You could always run it in a sandbox if you’re not sure.
Unpopular opinion: for executables, I purchase everything. It’s no longer worth it to me to risk a ransomeware attack. The game you’re looking for is $20 on steam which certainly isn’t free, but worth it imo.
I appreciate it.
And no, I've not used the sandbox before, I generally just scan the file for viruses and hope for the best (terrible practice, I know, but I so rarely download anything), but I would be happy to try it out, problem is all the versions I've downloaded so far have been in Russian (even when selecting English), so even if I do test them in the sandbox, I still don't know what any of the UI is saying lol
If I can't meet the deadline, I will step down from leading the project and transfer full rights over the repository and instance to the contributors.
I respect you entirely but this is a bit dramatic. Not all projects can be on time due to complications and no one is asking you to step down. Please just do what is necessary - you're doing fantastic!
I haven’t played much of the Beta yet so I don’t have any opinion on your feedback, but just keep in mind that this Beta is based on an April 2023 build and that its main objective is to stress-test their infrastructure, so there’s a chance that some of your complaints may have been tweaked by now ign.com/…/payday-3-open-beta-release-date-confirm…
First off, Payday 3 has zero local play. 100% DRM. This means that if their matchmaking system goes down, you don't get to play the game. Now, this isn't a complete deal-breaker for me, provided the matchmaker doesn't go down. After an hour of play, the matchmaker went down for the rest of the night.
And that's exactly why I'm hoping to convince more people to make this a deal-breaker. The servers going down is inevitable. If they stay up, it's a bonus that makes your life easier. Of course, for Payday, I'm not expecting LAN, private servers, or split-screen. They make far too much money from funneling you to their cash shop. I just hope that the lack of these features is soon seen as a black mark that makes a game unmarketable.
I like having both unlockable extra fighters (a reward for your dedication to the game) AND having post-launch roster expansions.
For me the problem with the latter comes with highly aggressive monetization practices. Give me a fighters pack with multiple new fighters and alternate costumes at a reasonable price and that feels like adding value to the product (example: SSBU). Price me out at expensive single fighters and single costumes and you can go fuck right off. Battle Passes and FOMO can likewise fuck right off. Anything that requires me to work to unlock something I paid for (in this genre) should be included in the base game as a reward.
The new way is better, and it's not close. The only thing I miss from the old days is the ability to preserve each individual old version and old meta, whereas these days we just update the new version on top of it. If you're the kind of player who felt like Happy Chaos ruined Guilty Gear Strive, you can't really go back to a version before he existed. Up until this latest patch, I felt like the best time in the game's lifespan so far was right before Happy Chaos launched (for reasons beyond the state that Happy Chaos launched in). Thankfully, this new season is great, but we might not have been so lucky.
People outside of the fighting game sphere would perceive these new games as a "rip off"
I'm going to wager plenty of people inside that sphere would consider them to be a rip-off as well. Super Street Fighter IV didn't change any more about characters' gimmicks than your typical seasonal update does in modern games. They had limited ability to patch games back then, and the new boxed copy was all they could do, but this new method allows them to demonstrably keep a larger pool of players online playing the game than the old method did, which provides more value to future purchasers, which theoretically drives more sales before we even get into the economics of Street Fighter costumes. I know when I bought Guilty Gear Xrd Sign, I wasn't too compelled to pick up Revelator when it came out, since it appeared to be barely different from the version I already had, and no one was really playing that previous one online anyway.
An example would be Super Street Fighter IV launching with 10 new characters and 5 new stages for 40 dollars -- a price that is basically in-line with modern "seasons" in the worst case scenario and it can be debated that it was actually a great value when you consider all of the additional work and polish to other UI and gameplay elements.
That's $40 in 2010 money. It would be more like $56 in today's dollars.
I only buy fighting games when they launch the complete edition with everything included (at least all the characters, I don't care about the cosmetic extras that I will never use). Since I don't play online (I suck at fighting games so playing online it's a waste of time, but I still like the genre) I'm pretty much unaffected if the online is active or not
First: Can your GPU handle that at better than low quality 20 fps? If you have a gpu that can handle 4K fine, then it “should” be able to do 3x 1080p monitors (because there are 4x as many pixels in 2160p than 1080p). Playstation and Xbox are pretty much right out of question (no custom controller support likely anyway), and 3x 1440p or 3x 4K is most likely out if you don’t have a top end GPU. Having a wider field of vision may need beefier CPU power to calculate bullet physics and other things in view as well.
Second: How many Armored Core players would have the money and need to buy a custom controller, a highend GPU and 3 monitors (assuming 1080p), back of the napkin math says 2200 CAD = 1620 USD? While support for crazy setups are nice but the developers aren’t really in a rush to add support for stuff that at most a few hundred people worldwide will make use of. Racing sim and other simulator fans have the audience there, I don’t know if ACVI is billing itself as less arcadey and more simulation.
However, if mod support is there, perhaps interested fanatics would add multimonitor, custom controller and HUD support.
So multiple people have mentioned mod support but I've never seen it myself in numerous low graphic and high graphic quality games. It looks like resolution is less a matter and more no want for it. 99% of games have no NEED for anything I said.
Immersion is supreme for so many whales though. Not only that, but people with 3060 series graphics cards or equivalent make up like ~15% (did I math right from the toilet?) of Steams userbase. https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/?sort=name
I'm just surprised mech games, which are designed by their nature to be futuristic and have LOTS of HUD elements, wouldn't make use of multiple screens to declutter and immerse better. RTS games would also be great candidates for this QoL feature.
The argument requiring 4k resolution is moot too when you consider only 1-2 screens need it. A minimap and info screen can be rendered in near shitter quality.
It just seems like a case of where creating a game that uses multiple monitors in different resolutions seems like one of those weird programming hiccups that throws shit off or takes up too many resources. Otherwise I feel like making use of another screen for a HUD would be relatively easy. I'm no programmer though, hence the question. There's also balancing complaints where people who can afford multiple monitors have easier to see from peripheral maps, cooldowns, stats, etc.
As for money on controllers, gtfo lol. That's clearly not in the spirit of my question. I just kinda expected FromSoft after making billions to put in some neat odds and ends features into Armored Core which is also near and dear to their hearts.
I was immediately disappointed when there was no cockpit view but hey, it's Armored Core, not MechWarrior.
I’m not trying to throw shade on people wanting to spend money for an immersive experience, just that there are fewer of them with that setup and that number is what matters from a software sales perspective.
I’m simply stating why FromSoft wouldn’t be compelled to implement such a feature other than out of the goodness of their heart. People with insane setups spend a lot of money but FromSoft wouldn’t see a penny more than someone who buys and plays the same game with a simple setup.
Rendering more screens is more demand on the graphics card.
Also, not everyone has multiple screens or their screens laid out in a similar arrangement and/or the same resolutions.
Beyond these though, there shouldn’t be that much limitation to the idea.
I currently play Baldurs Gate 3 couch co-op split between two screens. There doesn’t seem to be a way to do it natively, since it recognizes each monitor individually, but doesn’t see their connections to each other. I have to do a borderless window and then drag one side of it to the other monitor.
Anyway, I wish there were more built-in options to spread a game across multiple screens. Years ago I used to play Rocket League across three monitors so I could see more of the field while playing.
Game developers could do it fairly straight forwardly but the demand for multidisplay functionality isnt really there. Supcom had a 2nd monitor option to render a 3d map but i cant think of any other games that do a separate function like that. Ac6 has a minimap? Fat chance getting something that cool and involved with a game you cant completely mod or make yourself though. Itd be really sick to see something like it on ac6 especially. I miss 4/4fa’s HUD.
Yeah racing sims is what brought this question to my mind. My workplace has a racing sim area which has the actuating seat and multiple monitor setup and by god thinking about it in a modern mech game just made me giggle at the thought.
kbin.social
Gorące