Seeing most of the fixes go towards that instead of immersion kinda… You’d think they highlight those immersive aspects more. The mods are sure as hell all about immersion including working stock markets and such.
Does anyone have any suggestions for horror games that aren’t frustratingly difficult? I feel like with most horror games, the scare factor wears off after the second restart because game developers think that one-hit enemies and no weapons makes things scarier, but I disagree.
The last real horror game that I played was The Iron Lung and while it was great, the total game has almost no replay value and can be completed in under an hour.
SOMA is pretty good for that, it's got a mode where the monsters can't hurt you. I played on that mode and enjoyed it immensely for its story and environmental merits.
Can’t install a general computer OS on any other “console” out of the box though.
I wouldn’t expect Valve to have a problem with conforming to right-to-repair laws anyway. I have a hard time imagining they’re taking a bath on hardware that you can completely remove their storefront from.
But general focus isn’t a specific legal term is it? Like what about gaming laptops? Isn’t that the same thing? I haven’t read the law so idk if it creates that specificity.
I mean what features are removed exactly? They have all the components needed to install windows/mac/linux and hook up a mouse and keyboard. I really don’t see any distinction besides they come with gamepads and a gaming oriented OS instead of keyboards and a more general OS.
Ok, hear me out. My intuition tells me its because consoles are subsidized. The manufacturer loses money or breakes even in order to make money back in the games sold. I think Nintendo is an exception. So having the additional expense of having to support them harms the hardware subsidy model.
Maybe, but why should that exempt them? If the model doesn’t work anymore then it doesn’t work. Who cares. They’ll still sell consoles and make money. They might cost more upfront or something, but they’ll still sell them.
Seems like repairs would increase the usable life of the console, thus allowing the user to buy more games for it, letting the manufacturer get over more money out of that purchase.
What’s the alternative, they fix it for free in a recall instead of selling parts? Someone buys a new console which is another loss for them with limited chance to make it up? The person gets upset and buys the competition’s console?
Wouldn’t that be an argument for right-to-repair? If the user has to buy another console because theirs broke, the company has made twice the loss for the same number of games bought (or fewer, because the user has less money to spend on games). Reparing looks like a win-win here.
Soma is pretty awesome, features a mode where you can't be hurt by the enemies, I enjoyed it immensely on its environmental and story merits while playing on that mode.
Does anyone know the reasoning used for the exception? From the article, it was clearly a deliberate decision. But I do not see any reason why it was needed.
As much of a bummer as that is, I don’t think there has ever been any major cases of someone just replacing parts for their console and not selling it. What is a company like sintendo gonna do if you replace the screen on your switch with a 3rd party screen or open it up to replace any parts but don’t end up selling it?
pcgamer.com
Aktywne