Put simply, we allow all lawful purchases on our network.
As Valve correctly points out, this is a blatant & outright lie. They have cut off any number of legal entities over pressure from politicians or groups. Now they have to own it.
You will find such language pretty much everywhere. And there are reasons for it. A good example are certain drugs that are technically not illegal. Because they have not been officially classified yet.
That used to be a thing here in Sweden some time ago, where they’d just change some little compound and could technically, legally sell it online until it was deemed otherwise. Because it’s now technically a new formula. Once it was classified, they just repeated the proceas.
MasterCard might not want to be seen as an enabler in the drug trade. So while it’s technically legal. They don’t want anything to do with it. And would like the option to take action.
And according to the articles. It’s not MasterCard pointing to that regulation, but the processors. As MasterCard notes. They’re not a bank, they’re not processing your payment. They just provide the technology to do so.
Furthermore. I’m quite amazed that people seem to think Valve is this really good company that we can all trust and take their word on. Valve says one thing. MasterCard says another. I wouldn’t take either one of them on just their word. Better to take a step back, and see how it develops so you don’t make yourself a useful idiot.
Triple AAA games are usually very polished. But polish doesn’t make games fun. Polish is important with accessibility, and it’s easy to see why accessibility is important for a big studio casting a wide net.
But fun? That comes from creativity and innovation. Big studios are averse to risk taking, and struggle to attract creative individuals, because the corporate culture seeks to stamp out individuality in the name of process and procedure.
So yeah, more evidence of this. My money is going to Indy devs who prioritize fun over polish. (But polish is good to have too).
Agreed. I think it’s why TV exploded so much and led to things like Netflix making 1 billion shows a year. Breaking Bad showed people you can get away with deep stories with engaging character development on the home screens imo. Or that’s when I saw the change or awakened to the tide.
Edit. I think we are also seeing it become exactly what it left the movie industry for though. Wonder what our next medium will be they exploit to death with mundane entertainment.
When PUBG was just coming out, it was absolute jank city and I LOVED IT. I was driving a motorcycle and my partner was in the sidecar, and we were suddenly jettisoned into space, apropos of nothing… flat ground.
We laughed but it was also a bit sad, as only about eight other people were left.
We fall down from space and land… and we don’t explode. We don’t even bounce. The motorcycle is on fire. We have taken no damage. We get off the motorcycle and walk away, laughing our butts off.
I believe both are pretty important, at least to me. I highly value accessibility as someone with various disabilities and particularities and limited concentration, a game that is accessible to me is easy to start playing and for any amount of time so I can stop and afk as needed. It also means difficulty and quality of life options and features so I can choose how I want to play and play efficiently at my own pace. However if the gameplay/fun factor isn’t there I’m not going to enjoy it regardless. So both are very important in my experience.
Yeah, I think also worth remembering that people love games that serious gamers consider beneath them. I love indy games but I also understand why AAA games are fun, simple handholding game play is great sometimes.
Tommy:
Let’s think about this for a sec, Ted, why do they put a guarantee on a box? Hmm, very interesting.
Ted:
I’m listening.
Tommy:
Here’s how I see it. A guy puts a guarantee on the box 'cause he wants you to fell all warm and toasty inside.
Ted:
Yeah, makes a man feel good.
Tommy:
'Course it does. Ya think if you leave that box under your pillow at night, the Guarantee Fairy might come by and leave a quarter.
Ted:
What’s your point?
Tommy:
The point is, how do you know the Guarantee Fairy isn’t a crazy glue sniffer? “Building model airplanes” says the little fairy, but we’re not buying it. Next thing you know, there’s money missing off the dresser and your daughter’s knocked up, I seen it a hundred times.
Ted:
But why do they put a guarantee on the box then?
Tommy:
Because they know all they solda ya was a guaranteed piece of sh*t. That’s all it is. Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for right now, for your sake, for your daughter’s sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality item from me.
I remember being so psyched about the original Serious Sam that I pirated a copy to play right away, and then bought a boxed copy as soon as I saw it in Best Buy.
Love me Serious Sam. Really wish Croteam wouldn’t try to be a AAA studio. SS4 only real issue was it was an optimized mess. Great game mechanics, great levels, great music, great writing and VA work, but uglier and more stuttery then their previous games. They switched to using Unreal Engine for Talos 2, so I’m guessing they prioritized on just making the game rather then trying to make their own game engine, which had previously been a point of pride for them. Really looking for to their future games. Expecting a Talos 2 expansion before a new Sam game, but looking forward regardless.
It appears to be part of a series of fake DMCAs. Some asshat has been going around dmca-ing sfm, Gmod, and tf2 maps under different names with a lookalike email domain.
The fact that DMCA requests don’t have to be signed with an asymmetric key that lets you validate the company that sent it was actually behind the request is some of the dumbest shit.
We’ve known how to use certs online forever. Certainly well before the DMCA. Why the fuck wasn’t that a provision?
Oh right because our politicians are tech illiterate apes.
They’re like Japanese Disney. They’re nothing without their IP and they know it.
They also know that the only reason they have DK as a character is because Universal dropped the ball in protecting their IP. If they let Garry’s Mod casually have a “Mario” character in it, it dilutes their ability to legally go after some other studio who straight up makes an unofficial Mario game.
It started after Satoru Iwata’s death in 2015. He was a notorious true gamer/engineer before CEO and his vision was always long-term. The two who have replaced him since have decidedly chosen the short-term route for fast profit vs long term consumer binding.
I guess a zombie game where you play the 24 hours before patient zero gets sick, like an evil medicine lab simulator who got a 24 hour deadline to produce the first viable zombie or get shut down by the evil investors
I’d be careful to read too much into this. If they wanted it to be successful, it would have been Raid: Shadow Legends or Genshin Impact level promoted, especially with $140M sunk in dev.
This seems like they had no confidence in the finished product so they didn’t even bother to market it, just shat it out to app stores probably to meet contractual obligations and it will be gone soon.
Either that or there is some behind the scenes nonsense happening preventing it from being marketed. Think something like Will Smith having it in his contract that it has to release and giving him 25% of sales, for example.
But for something to cost that much and bomb that hard, it’s essentially impossible without them basically cutting their losses before launch and expecting it to fail. It’s the mobile game equivalent of the “lowest grossing movie”, basically something that was only released because it has to be, and not a true reflection of product quality. Like I’m sure it sucks, but is it THAT much worse than 99% of mobile trash? Probably not.
I swear to god, every time i hear about conservatives getting upset about gay and trans rights I’m more convinced it’s projection. They want to have the freedom to follow their own preferences but have been taught by someone in their family and/or society that certain preferences are completely unacceptable. Rather than go against the grain, they lean into the hate side of it. “If i can’t have that, you sure as hell can’t–and if you do, you’re gonna pay dearly” seems to be the philosophy. All this because they want to explore their sexuality but they decided the social price is too much. Not allowed to have what they crave, now they just scorn those that are brave enough to face the storm they themselves avoided…or they just hate people having freedom. Probably both.
It’s only anecdotal, but a lot of the people I know who were hateful like that while growing up actually did come out as LGBTQ+. Some were trans, some were gay, some were bi, etc.
Some of them are just a-holes though. One dude complained about a gay classmate. He never liked it when I asked him why he was thinking about what the other guy was doing with his bits so much. I’ve always thouht it was a fair question. I never did get an answer, though.
I think they want what trans, gay, lesbians, etc have. In terms of resources, jobs, money, social contacts and status. So, just like it happened with religion, they highlight the difference between you and them. Tribes created. Now it’s a Us against Them where them are different, so not human, inferior. If they are not human we can do whatever we want to them. And the rights start to be eroded. People arrested. We can go further down the line but you know what happens next. The Them get eliminated and the Us get the resources. We’ve seen this happen for ages.
Their stated ideals are ad-hoc justifications. All that has ever mattered is ingroup loyalty. Reality itself is defined by interpersonal trust. What’s true today is simply dictated by people above you in The Hierarchy, and your job is to make whatever mouth noises justify them. If they weren’t right and better and handsome then obviously they wouldn’t belong in that high position. It is impossible for someone to simply be wrong. That would require an objective means of evaluating claims. In their worldview, that is not what claims are for.
This constant quest for logical explanations is a category error. Logic is not what they’re doing. They think the whole world runs on who-says. Like if they get their guy to be the head scientist, he could make the sun go around the Earth.
I don’t think your idea precludes the idea conservatives are bitter about their own self-repression. The social cost of exploration being too high is flip side of the strict adherence to hierarchy for world view. If there wasn’t some emotion to tap into the narrative wouldn’t land nearly as well as it has
I did. This whole conservative theory-of-everything has been pinging around my brain for years, as many answers to ‘what the fuck are they doing’ became undeniably incomplete.
The hardest aspect to deal with is that this worldview is not fragile. There’s no ‘are we the baddies?’ moment where someone snaps out of it. If it was just a reverse cargo cult, there’d be more people who reject the invitation. So we can’t tell ourselves these people secretly know we’re right. This is not an act or a strategy. It has to be some internally consistent way of filtering events… and it has to look like what we’re doing, from the outside. Because in exactly the same way we tell ourselves everyone’s trying to be reasonable - they tell themselves we’re just performing loyalty.
It’s tribalism. Simple as that. It’s humanity’s default us-good-you-bad protect-the-village mindset, expanded from trusting your witch-doctor’s opinion on leeches to trusting your news anchor’s opinion on horse dewormer. I mean, he’s gotta be right. Look how much money he has. His penis must be enormous.
The thing is it’s only just tangentially related to trans rights. I mean they’re making a character creation screen and they do need to know what pronouns to refer to the character as in game dialog as the player is playing it. So they need to know that for the game to work.
These fools seem to want Bethesda to add logic to restrict the pronouns on the character creation screen. So it’s not that they’re angry that Bethesda made an effort to be inclusive. They’re angry that Bethesda didn’t put in an effort to explicitly exclude trans people.
That and I think they’re just generally triggered over the word “pronoun.” Triggered by words that describe words. There’s something very wrong with these people.
Have you read Terry Pratchetts book Thud? It touches on that briefly. For what its worth i agree with you. Nothing else makes sense. Especially when so many vocal homophobes get caught having same-sex fun.
People will eventually stop giving a fuck. This same shit happened in 1954 w/gay people. Gay people started suing and winning, and society moved forward.
We’ll likely see the same thing. Generally, it has to get worse before things get better. Back then, it started when scientists got fed up with getting their buttholes inspected by “security” to make sure they weren’t gay today (embellishing a bit here, but the gist is that they got fed up with the constant fear mongering and told the security teams to fuck off).
I’m sure we’ll reach a fever pitch and then someone will tell them to fuck off, as is usual. Then everyone will forget about it, save for some older folks.
Check out the Lavender Scare: the prosecution of gays and lesbians in the federal goverment by David K Johnson. It’s an uplifting book on how social movements get going and how it provides a sea change for society at large, even straight folks, in this case.
To be clear, there’s 50 years from 1954 to when gay marriage was first legalized. And 40 years ago, we even thought we were done with the whole abortion debate. Don’t even need to get into how long it took for people with Brown skin were legally treated anywhere near equal. BLM was how many years after the Emancipation? And still opposed by people who “want to leave it all well alone”. It’s a big deal that it takes that long to enact minimal change (considering we have a seated SCOTUS Justice who said we need to reconsider the constitutionality of gay marriage)
The real problem, perhaps, is everyone coming to the defense of the modder, even here. People saying “just let people do what they do” (see highly upvoted comment here). If the intolerant side “do what they do” and the rest of us get bored or sick of the human rights side, then it takes 50 years, or 100 years, or more to make meaningful change.
Rather than go against the grain, they lean into the hate side of it. “If i can’t have that, you sure as hell can’t–and if you do, you’re gonna pay dearly” seems to be the philosophy.
Making a game mod that only effects people who choose to install it seems like a poor strategy for achieving that.
Well the updates to Skyrim, Fallout and lack of modding tools for Starfield seems to indicate that it is now a reality. I seriously cannot fathom why they would sabotage themselves like that. It’s absolutely obvious since at least Oblivion that mods are lifeline and reason for success of Bethesda rpg games yet here we are.
No, not really. After Starfield released mod scene EXPLODED capital letters, there were hundred new mods every day. However, without proper tools 95% of those mods are very simple reskins and modders got burned out and bored on this fast. Now we are 8 months after release with still no tools and that enthusiasm is largely gone. Part of it will still be back, but the best moment to establish a vibrant mod community has passed.
But the point of Bethesda isn’t to sell their games. It’s to sell GamePass. Nobody has to play Fallout, they just have to want to play Fallout enough to buy GamePass.
Unless it’s either PS5 or Xbox exclusive (not both), I don’t think that’s true. Sony and Microsoft wouldn’t collude to prevent launch on PC. That’s extremely illegal, even for companies that are masters of dodging antitrust laws.
The most realistic explanation (IMO) is that Rockstar did their research and found that most PC players also own a console, and will very likely buy the game twice in the long run.
Or if we’re being charitable, maybe the game needs more optimization work before it can run well on the Steam deck, and they want that working before launching on PC.
With GTAV, the original release was 2013, the next gen was 2014 and PC 2015 so I forsee it being the same and being even later.
The upside was that the PC port was really good at release and I’m pretty indifferent to if I pick this game up in 2030 when it’s actually a good value on PC.
Spencer’s analysis is just an overview of the current symptom.
This is the real disease:
because it sees a new platform it can scale to feed the financial growth demanded by investors.
Investors/shareholders demand infinite growth, but there’s finite space to grow (millions of games, few customers). This is why, in the past 2 decades we’ve been seeing the scummiest of practices being employed again and again, as well as a 300% hike in base prices. Capitalism has eaten gaming.
But we’ve been observing this trend in AAA and AA publishers/developers mostly. Indie gaming is alive and well and evolving towards being better and better. Why? Because indie developers are not usually beholden to investors.
Once you hear a gaming company you used to like has gone public, say your condolences and then run away.
It’s the same shit across every industry. Successful company goes public, investors demand yearly double digit growth, and after a few years they are imploding.
Investors do not care about the future, sustainability, or anything except immediate profitability. What you described is exactly what happens, in gaming and everywhere else. It sucks.
This is why, in the past 2 decades we’ve been seeing the scummiest of practices being employed again and again, as well as a 300% hike in base prices.
Two decades ago, games were $50 which, due to switching to discs, was a price reduction over cartridges, so this point in time is a bit cherry picked. But even rolling from there, a 300% hike in base prices would mean games cost $200, and that's just not true.
That wouldn't be the base price; the base price is $70 for the biggest games. I think people are also a bit liberal with labeling games as "incomplete", when really they mean, "this game will have DLC after the fact because it's the best way to make games that take years to make without laying people off". And just to take a brief look along some games in my library, Cyberpunk 2077 would cost a maximum of $100 with DLC, by the time Guilty Gear Strive is sunset (if it runs for 5 years) it will still be shy of $200 in a worst case, and I'm seeing far more games without DLC than with DLC.
So don't play those games. The only way that's "almost all games" is if you're looking at the mobile market. Once again, still not included in the base price.
50 dollars were console games. On PC you’d often find the same game at 30 dollars (disk) or 20 dollars (steam) on release. The difference was due to console makers taking a standard fee cut from every sale.
The first AAA games back then to be released at 40 and 50 dollars on PC were COD MW1 and BF3, which set the trend for all other games since then. This was pure profit for the publishers, since there was no cut for console makers on PC. And before you say it, no, the Steam cut back then wasn’t even comparable (much less since it was a % cut and not a standard fee). In fact Steam hiked their cut because of the price hike triggered by EA and Activision, which is what then made EA pull their games off Steam and create Origin.
I don't know where your information came from, but a lot of it is very wrong. I thought maybe you might be from some other country, but that would mean it's a country that uses dollars that are stronger than US dollars, which I don't think is a thing.
$50 was the standard set by PlayStation for its biggest games, which N64 couldn't match due to cartridge costs, but this standard carried over to the next generation and continued very, very briefly into the life of the Xbox 360. By 2006, all 360 and PS3 games were $60.
I bought many PC games on disc back in the day. Call of Duty 2 (not Modern Warfare 2; Call of Duty 2) was $50. You can see here via the wayback machine that a week after its release, Modern Warfare 1 is $50. Here's the PC version of Flight Simulator 2004 and the first Knights of the Old Republic for PC at $50 in December 2003. I remember there was a push to make those $50 games into $60, and the likes of Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 could sort of get away with it back when others couldn't. After buying Call of Duty 2 on disc for $50, I got the $60 version of (original) Prey, because the $60 version came on a DVD instead of several CDs, and installing games from 5 or 6 CDs was a pain that I was willing to pay $10 to not deal with back then (it also came with other collector's edition stuff).
Steam still does, and always has, taken a percent cut from game sales and not a flat fee. They priced it at 30%, because that was better than brick and mortar retail. These days it starts at 30% and follows a sort of regressive tax system once your game is super successful so that you're not as tempted to leave Steam for other platforms.
EA pulled their games off of Steam because 30% of a lot of sales is a lot of money, and they wagered they'd stand to do better if they made their own storefront, but after the first couple of years, they stopped trying to make a platform to compete with Steam and really only cared about keeping their own releases there for that 30% cut that they no longer had to pay to someone else.
That last sentence is so spot on. After reading a topic yesterday, I was trying to think of one time a game company went public, and it ending up a good thing for the gamers in the long run. If anyone knows of one, I’d love to hear it.
Check back in on Devolver, Paradox, and TinyBuild in 10 years. They're scaling up to cover the market that Ubisoft, Activision, EA, and Take Two abandoned.
Part of the reason is because most people don’t notice the lawsuits or think this is boilerplate legal stuff that happens in the background all the time. They’re too distracted by the entertainment side of things.
Considering their policy doesn't allow for other stuff like this, yeah I am not surprised.
Content that may be generally construed as provocative, divisive, objectionable, discriminatory, or abusive toward any real-world individual or group, may be subject to moderation. This includes but is not limited to content involving politics, race, religion, gender identity, sexuality, or social class. We tolerate content related to real world issues and events as long as the appropriate tag ("Real World Issues") is used and the content is handled in a tasteful, respectful, and non-inflammatory manner. Users who do not wish to see such content should make use of our content blocking feature.
Reminds me of the time when a Spiderman mod removed the VERY few instances of a pride flag in a recreation of NEW YORK CITY and a Skyrim mod that removed any potential gay romances that only occur when wearing a very specific amulet (including a single dead skeleton couple off the beaten path.)
Those got booted as well cause.....come on now. Its blatantly targeting a group of people about their sexuality and gender who have BARELY any presence to begin with in these games.
Starfield is even more egregious as its LITERALLY just a menu option and the rare use in dialogue....
Really pathetic and sad people would even feel the need to make them to begin with. Let alone feel the need to upload them to a platform.
I think it’s a story when it’s perhaps the largest flop in the medium, much like John Carter. It’s somehow worth writing five articles about the Joker sequel flopping.
John Carter didn’t get that much attention either, and what it did was mostly about the leadership changes in Disney tanking the advertising and not about the movie itself.
As a fan of the books, the movie was pretty bad. The only good parts I can recall were the CG, and the actors who played Tars Tarkus and Kantos Kan. Everyone else in the film was mid to bad.
Do you think more people care about the average video game story or the average story about the theater? Live performances, not movies. Theater, Dance, and Visual Arts all get their own sections in the NYTimes, for instance, but video games are demonstrably bigger and don’t get the same attention. There’s rarely even a mention of the likes of Call of Duty in mainstream media when they do exceptionally well, let alone exceptionally poorly, and that’s really the crux of the article.
That has more to do with New York having a thriving theater scene and a NY newpaper promoting a local thing that is popular with its readership and the companies that pay for advertising. It is something that sets NY apart from a lot of other locations, even if theater is pretty common in most areas.
Kind of a chicken and egg when it comes to games, since readers won’t be expecting games news in mainstream sources they don’t dedicate resources to writing the articles. That makes business sense because most people who are looking for game news already have a number of web sites to choose from.
I agree that theater is something that New York has in abundance over most areas, but are there not movie focused sites better delivering those articles on movies as well? Is it not worth covering something at all just because it’s at other news sources? If it wasn’t, any news outlet would only print exclusives. And this extends beyond the Times, as the article points out; that’s just the outlet I personally have a subscription to, and their circulation extends far and wide regardless.
My point is mostky about people’s expectations and that people who want news on games probably aren’t interested in gaming articles from papers/major news sites and companies in general aren’t looking to advertise on gaming articles in the same way that makers of fashion would want to advertise in the theater section.
I really like this post btw, I never really thought about how sparse reporting on games is outside of dedicated sites.
Like I said though, they do have some really great articles in gaming, just not with their own header, so they’re harder to find. And they do know what isn’t covered by other outlets, because they tend to do profile pieces rather than news coverage. But if Joker’s sequel is worth writing five articles about, surely the largest failure we’ve seen in games is worth one, you’d think.
An article about Joker 2 has the novelty factor of bombing as a sequel to Joker, which was a massive hit. They will got a lot more views on any one of those five Joker 2 articles than they will from multiple articles about a game nobody heard about.
More views = more money. It doesn’t matter whether something is more ‘worthy’ or not.
For the New York Times, that’s not really their incentive system compared against their subscription model. Still, it’s a disparaging difference between how they treat both industries. Losing hundreds of millions of dollars would be news in any industry.
Also, generally speaking, people interested in news about games read and seek out gaming sources that cover gaming info. Like kotaku.
Gaming is popular enough that there are several dedicated news and information sites to choose from. The “news” is for stuff of general interest. They could cover some gaming news, but for the most part people who want gaming news get it from more dedicated sources.
I do find it interesting though that the finals is another game that basically has not been advertised to anyone, and that has a very strong but small community. So not advertising your game is not automatically a death sentence although it probably doesn’t help.
They story should have been how a $200m investment into a live service game failed. An investor who knows jack shit about games reads that and now thinks live service games are a risky invetment strategy.
How efficient is it to antagonize people that are actively promoting your own content for free on other platforms? Does this actually work for Nintendo?
I guess they antagonize anyone that has moderate exposure using their IP
In some countries copyright law says that if you let people use your copyrighted material with little to no impediment then you cannot suddenly request whoever is using your material to stop
Let’s say that Nintendo allows fans to make fan made Mario games for 5 years. Then they suddenly sue everyone and say “hey you have to pay for copyright or shutdown”. A judge can decide that since they didn’t enforce their copyright for some time they cannot sue people that are using their IP.
From a legal perspective the act of policing your own copyrighted material is the company’s responsibility. This law prevents companies from relaxing their copyright claims for years (essentially allowing people to use it) and then suing everyone for using their IP. In other words Just let everyone use it, then sue them. The law is there to prevent that
Nintendo is likely super strict because “let people use your copyrighted material with little to no impediment” has room for interpretation in a court room. So they go to the conservative side and shut down everyone. Also consider that they’re right next to China. The piracy capital of the world. It’s not a surprise they’re scared about their copyright.
I’m not saying that what they’re doing is right. It’s not. But I see where it comes from.
People that don’t know of this (or don’t care) will indiscriminately buy their products. To unseat them it would require a handheld that targets the same market and a killer game for that handheld.
Nintendo is a “family friendly” brand before all else and really only cares about the experience of children playing their games and adults buying their games for children to play. They count on their core IPs to draw in those kids as adults, but don’t put much effort in catering to an adult audience. They put more effort in with the Switch (game store with more adult oriented games), but still minimal effort - their original properties are family friendly.
They see other people using their IP as diluting their brand value rather than promoting it. They think their characters are what makes people nostalgic for their games and drives brand value. So they want you to only be able to see your “favorite Nintendo characters” from Nintendo official sources and have complete control over that experience.
I think they’re wrong about most of that. The characters are, for the most part, pretty generic and simple. What people like about Nintendo is that the games are accessible, they played when they were kids, and they were often introduced to those games by parents or older siblings. There’s a social context to Nintendo games that is unique and nostalgic. They’re often some of the first games you play as a kid, and they’re the first games you think of when you want to introduce your own kids/nieces & nephews, etc. to gaming. I don’t think that unofficial Super Smash Bros tournaments or Gary’s Mod having fan-made Mario models in it dilutes that in the slightest but Nintendo does drive away adults who are the primary drivers of the Nintendo brand’s popularity (as they are the purchasers). Once it’s these young adults’ turn to share Nintendo games with the next generation, I think Nintendo’s litigiousness will hurt them because it will have driven many of these people away.
kotaku.com
Ważne