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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
It reminds me of the absolute insane stuff arcade manufacturers would do to keep control over everything.
Capcom used to sell full blown arcade systems where the game’s ROM was actually volatile - in 2 years, it would vanish. You needed to pay them a monthly fee so that a technician would come up with a special device capable of rewriting the data periodically.
Well that sure is an article I never expected to read.
But I also think Jagex should have given it a more firm “No”. Or at least a “Please don’t”. Depending on how long it takes to grind mining and what the potential reward is, I can see one or two people going for this without having their appendages removed for actual medical reasons.
pcgamer.com
Najnowsze