unplayable.
But when you are able to play it is great. I don’t think it’s fair to judge it’s gameplay from not beiyablento connect due to sever being full. It’s a valid complaint about not being able to log in. That being said, I don’t really blame the developers because there was no possible way they could have known their game would have been this big.
That’s what I said. It is a valid complaint but not a review of the game itself. It’s like wanting to go on a ride at Disney. Does the line suck? Yeah. But is the ride bad? Maybe it’s not worth the wait when you paid to get in. But that’s why the developers are straight up telling people to not buy the game until they can let more people play.
It is an indictment of the game. I’m attempting to play the game I should be able to play and cannot. It ruins and degrades my experience and is very much a part of the game. As the game is launched.
I keep watching clips of Helldivers 2 and it looks fun but I don’t understand why I would play it over Deep Rock Galactic, especially when the original Helldivers actually has splitscreen co-op.
So what does this game’s combat bring over Deep Rock Galactic? It seems a lot flatter and less tense.
I really want to see a good YouTube reviewer critically compare them.
I’ve played both games and tbh I wouldn’t really compare them, I like them both individually. Helldivers 2 is a lot more focused on combat and fighting overwhelming hoards of enemies. On higher difficulties sometimes stealth or just running away is the best solution because of how absurd the number of enemies are. Its honestly really fun just trying (sometimes in vain) to thin out enemy numbers while protecting an objective. That being said, everyone gets access to cool down based, very powerful orbital abilities that do everything from calling down powerful support weapons to dropping a 500kg bomb on a bunch of enemies. At the moment there are 2 different enemy factions that require pretty different playstyles to overcome as well. Honestly pretty dope game, check out SkillUp on YouTube for a good review of the game.
Helldivers 2 is a lot more focused on combat and fighting overwhelming hoards of enemies.
I confused, Deep Rock Galactic is almost entirely focused on fighting overwhelming hoards of enemies. Stealth isn’t an option since they aggro at you which seems like a significant difference though.
Having played both games, I gotta say while DRG does have hordes, they’re not on the same level as HD2. HD2 is the first game in a while that truly has made me feel overwhelmed by the amount of enemies thrown at me and I love it. In HD2 I even find myself doing stealth a lot to sneak past patrols.
Overall though I don’t think it’s worth it trying to compare DRG to HD2. They might look similar in some aspects. But they are vastly different in gameplay, experience, and mechanics. It’s apples to tomatoes, sure they’re both technically red fruits, but that’s where the similarity ends.
I love all three, but they are quite different in their gameplay. In DRG you choose a class upfront so your role is more defined by this choice, the challenge is mainly about getting your bearings and traversing the terrain, and the mission objectives are (IMO) more involved. In HD2, the challenge is more about surviving against hordes of enemies without killing each other. In DRG, if you shoot somebody you hear a funny voice line, but I don’t think I’ve ever killed a teammate by shooting them. In HD2, this happens all the time.
I don’t understand why I would play it over Deep Rock Galactic, especially when the original Helldivers actually has splitscreen co-op.
I don’t see the logical connection here, but you do you. Perhaps worth pointing out, the original Helldivers doesn’t have splitscreen but rather shared screen coop – meaning you can’t get separated from your teammates, which is both a feature and a pretty big limitation.
I have played both DRG and HD2. I think you simply have to play HD2 to answer that question. It might not be for you, but having played both games “a lot flatter and less tense” is how I feel about DRG.
So this is why MS didn’t care if CoD went to Playstation. If people can just use Game Pass for $10-15/month and possibly already have it, why spend $70 every 1-2 years on new CODs on PS?
I thought that was clear from the start. They haven't really been shy about it. There haven't been exceptions to games appearing on Game Pass day 1 when Microsoft owns it; not that I can think of, anyway.
Can you put the existing ones on there already? I’m not shelling out for any of the old games but I sure would like the fuck around with some of them. I feel like they’re only going slow with AB properties so they can get further and further away from the merger date to shore up their case if regulators come back after them. Bethesda games hit gamepass almost immediately after their acquisition.
It’s crazy peoples experiences so far, I got to play all week with zero issues, had some issues over the weekend but decided to not queue up to let others join.
If you look at the Steam player charts for the game you’ll see when it’s working vs. when it’s not. Off-peak it works fine, but right now the player base is ramming up against their temporary player cap for hours at a time on-peak. If you try to connect when there are thousands of others also trying to connect, that’s when things go south. That was the case for much of the weekend.
In the last 48 hours, player counts hit 400k at about 7pm Eastern UTC and just stayed there for 6-ish hours. That isn’t normal, almost all other player count charts show a gradual rise and fall over the course of a day. The devs implemented an artificial cap after they found that their servers bog down when there are too many active players, basically sacrificing the peak time login experience to preserve the in-game experience. If you try to connect while the active player count is pegged, you’re essentially joining a swarm of other players who are also trying to connect at the same time. That swarm is likely DOSing some aspect of their own login systems.
A lot of the player count on steam is users AFK idling so they don’t have to get stuck in queue again. My discord friend list is a ton of idle users on Helldivers 2 all day and night
Yeah, that’s definitely a thing. They need to implement an idle timer. Seems like a low effort feature that would improve the login experience significantly.
I consistently get far more hours of playtime per dollar spent with indie games I buy for $5-$15 than $60 AAA games. (I say $60, not $70, because I haven’t bought anything at $70, and don’t intend to start.)
If they want to charge $70 for games, maybe release them in a complete state and don’t include microtransactions and offer post-launch support for a decent period of time. Their ‘Video games haven’t changed price since the 90s! The price isn’t keeping up with inflation!’ argument is a crock of shit because in the 90s, you bought a game and that was that. There’d maybe be a $40 expansion a year later that roughly doubled the content in the game. There were no $60 games with $150+ of day 1 DLC.
Outside of Wow, I never found a AAA game that can hold my attention past 100 hours, hell 40 is a strech. Its almost never worth it at full price let alone 70.
I have a handful of $30 1000+ hour indy games I may be playing 20 years from now.
I have a difficult time with this announcement from Capcom specifically, because the only AAA games I’ve consistently gotten 300-1000+ hours from have been Monster Hunter games, and I really don’t want the enshitification to claim MHWilds. If it releases at $70 and without excessive microtransactions, I’ll have a really hard time not buying it at that price. On the other hand, if they do have those microtransactions and a $70 price tag, I’ll probably just ignore it, as much as I’ll hate doing so.
It’s been a slippery slope but I personally don’t mind current MH (World & Rise) microtransactions because they aren’t at all necessary for the game not prevent any kind of unlock.
Otoh, if they cracked down on modding because they weren’t selling cosmetics…
Hours per dollar isn't a great metric for all sorts of reasons, but I do fully understand typically getting more value for your dollar out of indie games. That's not the only thing that makes this an apples and oranges comparison though. Games in the 90s and 00s were often cranked out in 9-18 months, with a number of developers in the single and double digits, compared to a lot of productions today taking hundreds of people to develop for 5 years before they come to market. Capcom in particular hasn't been getting too crazy with development timelines, because their projects usually aren't overscoped compared to their competitors, but we're still talking way more salaries to pay for a much longer period of time to create a single video game these days. Rather than DLC, it was designing games around strategy guides, hint hotlines, and coin operation in the arcades, resulting in decisions like making the first level really easy and the next level really hard, so you couldn't finish it with one rental, and you'd need to pay for additional materials to find out the obtuse answers to problems in the game. Duck Tales may have sold 1.67 million copies while its break even point was way, way, way lower than it is for the likes of Dragon's Dogma 2, which might need to sell that many copies to make back the money it took to create it, and it's not even a foregone conclusion that it will sell that many either.
Hours per dollar isn’t a great metric for all sorts of reasons
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, because I’ve been using that metric for many years to gauge how much I’ll spend on a game. If I’m only going to spend 20 hours on it, I’ll spend $20 or less. Part of that comes from the sort of games I play, but if I spent $60 on a game and finished it in 20 hours (‘Finished’ as in done playing the game, including whatever post-story content or multiplayer is engaging), I’d feel pretty bad about that purchase.
I think the hours you get out of it is a valid component of the value you get out of a game, but it's trivial to make a game longer, and a tight 5-10 hour game can frequently be more valuable to me than a 70 hour game, a lot of Capcom's games among them. Part of the reason Suicide Squad and Skull and Bones are getting slammed in reviews right now is because they made games that could be played for hundreds of hours, and that happened at the expense of making great games that you'd be done with in 15 hours. When is the last time you bought a movie or went to the theater? I'll wager a guess it cost you more than $3 even if it was really long.
And all hours are not created equal either. An action game that takes 50 hours would probably be exhausting, but a turn based game like an RPG or a 4X would feel right at home there, since you're spending a lot of time in menus making slower decisions.
Part of it, I think, comes down to the sort of games I typically play… if I’m buying a AAA action game, it’s something something like Sekiro, and I’ll absolutely expect to get my hours : dollars value out of it. (Incidentally, I played Sekiro for 62 hours after buying it for ~$48, so that one worked out fine.)
And to be clear, I’m not here for useless padding, either. If I lose interest before reaching the end of a game, it doesn’t matter if there was 60 hours of content there - I’ll judge it against however much time I spent before getting bored and uninstalling it. I’m also not against short games… I often prefer short games, but I also won’t pay $60 for them; I’ll check the estimated playtime and wait for an appropriate sale. I’m absolutely not advocating for every game to be 60 hours long.
There’ve definitely been games that I didn’t get my 1 hour / $1 from, and were still happy to have played… Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons comes to mind. I paid $15 IIRC and it’s over in 3 hours, but that stuck with me for a really long time. That’s my equivalent to going to see a movie (which I also do incredibly infrequently); it’s a “waste” from a purely monetary perspective but sometimes that’s okay, and I’m willing to splurge. I’ve seen 5 movies in a theater in >10 years, for the record. I would not consider it a good use of money, generally speaking.)
How we each choose to spend our money is very much a personal decision, and if you feel you need more length out of a game in order to get your money's worth, no one can really tell you you're wrong. Something to consider though is that your dollars spent decides what gets made in the future. If enough people feel the way you do, it's no wonder so many games are designed to be repetitive time sucks instead of tighter, better paced experiences, because they're not making their money back on a 15 hour AAA game if everyone waits for it to drop in price to $15 first. Personally, I've seen plenty of my favorite franchises become worse off for being larger, longer experiences (that also cost them more time and money to make, meaning these games come out less frequently), and I'd love for them to return to the excellent games they used to be when they were leaner. Halo going open world hurts the most.
Halo is a great example, actually, because even though Halo 1 is a relatively short game (I guess normal by FPS standards but in general it does not take long to beat, even on a first playthrough), I got way more than 60 hours of playtime out of it. Easily hundreds. A game doesn’t have to have a long storyline or whatever to offer a lot of play time. Sometimes having replayability, post-game achievements that are fun to work towards, or compelling multiplayer, for example, is all it takes.
Sure, but plenty of my other favorite FPS campaigns don't have that, and I definitely won't get 60 hours of playtime out of them, but they're still my favorites. It's been a long time since we got a great FPS campaign, and I hope it's not because the market those games are targeting have a $1/hr threshold to meet. $1/hr is also a fairly arbitrary metric in the face of inflation, because it essentially means that games need to keep being made on scrappier and scrappier budgets as time goes on in order to meet it. It's a fool's errand to try to convince someone that their opinion is wrong, so hopefully that's not what it sounds like I'm doing, but personally, I find it to be a poor measure of the value of a game or any kind of entertainment for that matter.
I strongly suspect that we just prefer different sorts of games. I wouldn’t expect 1 hour per $1 from a modern AAA FPS, but I also wouldn’t buy them anyway for the most part, so that doesn’t really affect my purchasing habits at all (nor would I factor into their cost analysis as a result). All of the FPS games I’ve bought lately have been $10-$15 “boomer shooters”.
I don't buy modern AAA FPS either, but that's because they've been chasing those longer play times lately, or they end up not particularly interesting like Immortals of Aveum and then blame the market for not buying their game. I'm waiting for the indie scene to get past boomer shooters and start emulating the era just after that, and I'll gladly pay more than $15 to have it. There are a couple of candidates, but nothing for sure.
In the shooter space, just things I'm hopeful for, but I don't know how likely it is they'll scratch that itch. I've got my eyes on Mouse, Core Decay, and Phantom Fury.
ign.com
Aktywne