The most depressing thing I’ve seen related to this topic. A small team that worked incredibly hard were lucky enough to achieve the impossible, and now they watch without any control as it is taken from them, for no other reason than greed.
Due to unchecked neoliberal capitalism, big companies like Sony already cover so much of the developed markets, that they have no way to naturally grow more. So they are forced to squeeze more out of what they already have, as stagnation is not accepted in this hellish system.
Including lying, controlling narratives, committing outright fraud, controlling the fate of companies through “consultants”, changing the definition of Recession, killing of whistleblowers, killing of journalists who help whistleblowers, to name just a very short few.
This system blows, how many millenia does it fucking take to figure that out?
Jurgis recollected how, when he had first come to Packingtown, he had stood and watched the hog-killing, and thought how cruel and savage it was, and come away congratulating himself that he was not a hog; now his new acquaintance showed him that a hog was just what he had been-one of the packers’ hogs. What they wanted from a hog was all the profits that could be got out of him; and that was what they wanted from the workingman, and also that was what they wanted from the public. What the hog thought of it, and what he suffered, were not considered; and no more was it with labor, and no more with the purchaser of meat. That was true everywhere in the world, but it was especially true in Packingtown; there seemed to be something about the work of slaughtering that tended to ruthlessness and ferocity-it was literally the fact that in the methods of the packers a hundred human lives did not balance a penny of profit.
Upton Sinclair
I read The Jungle a few months ago and its aged so depressingly well. Nothing has changed, it was obvious what was happening long ago, but we’ve done nothing but watch it get worse.
We haven’t done nothing. There’s Rojava and the EZLN building whole competing systems. There’s loads of people doing mutual aid or building cooperative economic structures all over the world, and those movements are gaining a lot of traction as people are waking up to how shit things are.
You don’t usually hear about all these projects, in the same way you may not notice termites hollowing out a structure until it’s far too late to save it.
I hope you have noticed that Rojava is next to Turkey, has lost much of its territory to Turkey, and can lose the rest anytime. Definitely fighting against it better than a certain UN member state too bordering Turkey (I’m being ashamed of Armenia here), but still.
EZLN may be in a better situation. Mostly because in Latin America “live and let live” seems to be not such an idealistic approach, since I’m confident there’s a lot of force which could squash them.
But only on one topic. Yes the FDA was created in large part from outrage over food condtions described in the book. But that really is only one chapter of the text, the majority of it deals with the exploration of workers in ALL sorts of industries (not just food), how preadatory home loans lead to finical ruins, how voting systems are rigged and how our policing system only produces more experienced criminals, not reform.
The last 2-3 chapters are explicitly socialist talking points that are still being said, for good reason, today. If the book was as influential as Sinclair wanted it to be, then we would’ve seen FAR FAR FAR more than the FDA.
I mean, heck, reread the passage I copied in. It’s not really about food.
So you’re intentionally exaggerating when you say “nothing has changed”. Yeah nothing has changed, except an entire Executive Branch department that didn’t exist before. It was more influential than many other books written at the time.
Of course the author wanted the book to be even more influential, that’s why authors write. No writer says “this book kinda sucks, I hope people read half of it and put it down”.
You can “uh actually” my phrasing if you really want to, but playing tone police is to miss my actual point how these are long standing and well known problem that Sinclair spoke about extensively.
If you don’t have anything meaningful to contribute to the conversation, it’s okay to just keep scrolling.
The devs that made Helldivers MUST have been aware of Sony’s mandatory PSN policy. This is just a sob story and throwing Sony under the bus at this point.
This would have been less of an issue if it remained enforced from the start. Re-enforcing it after demonstrating it clearly works without makes it look scummy and greedy. People could also easily refund if they didn’t agree. Now its too late.
For a lot of people it now looks as: now that the game is a success we want to collect everybody their data as well so we can make even more money.
Tbh, other games just require a 3rd party account without linking them explicitly. This requires an actual link which ( likely ) gives them access to a lot of your steam information which you’d rather NOT give to a corp that doesn’t seem capable at guarding people their data.
That is true, but it I’d an additional hurdle. Sony is playing it smart.
They made an announcement and had a bunch of Outrage now. If they had just enforced it people would have refunded on mass probably. Now people can still actually play.
I’m guessing steam might be less eager to refund when the actual deadline hits. I also feel like a lot of people will just cave and link/create the account.
That’s definitely what Sony is expecting. And it’s also what I’m hearing from friends. That they dont want to, but that it’s a fun game ans they’d rather keep playing with friends.
The thing is that it was enforced right at the beginning. There was a period where you couldn’t play without a PSN account, before they made it optional while Sony rolled out more infrastructure to handle the player numbers.
It’s an issue now because it wasn’t stated clearly enough and loudly enough that not having a PSN account was only temporary, and I think Arrowhead screwed up because they didn’t know that PSN accounts aren’t available everywhere and so were selling the game in places that couldn’t play it unknowingly.
Steam is usually pretty good about refunds and has apparently already pulled the game from the store in places where you can’t make a PSN account, so I imagine they’re planning to refund the game. This looks like the kind of thing that could be class-action lawsuit worthy.
The thing is that it was enforced right at the beginning. There was a period where you couldn’t play without a PSN account, before they made it optional while Sony rolled out more infrastructure to handle the player numbers.
That’s what I heard as well. I was a bit dumbfounded when I read that it suddenly became mandatory.
I think Arrowhead screwed up because they didn’t know that PSN accounts aren’t available everywhere and so were selling the game in places that couldn’t play it unknowingly.
I think this is the most plausible reasoning. It’s what I’m thinking as well, and also what seems to appear through the CM. In which case it is a screwup on their end. Though in 2024 I do get you’d expect people to be able make an account anywhere in the world for a company like Sony.
Steam is usually pretty good about refunds and has apparently already pulled the game from the store in places where you can’t make a PSN account, so I imagine they’re planning to refund the game. This looks like the kind of thing that could be class-action lawsuit worthy.
If they did that’s good on them, but not wholly their responsibility. It is a good move to prevent new purchases they’d have to refund anyway ( or until there is clarity on what will happen in those regions ). I would kind of expect the publisher to do this once they figured out this was possible though :/
You have to put in an actual support ticket. There’s examples of people who wrote something like “The publusher is forcing me to sign up to a 3rd party and I do not consent”
Re-enforcing it after demonstrating it clearly works without makes it look scummy and greedy.
Day 1 policy was that PSN linking was mandatory. Arrowhead execs knew this. Players who bought the game in non-PSN countries should have gotten a pop-up banner saying as much instead of the payment screen.
Im not even sure if the game would have taken off at all. Psn servers couldn’t handle the load which is Why it was disabled ( temporarily ) in the first place.
A lot of people, including myself, never even linked the psn because I could skip it.
In what world is that a mobster deal? The game initially released saying that PSN accounts were required, this is in every store front description. The devs clarified that was not enforced due to technical issues at release time.
Sony funded the game in the first place too. They didn’t take advantage of a moment of weakness. This is all contract stuff agreed upon long before release.
It absolutely sucks ass, but this is an incredibly basic business deal. Sony stepped in to provide server support because it’s Sony’s game, and Sony makes money off it. Now that the game is more stable, they likely went back to Arrowhead and said “Hey, it’s time you sorted out the contracted requirement for PSN accounts. You agreed to this.” and here we are.
Maybe Sony told Arrowhead that PSN accounts could be made by everyone. Maybe Arrowhead thought they could push back on the requirement after the game came out without them required. We likely will never know what went on behind closed doors.
But this isn’t shady, just absolutely monumentally fucking shitty.
Unfortunately, as long as refunds are handled reasonably well like they were with Cyberpunk 2077’s PS4 release, gamers won’t really have a leg to stand on. It’ll just be complaining that they can’t play something they wanted to play, after getting a number of hours in it for effectively free.
I didn’t think that’s necessarily true. They were contracted to make the game by Sony and when they started probably had no idea it would even be sold on PC.
Why do you care that a company as scummy as Sony is getting thrown under the bus? Outside of this fiasco Helldivers was a pretty great game. If throwing Sony under the bus gets this decision reversed literally EVERYONE wins, and honestly, as the Publisher, thats probably one of the things that comes with the title, taking the heat for shitty ass decisions that could otherwise tank a game
Second - Helldivers ain’t Flappy Bird. Making an online multiplayer game that needs the ability to do reliable matchmaking across multiple platforms with hundreds of thousands of players out there needs MASSIVE network and infrastructure support…
So you may say “don’t take money from the mob,” but this is more a situation of where if they HADN’T taken Sony’s support, they likely wouldn’t have been able to have the resources to have done all that themselves which could have made the difference between their great success and failure.
Remember that the first helldivers game was also a Sony published title where everything worked out fine for everyone then… but mostly because it wasn’t near as big a success story and making headlines but was instead a far more niche title lost mostly in the noise of smaller dev Sony titles.
I’m sure arrowhead has learned its lesson now and it will likely able probably to flex its muscles in the future thanks to its success financially - as I’m sure lots of publishers will be now coming at them with much more lucrative and favorable contract deals going forward, but they probably would not have been able to do what they wanted to do at the scale that they have been able to had Sony not been there to help provide that initial capital and infrastructure support.
This is Sony’s fault fully. The guys at Arrowhead are just wanting to have the means to make good games. They needed the resources to launch successfully and pretending it would have been feasible otherwise without said resources is sadly… naive.
Or make a game that doesn’t rely on those resources. I was considering getting this game when I got a system that could handle it. I’m gonna stick to my single player indie stuff.
This is like saying to any sort of person involved in commercial agriculture “don’t buy a John Deere tractor if you don’t like their draconic business practices.”
Like… there’s not really many other choices if you want to make a game that can do simultaneous cross-platform networked multiplayer and want to be able to launch on any console.
I mean, unless you want them making something that has massive difficulty coming to console… like maybe Lethal Company is the only recent example I can think of that’s a small non-major publisher-backed title that has networked 4-player multiplayer… and even then i’m not sure what sort of challenges that dev had when trying to implement any sort of netcode for gameplay.
Funny. I’m in thew ag sector and I would not recommend anyone buy a NEW John Deere tractor. Not unless you have the skill to flash the tractor firmware.
My peak multiplayer era was from then Arena shooters were kill. I don’t touch Live Service games because of what we’re seeing now. This game was going to be my first real try at one once I got a system that could play it as a lot of people were commending how it avoided the pitfalls of other Live Service games.
Just give me a game with a map editor and the ability to self host servers. The community itself will take care of the rest.
simultaneous cross-platform networked multiplayer and want to be able to launch on any console.
Quake 3 Arena came out in 1999 and has versions for AmigaOS 4, Microsoft Windows, Linux, Mac OS, Mac OS X, Dreamcast, PlayStation 2, Xbox 360, iOS. There’s even fewer differences between PC and console hardware now a days.
Have you tried Splitgate? They came out with a Forge-like map editor last year, and the gameplay is basically Halo mixed with Portal. It’s pretty fun and totally F2P. The only things you can buy are cosmetics.
This is the situation we’re in, even if you don’t like it. Yes, communities can take care of a lot. Yet for so many people the creation process and love of a product is why they create, not the money. I cannot blame the devs for wanting their game to reach as many people as possible. Nor can I blame Sony for wanting to make money, without that desire we wouldn’t have as many opportunities to play amazing titles as we do, though we can absolutely blame the way that money is made.
So perhaps you may have gone a different route. Maybe it would have worked, maybe not. Maybe many of us only recognize John Deere, and maybe people in the industry know of alternatives. Point is, I am hesitant to blame devs for nearly anything nowadays. Because this isn’t 1999, these titles aren’t for the PS1, Dreamcast, or even PS2 or original Xbox. It’s 2024 my dude and they had to make a choice: Get the resources, finagle some barely working alternative, or get help. I think many of us would have done the same.
Go shit on the big companies who are almost always the problem. Everyone else, man… they’re just making the shit they want because many of them love the process. We’re lucky we see so many projects reach the light of day, especially when for every successfully finished one I’d bet there are a 100 which are scrapped part way through.
What’s the difference to the end user? I’m supporting indie devs by buying their retro shooters. Asking for server software and map editors don’t hurt the the devs. It hurts the stock investors that demand the line goes up.
What I don’t buy are Live Service games. This game was going to be my first in a while after being burned the few times I’ve tried before, but Sony thought they could fuck around.
The idea that there’s a high amount of technician problems that need to be overcome to achieve crossplay though is nonsense. Just pick an engine with proven netcode and go from there. The biggest issue would be whatever red tape the console manufactures put up.
I mean netcode for pc-to-pc games at least isn’t really rocket science. I’m not as familiar with the crossplay aspect, but I’d hazard a guess that it is only difficult because console manufacturers have locked multiplayer networking behind their own subscription services. I can understand why they went the route they did, but maybe crossplay is overvalued if the cost is stuff like this.
Community hosted servers worked pretty damn well for a very long time, and aren’t reliant upon large amounts of infrastructure to continue being playable. In fact, I can still go play almost every game from that era that was good enough to maintain a player base without issue. Deep Rock Galactic seems to do alright without matchmaking, for a more modern game.
How do you propose bootstrapping a dedicated community? Genuinely asking, is the plan for there to be a dev-hosted service for a while until the community either develops or fails to develop, then to hand it off?
The developers can host a few servers, sure, that’s an option. If that’s the method they take, they also release what’s known as a dedicated server utility, that allows anyone to launch a dedicated server on their machine, or to rent out a server in a hosting center. You can find this model in games such as Counter-Strike, Quake, Unreal, and some of the Battlefields.
This allows for the community to self police, and people will naturally end up in a community that fits their preferences, and rude or toxic players will quickly find themselves banned from the majority of servers and be forced to change their behavior or play a different game. Players can modify server settings, or make entirely new game types that the developers may not have thought about or wouldn’t have the resources to create, and people can create tools that allow servers to easily moderate their servers, and elect moderators and admins from within the community for when they’re not online. This also allows for developers to negate the need to be able to host millions of players, and when the game dies, if it does, all they have to host is a Master Server list.
——
Another option, especially for games with small groups of people is to allow the game to be hosted live by one of the players in the squad or group. This is called peer-to-peer servers. In this case, and can either be done by “hosting” the game server and waiting for or inviting players, or by having the game monitor latency and automatically migrate to the best host based on connection and distance. Deep Rock uses the first of these two options, whoever starts the game becomes the host, and stays that until they close the server or quit the game. In this instance, devs host no servers except the master server list, allowing even the smallest of devs to be able to handle millions of people playing their game simultaneously without any real increase in their server costs.
Typically, for smaller squad based games, like Deep Rock, this is the better option, while for larger player per match games like battlefield, the former is the better option. In both instances, players choose from a list of available servers in a menu and load in from there. You can check out Deep Rock Galactic or the Diablo 2 Remaster to see what a server list looks like.
? Open server browser and whatever matchmaking system. Matchmaking doesn’t require the game be Live Service. Despite recent actions by Epic, running a Master Server for listing available games doesn’t actually cost that much. If you’re asking about Stat Tracking, I couldn’t care about that if you paid me. I’m sure you could track that reliably on a server by server basis. Maybe have different communities that trust each other have a Stat Network.
What does it matter if the game “launches successfully” if it doesn’t sustain itself? They knew theyd likely lose their players but they were hoping theyd be special - this game is not successful in the end.
Your entire argument boils down to: they wouldn’t have been able to cheat us into thinking this was a good game without sony. If theyre going to take my money and kill the game anyway, it would have been better to not make it at all. That’s what thousands of indie devs have to contend with every day.
I think his argument comes down to, don’t hate the playa, hate the game. Far better for them to have made the game, as it clearly is a good game. The publisher coming in and shitting all over everything is what makes the situation bad. Hopefully, this can serve as more inspiration for indie devs (who do make most of my fav games) and maybe lead to more studios not accepting Sony as a publisher. I can’t fault Arrowhead for wanting to make what they love, but I can hope Sony burns to the ground never to rise again.
Unless there’s evidence that AH got a special deal, there’s no chance they didn’t know this was an eventual requirement.
I’ve been an engineer in the AA/AAA games industry for almost 2 decades, my job often involves assessing the technical feasibility of games that big publishers like Sony want to invest in/ acquire.
Someone somewhere at AW agreed to shove PSN sign-in requirements in the deal, hoping it would blow over like many games before. (e.g rocket league / epic account debacle). Now the devs are sorry it’s not working out and say “their hands are tied”, but they must have known this was coming. There are way too many legal ramifications for this to be a random power-move by Sony.
Edit: sony apparently lifted the requirement today
I’m gonna be honest. It didn’t matter to them at the time. Look at it. They made their game and we all played it and loved it. For that time they were on cloud nine. They definitely got what they wanted, for a moment anyway. I can’t say I wouldn’t end up in the same situation if I was ever more than a shit dev.
Edit: but to add, I’d put huge banners in game saying it was a requirement at login. As far as I know I was never bothered in game for it. And if I was it was too easy to click and ignore.
I agree with you that they most likely needed the money to do what they wanted to do at that scale.
But I think my point still stands. Because it is a deal with the devil in the most literal sense that is possible. You get to your goal faster, easier or at all but in the end you have to ask yourself if the price you paid for that was worth it when the devil comes collecting. That is the moral of the fictional Storys, isn’t it?
But to add to this. I think we, as consumers, aren’t completely innocent either. Buying only the best looking, 1000 hours, other buzzword games. This undeniably sends a message to indie devs which can lead to people making self harming decisions.
One could argue that we got groomed to want that. And I do. All those blockbuster-games that were made under gruesome conditions are unsustainable. But we didn’t knew that. We thought that they were the new normal.
But now we know better. This is just normal if you walk over corpses to get to your goal. And if we want developers that value our time and mental health, then we should value developers time and mental health in return.
Which means showing them that we will buy games that are not those 10 million dollar productions. And that we will measure the quality of the game compared to the resources that went into that particular game and not compared to a game that had an unholy amount of resources to burn through.
In the end we need to find a way to cut out all the rich people who came into the gaming industry as it broke into mainstream, who are throwing their weight/money around and bully everybody into submission.
And that needs strength of character. It means not buying the new shiny thing that we have seen an add for the hundredth time today, no matter how much we want that. It means not taking that deal which will make that problem go away quicker.
If gaming has taught us anything, it is how to prevail against overwhelming forces. That it takes compassion, companionship, a bit of anger and sacrifices.
If we haven’t learned that, why the fuck are we even playing.
If you don’t go public with your company, some other company will go public, and buy your company or your customers from under you with the money they got from Wall Street. There are some companies that can try and resist, but the field tilts against them.
When you own something and someone comes to offer you money to buy it, you have this thing called “No” you can say, and then they don’t buy it. It’s a pretty neat hack. I learned it from Gaben.
Epic is trying to IPO and has all kinds of investors. It tried to undermine Valve by buying out its partners by just spraying money at them for exclusives - you know, “disrupt” the industry. Steam prevails because they are real good at what they do, and they had a head start, but it takes a Gaben to not sell out, a good team and a lot of luck to manage that. Steam is playing against a tilted field is what I’m saying, and is one of the few players who successfully are managing it. They are the exception.
The point is that you can say no to selling it, but for that to work you need to:
Actually own a deciding majority of the thing
Have a good enough product to resist your business partners (eg. game developers) being paid with investor money to switch over to you, sapping value from your product.
The point is that if Steam wasn’t so much over the competition, Epic could have taken market share over with the exclusive deal shenanigans, or publishers could have started up their own marketplaces. The biggest reason for that is that Steam was early to the party and could get to a good product before others tried to enter the market.
If Steam didn’t have that, people would have switched over to Epic and publisher stores, and we’d be bitching over Steam not having any good games on it because of backroom deals.
Yes, when you own the thing you can say no to selling it. Why is this point so hard to understand? Even if you don’t have a monopoly or even if your product sucks you get to say no.
It’s not, they’re making a separate but contiguous point about how the market naturally incentivizes shittier tactics from it’s participants, and how Steam, Valve, and Gaben are exceptions to the rule.
The point I’m making is that let’s say Gaben did not have the headstart or the loyal player base. What is Steam or Valve? Its customer base or market share? Those are for sale, they can be bought with “free” services, exclusive deals with publishers, or other fuckery. Its team and employees? How would you pay them without revenue if someone else is price dumping the market?
Yes, Gaben could keep the logo with the bald guy with the valve on his head, but that’s pretty much it. Everything else he has to fight for, invest in, keep alive. And the opponent, Wall Street, has literally unlimited money.
What I’m saying is that it’s not as simple as “just don’t sell out”. And I’m speaking from experience, not as the sellout guy, but as the employee where the company was sold out from over me a few times already.
i think you are right in your assessment but I would argue that consistency also is a crucial factor.
It may be harder because of the things you say but in the end the people who invest money (into everything but the games themselves) are just in to make money.
They will try to squeeze as much money out of the customers without losing them. Or at least without losing Profit. Losing customers and still making more money is a valid strategy it seems.
People will notice that. Some earlier then others but it will get noticed and then they leave. To the next thing.
You are right with the headstart etc. so as a Dev you should accept your limitations and instead focus on the things that you can control (to an extent) and that is planing the budget in a way that you can be consistent.
And when people are looking for the next thing, you will be there better then before. Then you got customers and an image that seperates you from the rest.
There are a lot of console exclusives that I like. I think an argument can be made that companies like Sony and Microsoft can add funding and support to make games better, sacrificing profits for console value.
With Xbox failing for another console, putting out half-baked products, and buying IPs instead of creating new ones, I’m worried that Sony will just start maximizing profits.
Sony brought out a console that was almost impossible to buy and has no games. Now they try to inflate their numbers by forcing people to make psn accounts. Fuck them. Not that i ever planned to buy a playstation, but i make sure to stay away from everything sony related
I play FFXIV and Warframe. I don’t have a PSN account and crossplay is fully functioning with both Playstation and Xbox users. Heck, Warframe is even available on Switch and crossplay works just fine with those users without any account linking.
Yes, but presumably you have accounts with those games? If not, you can play with people on those platforms but you can’t play with specific people on those platforms (e.g. a friend on the platform – which is the bigger deal in my mind with crossplay).
Like, the PSN account is the equivalent of a Bungie, Paradox, or Crytek account, something that allows the game developer to maintain a cross platform friends list? No?
I suppose they could use a room code invite system for crossplay but that’s way less convenient.
I never got into Hell Divers because it legit would not run on my system so I’m not super up on all the details but that’s been my impression of why they might want it.
Either way… With all the negative feedback I’m surprised they’re not screaming from the rooftops “we’ll do something else!” I understand Sony is tying their hands as well though.
The most depressing thing I’ve seen related to this topic. A small team that worked incredibly hard were lucky enough to achieve the impossible, and now they watch without any control as it is taken from them, for no other reason than greed.
You were right though. And it’s only because we were all so furious about what they were doing and raised such a fuss about it that they decided to renege on that.
Brooooo this victory is an absolute game-changer for us die-hard Xbox fans, and it’s downright exhilarating! Sony’s constant blunders pale in comparison to the countless triumphs of team Xbox, and this might just be the knockout blow that finally converts those Lamestationers to our side. Brace yourselves for an epic shift as the unrivaled supremacy of our console dazzles and dominates, pulling every gamer into its unstoppable vortex of pure excitement and adrenaline-fueled gaming bliss!👊👊
I can’t tell if you’re being downvoted by dorks who don’t realise you’re joking or by dorks who DO realise you’re joking and feel attacked. Either way, sad, silly down voters.
It’s weird how collective action works so well but they only choose to do it for this linking requirement. You could get the rootkits gone as well, gamers.
Most people don’t know what they’re installing or don’t care about their privacy, which is why there’s not enough people rising up against kernel level AC’s. Also, not being able to play until you create an account is much more upsetting to most people, than just clicking ‘update’ in League of Legends.
There’s a tooltip next to the update button that says something like ‘Our Anticheat Vanguard is out now!’ or smth like that. The rest is exactly the same as any other update
The Sony BMG CD copy protection rootkit scandal was a scandal focused on the implementation of copy protection measures on about 22 million CDs distributed by Sony BMG in 2005. When inserted into a computer, the CDs installed one of two pieces of software that provided a form of digital rights management (DRM) by modifying the operating system to interfere with CD copying. Neither program could easily be uninstalled, and they created vulnerabilities that were exploited by unrelated malware. One of the programs would install and “phone home” with reports on the user’s private listening habits, even if the user refused its end-user license agreement (EULA), while the other was not mentioned in the EULA at all. Both programs contained code from several pieces of copylefted free software in an apparent infringement of copyright, and configured the operating system to hide the software’s existence, leading to both programs being classified as rootkits.
Uhh… today’s AAA studios have THOUSANDS of employees, hundreds of millions of dollars in budgets, and huge IPs on which to draw. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Assassin’s Creed, Diablo, Warcraft, Mass Effect, Dragon Age… these studios have VASTLY larger resources than Larian. Like, an order of magnitude larger. This is gaslighting and whining. I’m not having it. Do better, AAA devs. Do a lot better.
Well I wouldn’t say that exactly. GTA 5 had a huge budget and a huge team and it’s objectively a better product if you compare the two (which is only to say they’re both great games but the bigger budget game has and does more).
It’s a matter of the motivations of the developers and their financial backers. If your goal is to make an ok game that maximizes profit focused mechanics, most of these AAA developers are hitting the mark perfectly. If your focus is to make a good game like it seemed to be with the BG devs, they absolutely hit the mark and are being rewarded for it.
This is just a reminder to an industry that is trying to tell us that pay to win mechanics are the standard that they do not in fact get to dictate what those standards are. We do. If a game is shit people will abandon it even if you poured millions into that product. The recent battlefield game is a prime example of this. Even something as guaranteed as a new battlefield game isn’t enough to overcome a shitty leadership team emphasizing the wrong things. The community bailed on their product and they’ll never get them back. All those millions in guaranteed revenue are gone forever.
GTA V story mode was an excellent game, but it’s hard to realistically say a game from one genre is better than another, apples and oranges and all that.
GTA V’s online multiplayer, however, at this point is such a shitstain that I think it alone is enough to make the distinction clear.
It is. But only in so far as the content and scope of the game far surpasses anything a smaller developer could ever hope to accomplish. You may prefer one over the other, totally fine, but objectively speaking you get way more out of gta 5 content and scope wise than bg3.
As others point out gta online is a dumpster fire but it’s still massive and allows you to do endless amounts of things, racing, heists, owning property, running businesses, etc.
This is just a reminder to an industry that is trying to tell us that pay to win mechanics are the standard that they do not in fact get to dictate what those standards are. We do.
Quoting for emphasis. We control the purse, we have the voting power of the wallet.
Blaming consumers, in this instance. You could well be right that the problem is internal but in that case that’s where it needs to solved. Or if they want to get the support of consumers, be honest with their reasoning. Crying that the expectations of consumers are too high doesn’t help at all. It just makes them seem out of touch with reality.
Don’t you fucking dare say that name. I have never in my life seen a game with so much promise be self fucked so hards by it’s own devs that it kills the game in its tracks.
NO ONE FUCKING ASKED FOR A BATTLE ROYALE - AND WE SURE AS SHIT DIDNT ASK FOR PAID BATTLE ROYALE SEPARATE FROM THE MAIN GAME.
…UGH.
EDIT: I WAS THINKING OF BATTLERITE BUT MY FRUSTRATION IS STILL VERY REAL.
Translation: We’re trying multiple predatory methods to see how far we can push PC players and figure out what we can get away with, compared to all the shit shows we successfully pulled off on our own platform.
What’s wild to me is they’re making their own overlay for their PC games. Ghost of Tsushima is supposed to be the first release title with it. Do they not understand steam already has an overlay? I feel like 2 overlays would just compete and be obnoxious and possibly ever impact performance.
Also, why? If it is for co-op crossplay, just make linking PSN to Steam optional, and state it is needed for inviting/grouping with any PS5 friends. Then do what every other multiplatform game does and show 2 friends list in the game.
This shows the power of steam reviews with it being driven by the actual community. People tried to downplay and belittle its effectiveness, but it being front and center on the store page does have more impact than there would be without steam reviews. If there were no steam reviews the PSN requirement would have been pushed through with it being easier to ignore some random internet comments on social media than a store page.
I suspect someone in accounting ran the numbers and decided they stand to lose more to reduced microtransaction sales than they would have gained via selling scraped data.
Though I agreed with you. It’s still a win, but we have to be careful not to conflate this with Sony “caring”.
I still think the biggest reason why they wanted to push their shitty platform is to artificially push player numbers. "Look how many people use our scam network, see?"
Now the hilarious part is that hopefully someone has to explain why people go these lengths, just to not join their shitty service.
That isn’t why. PlayStation doesn’t view this as a problem and in fairness, I don’t either. If the game had shipped with this requirement, it would’ve been fine. Many people put up with Ubisoft and they have a whole separate account plus launcher.
What Sony actually wanted was to make it easier on their server side to authenticate purchases and then to use the same PSN account systems to matchmaker for easier cross-play.
Would they collect data? I guess. They can already do that if they want as a publisher. So yeah it’s purely just to use their ecosystem, which makes sense.
Insane take imo. How does purchase authentication or cross play suddenly become “easier” with this change? Either it works or it doesn’t; having PC players connected to a PSN account doesn’t alleviate server load.
Did I mention server load? What I mean is that having a PSN account means that whatever game is processing your account details doesn’t have to deal with Steam accounts, it just deals with a PSN account the same as it would if you were on PS5.
What I’m saying is it streamlines the code on the developers side of the games they’re publishing and again if Sony is using systems already to authenticate purchases or whatever that can be collected in systems they already have.
This isn’t rocket science, PSN may just be a translation layer.
Correct, I never said it wasn’t buggy either. I’m just pointing out that if you have cross play and you already have console support with console user IDs then it makes sense to just convert PC players into that same console user system.
This is what Xbox used to do when publishing games on Steam and still do with their GamePass stuff. And very similarly, that system also broke things and still breaks things for people.
It absolutely has to deal with a Steam account every single time I log in to confirm ownership of the title. And then again every time I make a purchase from my Steam wallet. And again every time I connect to a friend through my Steam friends list.
It’s literally adding another potential point of failure and removes none of the necessities of dealing with the other service. I only suggested the server load bit because I can’t for the life of me understand how you can think it’s “easier” to insist that these two systems interact in a new way when they’re already up and functioning, and the original reason account linking was disabled was to make the game more stable.
Because those systems already exist for the console players. All they’re doing is switching it over to steam but they likely had a translation layer there before to do all the things you’re saying but through PSN instead. Why? Because that system already exists for consoles.
So their options here are that they can take the netcode for consoles and modify it to utilize SteamIDs and fetch data from Steam or they can just turn your Steam ID into a console ID and treat all of the inputs to their systems exactly like they would on the PS5 while fetching them from Steam.
I’m not saying it’s a good idea, I’m saying you’d think that just trying to match the console and the way it handles players would be simpler. Especially when you’re trying to make cross play work. Clearly it wasn’t so they temporarily ditched it. Maybe Sony does just want your data but if that’s true, why would the telemetry gathering be such a big deal? And they also could just use your SteamID for that data gathering. So clearly PSN used to be more integrated than people here are suggesting
I mean yeah this is especially true for online games as this is a form of DRM for Sony and it gives them control to easily reject or accept keys and ban users using their pre-existing systems.
Same thing with cross-play, it’s possible that some of these games were designed to use PSN systems and so that makes integration easy. No clue, but if true it makes sense from Sonys perspective on both of those fronts.
Sure, and I’m not suggesting said bean counter was responsible for the decision. What I am suggesting is that the only thing that influenced the decision was bottom line finances. Someone ran the numbers, and when the suits discovered that they stand to lose more money than they’d gain, they reversed the decision. Never mistake this as Sony “listening” to anything more than their investors and their bottom line.
It's probably a bit of this and a bit of that. I mean the game went from one of the best revied games to one of the worst in a day. There were refunds and a drop in players all at the same time.
My prediction is that the game will rebound, certainly, but will not reach back to the levels it had before. A percentage of people who refunded won’t be buying again and another section probably will quit the game altogether, now or as soon as something newer and shinier shows up. Lots will forget to change their review.
Sony actively hurt their own game and probably made irreparable damage.
Many countries actually have such systems in place today, even Russia (lol) - not that they work too well.
Normally, there are two sources of issues here: petitions can in fact be declined, and, in cases where the signature count depends on scale of the petition they can be intentionally escalated as to make it impossible to gain enough signatures. Besides, in many cases petitions can be left unanswered for longer than promised.
Long story short, the system is open to shenanigans and doesn’t make the government truly accountable.
We need the system that would actually make politicians rapidly lose their jobs when they ignore public opinion.
If slaves would have a vote, they’d certainly strongly choose one option :D
Same for the discriminated groups.
If they don’t have a vote, this depends on the rest of society in the short run, but can cause violent rebellions in the long one. Democratic system does not eliminate possibility of revolt.
The sony communities I saw poopooing the whole thing flipped immediately into “WE DID IT” mode, pretending they actually cared about the people that were going to lose access.
This is why Steam reviews should be taken much more seriously. This was impossible to avoid due to the enormous amount of bad press and devs themselves jumping on the hate train, but I’m betting that a lot of review bombing attempts have been quietly offset by the company just paying people for fake reviews. It’s especially obvious when the game has relatively low reviews for months and months, then suddenly bad stuff happens and along with the justified dump of negative reviews, positive ones also skyrocket (99% of which composed of “good game”, random memes or ascii art).
This is the natural progression of the games-as-a-service model. Any game that relies on online support of some kind just to function will eventually cease like this.
Is it stupid that a vr game about a pet relies on online support to function? Absolutely. But it is what it is. Buy more offline games.
This is also the reason I’m all open source. Not just games, but seeing someone abandon a program hurts. Or just wanting to make a change on your own to suit your needs. I don’t have any big fancy programs, but I at least put my code openly on github.com for that reason. Both my “big” ones are just me using another program and realizing I could make something that worked better for me. At like 100x the time investment, but programming is fun.
Looking at the retro computer scene should make anyone a diehard open source fanatic, it’s god awful how much retro stuff relies on a single guy happening to find an old disc in their basement and upload it to the internet, and a lot of the time that never happened and so the software is just lost forever and the only way hardware can be used is by people writing their own software completely from scratch and sharing it with others.
And of course if they then don’t make it open source that’s extra fun.
Negative reviews should remain until the purchase restrictions put in place on Steam for non-PSN countries have been reverted.
Until then this looks like a temporary move for damage control and they’ll try this again when refunds are less likely and wont be from restricted countries.
There was a theory that the purchase restrictions were put in place by Valve, not Sony (because those countries couldn’t make an account without violating TOS). If so, Valve might shortly remove the restrictions.
Valve can remove games from sale for any reason they like - it’s been a point of consumer contention when they are accused of censorship for certain risque anime games, too.
They can completely remove a game from sale if it turns out to be bricking people’s computers or function terribly. (Sony did this with Cyberpunk on PSN, without CDPR’s approval)
There may be suspicion the game is not legitimate for sale, for instance it illegally uses someone else’s work.
Going country-specific, if a game is revealed to be slightly less than universally positive to the perfectly infallible, totally-not-genocidal Chinese Communist Party, they may want to stop sales in China.
If a game lets you buy it in Tanzania, download it in Tanzania, and then to play, has you sign an agreement that says “I truthfully state that I do not live in Tanzania”, then that bone-headed agreement reflects poorly on Valve, so they have almost a legal need to take it out of sale in that country.
Basically, each country has its own laws of sale. Having those switches to turn off sales in certain places is important for the store’s own safety. While 60% of the blame for selling a faulty product goes to the manufacturer, 40% still goes to the storefront that chose to stock and sell that faulty good. In this case, the fault was specific to the country of play.
That’s right, I have heard of some of these cases, but thank you very much for the info! I definitely didn’t want Sony to have any ground to stand on here, so happy that Valve is able to step up to protect consumers however they can.
I hope Valve never does this. Tons of games on Steam only work with community fixes, it sets a bad precedent if they pull them because they don’t work in their official state.
It’s better to have them then not, I would just force a disclaimer during sale for abandoned titles that most players have reported that the game does not function without community patches.
Well the guy who made GotR to get saints row working died a few years back and AFAIK the game is effectively nonfunctional for the majority of people who buy it. Those people paid for a product that they cannot use. They could go emulate the game for free and it would run better.
Plus, the owners of the title have a functioning PC version sold elsewhere than Steam. They could easily remedy this if Steam took away their listing.
Illegal means against the law… so no.
Out of their jurisdiction, Steam is Valve’s platform, so no again.
Valve is the seller in this case, who will be liable for the agreement they have with their customers. If one of their sold product is going to end up massively refunded, who do you think will be processing these? Then Valve has to turn around and get the money from Sony… guess how Valve estimates that will go.
So step 1 for Valve is limit exposure by stopping sales where you expect issues.
Step 2 is analyzing the potential for refunds in other countries and limiting there as well if deemed to big a risk.
I can only imagine that feedback from Valve to Sony played a role in the decision to not push forward. As large corporations only speak money… the cost benefit made at Sony must have missed some things to have it now skew the other way.
I’ll believe the account requirement will be totally in the past IF the sales to the non PSN countries are reinstated. Cause why limit your customers to countries if that is not necessary.
Honestly I’m keeping my negative review permanent. The game is great and I enjoy it, but besides a temporary back lash I want the sting to stick around to hopefully teach companies about fucking around and finding out.
They won’t learn anything. They only nulled their bullshit because it would hurt their financial quarter because their biggest cash cow game at the moment is bombing. They only way to maybe make them learn would be if every single one of the “outraged gamers” would just uninstall and never play it again, but that won’t happen and Sony knows that (which is why they can try pulling that shit in the first place).
Good for the peeps in non-PSN countries tho. For them, this is a real win.
Yeah it’s just like looking up a food recipe anymore. A lot of times, the guide isn’t even correct. Google has encouraged the internet to just pump out hot garbage.
I used gamefaqs for the latest Square HD2D games like Triangle Strategy. It’s actually awesome because it really completes the nostalgia and the games are kinda perfectly created for the type of guides, like the “Golden route” in that game. It’s so cool people still make these guides
Aluminum cases need to become standard for physical copies. Not plastic with an aluminum veneer, all aluminum.
They can be cool and do aluminum tubes holding a flash drive with the game on it if they want so they can laser engrave the sides and screw on top with the title and art.
I remember getting Prince of Persia 2008 in a steel case for a birthday or maybe Xmas and loved the design of it. I haven’t seen my steel case editions recently.
It’s a tough one. You’re not wrong by any means, but equally the environmentally unfriendly bit is why people buy physical media. The memory card holding the game is mostly superfluous because of day 1 DLC or patches, but it’s the box; art; manual; and physical tangibility that matter to a collector of the media.
Ideally there would be a middle ground - sack-off the normal physical edition and purchase the memory cards themselves - and push up the price and pay for a premium edition of the copy made from better materials.
I suspect we’d only get the worst of both worlds though, the cynic in me thinks.
Ah yes, there is that. Is that still a thing these days? I remember EA’s Project Ten Dollar a few years back gating a lot of extra features or multiplayer behind a single use code being fairly widely adopted.
I’ll admit to being a bit behind the curve now, I still predominantly use my Xbox Series S, One, and 360 just to play Doom in different rooms so maybe I’m not on the cutting edge of news!
edit: it wasn’t five dollars at all, more like ten!
I had to look up that ten-dollar thing. Thankfully I don’t think that’s a thing yet in the Nintendo world, aside from preorder bonuses.
There have been physical releases that are just a download code in a box, or a game card that contains only one of the two included games, with the second being provided as a paper download code. In those cases the redemption is tied to an individual’s Nintendo account. I wouldn’t buy any of those, though I’ll admit to buying another release (BioShock Trilogy) that was a physical game card with no games stored on it, just launchers for downloading the three games from Nintendo. But at least in that case nothing is account-locked and lending/resale is possible: pop the card in, download the games and play them for as long as the card is in your system.
I haven’t thrown away a game case since Playstation 1. My Super Nintendo ones were cardboard and got destroyed, so I did throw them away because that is what we did in the 90s.
Yeah, I find it particularly weird, because Nintendo already had smaller boxes with the Nintendo DS. Did they decide that the Switch was a big boy console, so it needed to have comically large boxes?
Man you would have had a field day with PC gaming in the 90’s!
In fairness though, even though some did skimp out and just launch a CD in, most had a manual and something of lore interest or a physical anti-piracy thing, and a fair few were stuffed full of trinkets or other world building material… just because.
Even my Atari ST edition of Zak McKracken had the floppy, manual, passport anti-piracy card, and a faux-magazine which was both hilarious and acted as a hint book too.
PC games in he 90s were like cereal boxes filled with a few CDs and a the barest of a manual. In the 80s it was the same except it was floppy disks and the manual was needed to get through the copy protection. Sometimes you’d even get a decoder ring of some sorts to decode something for the copy protection.
Yeah but it wasn’t as fun as in the 80s and 90s when they’d be sending you on a treasure hunt through the manual to find specific words and letters like you were in the DaVinci Code.
PC game cases from 90s were amazing. I wish console games would do something cool like that. They were made of cardboard, typically had boxart with a bunch of high quality engraving, had manuals inside. They felt like collectibles and you didn’t have to pay extra for any of it. It was just part of the base game price.
The total footprints of the two cases are virtually identical. The Switch game cases are taller but not as deep, and the DS cases are shorter and deeper. I believe the DS case is basically the same dimension as a cut-down DVD case. It’s the same depth, +/- a mm, with 65mm chopped off the top.
The NDS game case is 134x125mm, 167.5 square cm in total. The Switch game case is 105x170mm, 178.5 square cm in total. The Switch case is also thinner, 11mm vs 15mm. The amounts of plastic used in each is pretty similar.
How to turn a “must-play game” into trash no one wants in less than 24 hours. Good job. Makes me feel sorry for the poor devs who poured their hearts & souls into it only to have the suits fuck it up - again.
It sucks because I was looking forward to the game since I liked the first DD but after seeing all the micro transactions they added into a single player game I’m going to pass on it.
It seems your profile is stored locally from what I’ve seen, but some users are too stupid to know how to use Steam Cloud. Some users have said you can’t delete your save, but you can you just need to disable cloud backup on Steam first.
(I have no experience. I just read a lot of reviews in disappointment last night.)
Edit: Come on guys. Stop just downvoting stuff because you don’t like that it’s not as bad as it could be. Your save is stored locally, backed up on Steam Cloud. Prove me wrong if you want to downvote. That’s fine. If you’re just downvoting because you’d rather not know the reality of the situation, what’s wrong with you?
Citation? I haven’t seen this at all, and I’ve been looking at quite a bit of the stuff as a fan of the first game. That’s a big accusation to make.
People often don’t understand what they’re doing, and they blame it on things that aren’t true. Most players aren’t technologically literate enough to really know what’s causing their issues. This is the first I’ve heard of a ban, and I would suspect (though this could equally be wrong) that it isn’t because they deleted their save file and instead for doing something else, if it happened at all.
Denuvo detects manual file changes and if you do it too much (which doesn’t have to be that much) you get temporary locked out of playing the game (24h first offense). Look it up, this is the case on pretty much all recent denuvo games. This isn’t a “big accusation”, this is a straight fact. Using different proton versions also can get you “banned”.
I tried looking it up, which is why I asked for the citation. I found nothing on the topic. I don’t know where you got it from, but “look it up” isn’t an answer. Also, the save file location should be (no knowledge on whether it is) excluded from this file manipulation detection. The game itself is constantly writting to it. If it’s detecting frequent file changes, it’d detect the game itself writting to the save file.
Whose citation do you need? This is a closed-source software, there is no “proof” but only testimonies. Only EMPRESS could tell us for certain. This is one such testimony
This can also be triggered by changes in the machine itself. On linux/steamdeck, changing proton version too often leads to a 24h lock, that one you can google, it’s all over the place. Proton/wine mirrors your own PC specs, so denuvo doesnt base itself one your actual PC, but it’s configuration somehow.
As for the last part of your comment, it makes no sense. For all we know, it’s very likely that Denuvo saves a checksum of its files to their server when you exit that save or the game and checks them back when you open it again. The only way to prevent this and modify the save without the game knowing would be to make a kernel module to edit the save directly in memory while the save is running, though depending on how denuvo works, something like cheat engine might also do the trick.
The person said people have been banned for deleting their save files. I haven’t seen any reference for this. What you posted is for a totally different game and is not related except both have Denuvo. I don’t doubt Denuvo anti-cheat (maybe also anti-tamper) will ban you for doing things it doesn’t like, but deleting save files shouldn’t, and I haven’t ever heard of that happening.
As for the last part of your comment, it makes no sense. For all we know, it’s very likely that Denuvo saves a checksum of its files to their server when you exit that save or the game and checks them back when you open it again. The only way to prevent this and modify the save without the game knowing would be to make a kernel module to edit the save directly in memory while the save is running, though depending on how denuvo works, something like cheat engine might also do the trick.
Checksums for the game files do not include the save folder. That would defeat the purpose of a checksum. Sure, maybe they fucked up and included it, but that would cause it to go off every time the game saves as well. Every file change changes the sum, so even the game doing so would also. How would it know the difference?
Again, I don’t like Denuvo. I think a lot of stuff happening with this game is bad. We don’t need to make stuff up though. There’s plenty actually there to be angry about. Making stuff up just makes the valid complaints get lumped with it and ignored.
I’m not talking about one checksum that’s hardcoded somewhere, I mean they calculate it every time you close the save. Do they actually do that, I don’t know, but they could if they wanted to.
The reason why I linked some random other game is because nobody is saying this is the game’s fault, but Denuvo’s fault. Denuvo behaves extremely similarly regardless of the game it runs on, so if it happens for most other games, good chance it happens for this one too.
I’m not talking about one checksum that’s hardcoded somewhere, I mean they calculate it every time you close the save. Do they actually do that, I don’t know, but they could if they wanted to.
They could do anything, and anyone can claim they are doing things without evidence. I have seen nothing except this person’s comment that it’s happening, and even what you posted has nothing to do with save files. I don’t believe such a thing is happening because I haven’t seen any evidence for it and have seen many people discuss deleting their saves. A claim like that needs evidence. It’s going to make people fearful of deleting saves.
Why did you come do defend this person’s specific claim only to say “Denuvo bad.” We all already know that. We don’t need to make shit up about it. Please stop. Criticize what we actually know is happening with the game. There’s plenty.
Once again, these are secondary sources at best. “people are saying that they heard somewhere that…” Are these using the same secondary source? I don’t know. I haven’t seen any evidence that it happens with save files.
The second third (didn’t realize it was 3) link also mentions switching Proton versions too much can cause issues and uses a primary source, and I saw that review the other night while looking at reviews. That is much more trustworthy.
I’m not saying it isn’t happening, but I don’t trust what everyone says. I also don’t trust that a user actually knows what triggered an action. The number of people I’ve seen say the saves are stored online because they don’t understand Steam Cloud is proof that a lot of users aren’t technologically literate enough to just take their word. With there being no first hand source, and potentially both of what you linked using the same secondary source, I still see no reason to believe this.
So, “How many testimonies do you need to consider it “evidence” as you say?” More than 0, which is what we’re at right now.
Edit: Missed the first article when I clicked the links the first time. Even it says it can’t verify the reports and it’s just gathered from forums (and proceeds to not cite them). Any half decent journalist would verify it for themselves, but we know these aren’t journalists, they’re blogs that just repeat any drama they can find. Still only secondary sources at best with no citation, so nothing to be taken as anything more than the comment above saying “they heard it happened to someone.”
Apparently all the purchases you can buy are cheaply available in game with the in game currency, and there’s no real reason to pay real money for them unless you’re like some live streamer goob.
That’s not completely true, there is a limited number of port crystals until NG+ (around 5 or 6) and the adventurers camping kit is unobtainable otherwise (although you can get a better one from a side quest).
Ferrystones are also very rare, unlike DD1 where you get an unlimited one right away.
What I’ve heard from people playing the game, is that those and everything else you could pay real money for is dirt cheap to buy and purchasable with the in game currency that you earn by playing the game and that you earn the in game currency quickly enough that you aren’t having to grind anything if you want to buy the stuff.
I think there’s some sort of higher-up mandate at capcom to force monetized content into their games, and the dev teams are just working around it, something like that. The same thing happens in monster hunter, street fighter 6, I think devil may cry 5, and it’s all structured in basically the exact same way, where you can either get access to stuff really quickly without paying, or the stuff you have to pay for is basically just aesthetic, or both. I think monster hunter rise even tried to do the same “pay to edit your character” thing. I still don’t think it’s a good practice, but japanese devs are gonna japanese dev, I suppose. Reminds me of fromsoft titles requiring community made performance patches, or being locked to like, 30fps as an engine requirement, shit like that.
Games are supposed to be fun. Forcing paying customers to do something intentionally designed to be not fun before they can have fun is stupid. I know I’m in the minority, but I straight up won’t participate in that bullshit.
I mean…the weak start is kind of the basis of every rpg and almost every fps in existence. You start with the crappy bb gun and then somehow you end up becoming an all powerful stealth archer, even though your game doesn’t even offer a bow to use.
Gaining strength through experience is fun if it’s done in a sane way is fun. Farming the same monsters over and over to unlock common feature is not. Hit the X button 4.5 million times to continue is shit.
It’s not an accident that unlocking this stuff is tedious when there’s an option to just pay more money to do so. That’s the value proposition behind microtransactions in games: Give us money or we’ll force you to do boring shit for many hours.
Man. It sure sucks I only start with a water can and 500 coins in Stardew Valley. I could do so much more if I could just start with 20 upgraded sprinklers and 20,000 coins.
The worst part of it is that those same assholes that insisted on micro transactions will blame every other aspect of the game before admitting that it did poorly on release because of the blatant money grabbing.
Yup, I’ll wait 4 years or whatever until it’s released as “Dragon’s dogma 2, darker arisen, game of the year edition” with all the dlc and microtransactions baked in on a steam sale or some such
I’m pretty mixed on this. I want to support niche games like this being made. I don’t want to support using Denuvo (even if it’ll be removed eventually) or bad MTX. Also, you’ll miss the online components on a cracked version, which is really cool in DS1 at least and I think even better in 2 from what I’ve heard.
The thing to me is, I don’t want the online experiences in most of my single player games. I turned off invasions and messages in DS. I could care less about someone else’s experience bleeding into mine, most invasions were annoying and messages were memes. For DD, let me build my pawn, pick from some randomly generated ones and that’s it, don’t punish me for wanting to single-play my single-player game. I don’t mind DLC that is purely a time saver, some people want to pay to win, in a single player game that’s fine, as long as it’s not replacing some stupidly long grind. But at the end of the day, there are far too many “single player” games that are “connect to our server to use the thing you just bought.”
You can play this offline I’m 99% sure. Sure, it’s best enjoyed online (the online experience is seemless and you don’t actually interact with other players, just the pawns they created), but it’s purely optional.
This game is getting so much hate for made up reasons and it’s really frustrating. I would love for the actual reasons to be addressed, but if they see that 99% of it isn’t stuff that’s there anyway, why would they bother fixing the 1% when it’ll just get lied about no matter what?
You can, after you get through a bit of a process of making your pawn and uploading it. I agree it’s being reviewbombed, my response was to yours about claiming that “you’re missing out if you don’t play online.” But also, you’re talking about a company that pulls hundreds of millions of dollars a year, not an indie developer. If the game sells well, the reviews don’t mean anything, it’s successful. If it doesn’t, it’s their job to focus on what consumers didn’t like and change it.
If the game sells well, the reviews don’t mean anything, it’s successful. If it doesn’t, it’s their job to focus on what consumers didn’t like and change it.
Ideally, yes. However, it’s taken 12 years for a second entry of this franchise. If it doesn’t do well (which I think we’re well past it not doing well, because it’s selling great), most likely they’d just never make a game like it again. The first game is a cult classic. It released about a year after Dark Souls 1 and scratch the same itch before anyone else was making Souls-likes. It didn’t do huge numbers though despite being received fairly well. The fact they made a second is unexpected, and we’d certainly not get a third if it only did as well as the first. They wouldn’t learn a lesson except not to touch this. The same MTX methods are in RE and no one comained, so they aren’t going to learn the lesson we want for just this one game.
It’s going to make them boatloads of money, the review bombs won’t matter. They’ve broken 200k concurrent players on steam, it’s a financial success. Of course they won’t make another like it again, neither will almost any AAA developer. The market is gearing towards games as a service, forced online/multiplayer and some such, except for the few household names continuing to support single player titles. This was a planned business decision to cash in on a franchise that was calculated as a perfect time to release a sequel, and put in the work to capture the longtime fans, and it’s making money. I’m happy for it, but Capcom is a corporation, they ran financial models and test groups to see if the game would sell well, it has, and so it’s successful.
its what japanese game companies do after a “golden era” when they come off on top. they make stupid business decisions that tank their goodwill they just earned.
its why when a japanese game company makes it big, it almost always is followed with becoming the villian immediately after
the sucess of monster hunter, resident evil remakes, and sf6 has gotten to their head.
Honestly, I might get shit for this and he was definitely an asshole, but Phil Fish was right. The Japanese game industry went through a shitty period for awhile years ago, got out of it, and then now (Capcom anyway) starts doing shit like this.
Sony became very aggressive and anti consumer the moment the PS4 outsold the Xbox One after being behind the shadow of the 360 for most of its life. started paying for a lot of timed exclusives, exclusive game content (e.g COD, Hogwarts Legacy), block a lot of cross platform attempts.
Nintendo went very anti consumer after being very generous with the WiiU, and resurrecting the 3DS and releasing the sucessful, but very feature limited Switch. introduces paid online for an online service thats effectively at times, worse than the WiiU, decides to sell emulated titles either on limited time offer (Mario 3d collection) or required subscription to online, and take away browser and local save backups.
i could keep going on with a lot of sucessful japanese game companies, but its basically the same story every fucking time.
I have no problem if games reached this via a similar model that Larian used here (lots of experienced staff, pre-built systems, 6 years of development, 3 years of expertly done early-access with a highly engaged player base) but they’re not going to. They’re going to implement more crunch, more abuse, more destruction of the few people who want to work in games in order to get there. And that’s where I have the issue.
I want shorter games, with worse graphics, made by people who get paid more to do less. Because that’s what’s needed to make truly great games. People who are passionate, not burning themselves out just to barely make deadlines, make great games.
I want shorter games, with worse graphics, made by people who get paid more to do less.
Honestly that’s an excellent summary.
Don’t get me wrong BG3 is probably one of the best games I’ve ever played and I eventually want BG4 or whatever expansion/spin-off/sequel they want to make. However I waited 23 years between BG2 and BG3, I don’t want to wait that long again, but I can wait.
But to your point I want good games. I don’t need 100+ hour adventures. In general I don’t want 100+ hour adventures. Those should be rare. I want games that I can finish (at a casual pace) in a weekend or two.
Portal 1? Braid? Both are short puzzle games that are absolutely fantastic.
Stanley Parable? Gone Home? Excellent story games. You can beat them in about as much time as it takes to watch a movie.
It’s disappointing that AAA studios don’t recognize this. I don’t want a bloated game that takes 300 hours to experience most of it. I don’t want a giant map. I want a good game. I want a small map filled with life, not a large one with soulless procedurally generated dungeons.
I don’t think demanding quality games is inherently at odds with wanting studios to not abuse their workers. What we really should support is broad labor protections and labor unions for developers. Because clearly the AAA studios don’t need the excuse of high demand for features from gamers in order to abuse their people since they have been doing that for years while churning out trash titles.
Completely agreed. The issue is that gamers™ aggressively advocate for better quality, and do not care about workplace abuse or worse products with more features. This creates the current feedback loop we have where games that are longer, have flashier features, and aren’t finished at launch.
Labor unions and protections would be excellent, but isn’t something that I, a non-game developer, can do much to advance, besides avocation.
What’s particularly notable about this well above average gaming year is that the clearly top two games so far aren’t using state-of-the-art graphics.
Given how messy PC gaming has been lately, with a recent history of GPU shortages followed by an underwhelming new generation and some very poor game optimization, I wouldn’t mind seeing a trend of game development slowing down on graphics tech for a bit.
But also legitimately. Like remember how good games would get near the end of a console’s lifecycle? Then a new console generation would drop and the games would look sharp, but also a bit wonky, until enough years has past, and thennn… another new console generation would drop, and the constraints would disappear again. Always too soon, I thought - just as the games were getting truly good again!
Heh, yes, I still have fond memories of the late 16-bit generation and early fifth-gen games that didn’t get on board the 3D bandwagon. Sprite-based games started to look mighty sexy until everyone decided that untextured polygons were the way to go for a while. 😑
Always preferred Duke 3D to Quake. The later is way more sophisticated from the technical standpoint (though Build does allow some neat tricks) but Duke is just so vibrant and fun. Destructible environment, original weapons, large enemy variety and proper bosses… Meanwhile Quake is just… brown.
Educate a pleeb here, I’ve been out of the gaming loop. What’s the notable exceptions of great games this year and what two that are not state-of-the-art graphics do you mean?
This thread’s on Baldur’s Gate 3, that’s one of them. I should have specified the other of the two most highly-rated games this year; it’s The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom. Both games are more or less running last-gen graphics tech and are ahead of the pack on review scores. Zelda looks good for a Switch game, though.
You could probably ask a dozen gaming enthusiasts and get a dozen different answers on why this year has been exceptional. I’d say it’s because we have a lot of big releases from venerable franchises arriving all in the same year (Baldur’s Gate is one, plus Diablo, Final Fantasy, Harry Potter, Resident Evil, Star Wars, Street Fighter). There are hits from new IPs like Cassette Beasts, Dave the Diver, Hi-Fi Rush, and maybe Starfield in a few weeks if it’s not a disaster.
It’s a nice mix of old and new worlds and plenty of surprises. On top of all that, it’s only August. I think there’s a sense that the industry is starting to leave the pandemic behind, too.
That doesn’t really mean that they store it in plain text. They sent it to you after you finished creating your account, and it’s likely that the password was just in plain text during the registration. The question still remains whether they store their outgoing emails (in which case yes, your password would still be stored in plain text on their end, not in the database though).
Honestly, why risk duplicate passwords even then? I have one strong password that I use for accessing my password manager, and let the password manager generate unique random passwords. Even if I had an easier password that I duplicated with some small changes, I’d still use a password manager to autofill it anyway. I use bitwarden personally, you can also self host it with vaultwarden but it seemed like more trouble than it was worth imo
This is a friendly reminder to everyone that password managers are not risk free either. LastPass was hacked last year, NortonLifeLock earlier this year.
Personally the risk of bitwarden is outweighed by its convenience (compared to self hosted/local only solutions) in my opinion, but I know that’ll change real quick if bitwarden ever has a breach. If it does I’m jumping ship to a self hosted or local only solution, but I’m hoping that doesn’t have to happen
Bitwarden is end to end encrypted. If the host gets hacked your passwords are still as safe as your master password is. Self hosting wouldn’t really be a huge help there. Possibly even detrimental depending on your level of competence at securing a public facing web host.
Yeah at this point it’s considered likely that LastPass vaults are being cracked, based on LP being the common link between various other accounts that are being breeched.
A small number of rounds of encryption being the default for users with old enough accounts is believed to be a significant part of the issue. It means even if their password was a good one, the vault can be brute forced comparatively quickly.
If their password was actually good (18+ random characters) it’s not feasible with current day technology to brute force, no matter how few PBKDF2 iterations were used.
Obviously it’s still a big issue because in many cases people don’t use strong enough passwords (and apparently LastPass stored some of the information in plaintext) but a strong password is still good protection provided the encryption algorithm doesn’t have any known exploitable weaknesses.
your passwords are still as safe as your master password is
They’re as safe as your master password is…and as the encryption is. LastPass famously got hacked recently, and in the aftermath of that many users noticed that their vault was encrypted using very small numbers of rounds of PBKDF2. The recommended number of rounds had increased, but LastPass left the number actually used too low for some users, rather than automatically increasing it. Users of Bitwarden and any other password vault should ensure that their vault is using the strongest encryption available.
Self hosting wouldn’t really be a huge help there
Well, self-hosting makes you a smaller target. The most determined attackers are likely going to go after the biggest target, which is going to be a centralised service with thousands of users’ vaults. If you host it yourself they probably won’t even know it exists, so unless there’s reason for someone to be specifically targeting you (e.g. you’re a public figure), or you get hacked by some broad untargeted attack, you might be better off self-hosted from a purely security standpoint.
(That said, I still use centrally-hosted Bitwarden. The convenience is worth it to me.)
You’re underestimating the attack surface of a self hosted set up. You don’t need to be specifically targeted if, for instance, someone hacks the Bitwarden docker image you’re using, or slips a malicious link into a tutorial you’re reading. It’s not a set it and forget it solution either, you’re responsible for updating it, and the host OS. Like I said, depending on your competency, it’s not inherently more secure.
This is why I don’t use a common centralized password manager, just like I don’t use any of the most popular remote desktop solutions like TeamViewer for unattended access.
I run a consumer copy of Pleasant Password Manager out of AWS and use NoMachine for unattended access to any machines where I need it.
Security through obscurity is tried and true. Put as little of your security attack surface in the hands of others as is reasonable.
I actually think this is the case. I could be completely wrong but I swear I saw the same question like 6 years ago in another forum software that looks exactly like this one lol. And people compalined about it storing plain text, but the response when asking the forum people was that it was only during that password creation, it’s not actually stored.
I don’t know if it’s crazy for me to think it’s the same forum from that many years ago, still doing the same thing and getting the same question.
There are plans to update the forum, including for better security (the main issue with changing the forum software is concern over reliably migrating all of the existing content). After emailing (admittedly not current best practice), the passwords are hashed and only the hash is stored.
…and later…
The forum has been updated to https, and passwords are no longer being sent by email.
Which raises the question of how old OP’s screen shot is.
Also, no, the password would not necessarily still be stored in plain text on their end. The cleartext password used in that email might be only in memory, and discarded after sending the message. Depends on how the UBB forum software implemented it and how Larian’s mail servers are set up.
EDIT: I just verified that this behavior has resurfaced since it was originally fixed. OP would do well to responsibly report it, rather than stirring up drama over a web forum account.
It is still a bad idea to send the password in plaintext via email. You never know when Bard will peek a look and then share your password along users as a demo account to try that forum.
You should always change your password from the system generated one to prevent that from happening. The app that you signed up for should enforce that by making you change your password when you log in.
There’s a lot of reasons why emailing passwords is not the best practice… But AI bots stealing your password to give people free demos is a wild paranoid fever dream.
It is meant to be as a joke, of course the AI is not that dumb enough to give it away as free demo. Why am I being downvoted? Why don’t people understand jokes these days? Do I always have to include /s when making a sarcastic joke even though it is so obvious?
lemmy.world
Ważne