The Crew’s servers, scheduled for Sunday March 31, represents a “gray area” in videogame consumer law that he would like to challenge.
…
I think the argument to make is that The Crew was sold under a perpetual license, not a subscription, so we were being sold a good, not a service
…
the seller rendered the game unusable and deprived it of all value after the point of sale.
Goddam right, that’s not a grey area IMO, that shit ought to be illegal. Maybe there should be a term, like let’s say 90 years maybe?
My personal favorite is the “companies are obligated to support it forever, or open source the server software hosted by a third party, hosting paid for up front for at least a year.”
While I love the spirit of this idea, it gets complicated fast. Worlds adrift is a great example. The game’s server was created using some closed source libraries with a paid license. So when the owning company (Bossa Studios?) went under, they were unable to open source it.
A law like this would effectively kill all licensed software that isn’t a full product. I do agree though; we need a solution
IIRC Bossa tried to open source it but they used a license for Spatial OS, which provided the backbone of their game. They were unable to make a stable game without it and opted to not open source it. But they were also in an early access that would probably provide an exception for a game closing down.
Bossa did leave the island creator active and has spun up Lost Skies on the same engine, which wouldn’t be possible if they open sourced WA.
Ultimately the issue should be GaaS and MMOs are offerings service while other games are goods which have an artificial expiry date. This is a good test of software judication.
The subscription model makes plenty of sense. But there are loads of games that rely on server side components. That includes basically every multiplayer game that isn’t peer-to-peer. Any very many of them aren’t on a subscription.
I would love to require all that to be open source. But I still don’t see how to do it practically.
When the initially licensed the library, they should’ve included distributed binary copies. That may have allowed them to release the source for their game alongside the binary of the library.
An interesting idea but it’s not possible with all languages. E.g. golang. But probably not the case with worlds adrift. I’m guessing it’s more of an incentive problem for the other company. No more revenue = why bother?
I think it’s like when a tv show doesn’t bother to negotiate the music rights for syndication and then they can’t air it anymore if the audio can’t be removed.
“What happens in 10 years?” Isn’t always a priority. Also, I’m sure that makes the price go up.
Hmm I may be confused. Do you believe that software companies shouldn’t be allowed to build and sell libraries? I.e. They should only be allowed to sell full products, ready for an end user?
Not the person you’re responding to but I definitely think that Library should be able to be made, however I don’t believe that they should be able to prevent a project from going open source in the case of company using the library going under, or if they wanted to keep it closed Source they should have to do something similar to what class action lawsuits do where anyone that is affected by it and opts into the agreement get some sort of compensation. Because it really is like a rug pull you buy a product and then the company makes the product unusable
Except that isn’t how it works, and could lead people to buy a library for a day, then opensource it.
Open source means any code used is widely available to anyone. Having a library you pay for means it cannot be widely available, or nobody would buy it. No more licensing game engines, paid libraries cease to exist since there is no incentive to make them, everything goes the “open source way” which means hard to use, opinionated, unintuitive software that is maintained by random people who rarely know what they are doing. No online banking, since you can’t certify that easily and it wouldn’t be profitable. No card with points and goodies in your supermarket for the exact same reason (points have a calculable value in real money). No online healthcare, etc etc
Fair enough regarding sass, though I disagree with the opinion.
But I’m asking about builders of partial software. For example, consider a single developer that builds a really great library for handling tables. It displays a grid, displays text in cells, maybe performs some operations between cells, etc. On its own, this software is useless but is very useful for other people to build other products. Should it be illegal to sell this software?
Though I would say that the grid software on its own IS useful. It’s useful to developers, otherwise they wouldn’t use it. Saying it’s useless is like saying a hammer is useless because it’s not a house, it’s only good for building a house (among other things).
Or, maybe don’t force online requirement, and allow p2p. Or, better yet, open source the server now that it’s shut down and release a patch to specify where to connect.
Imagine buying a T-shirt, and the manufacturer, without your prior knowledge or consent, could somehow render your shirt unwearable – that’s effectively what’s happening here. The only “gray area” might be that ultimately you don’t own a copy of the game anyway (since digital copies are effectively leased – a whole other issue unto itself), but regardless: more power to this lawsuit. Seriously shady shit getting tacitly accepted lately.
“Imagine everyone moves to electric vehicles, gas stations close down, and people start sueing Ford for releasing a gas car 30 years ago” is the better analogy.
It’s more like, imagine Fords required a connect to a server to run and they turned that server off, stopping a perfectly functional car you purchased from working.
Then you sued them to force them to make the car work without the server.
I just expect a popup in the game which says something like “Could not connect to server, some multiplayer features will be unavailable. Continue offline?”
The part where they said “The right to discuss is a privilege—it is not an entitlement you earn by playing the game” made me laugh out loud. What a ridiculously bad public take hahaha
Right? Like, if I want to be as charitable as I’m capable of being, I could understand that sentiment if you are talking about your own official forums on your website. Like, sure, if you own the content and the forum, you have the power to determine what is and isn’t acceptable on your platforms. It’s a stupid determination, mind you, but it’s within your power. However the impression I gather from the article is that they’re referring to the Steam forums, which is absolutely asinine to me.
They are referring to the steam forums, and in one of their own comments in said forum they say that theyre required by steam to have those forums, in response to someone asking why they dont shutter the whole thing if they cant handle responding to bug fixes and the like.
So its not actually a privilege, its a requirement to sell the game.
Yeah - of course games are hard - but all he did was rough out a planet-to-space experience in Unreal Engine with a Starfield aesthetic. If he started trying to build an actual game on it… Well an 8 year timeline doesn’t seem crazy.
And this whole conversation overlooks one of the major complaints a player would have of Bethesda did the same thing.
Entering an atmosphere changes the physics and those physics are different for all sorts of reasons on every planetary body for every ship. From gravity to atmospheric density the ship would fly differently on every one and that ignores the fact that ships are near enough to infinite in configuration in this game due to the builder.
If Bethesda did this, players would be complaining it wasn’t realistic enough.
Can you give me an example of a game that solved the above problems? I’ve never seen a game that has that issue resolved for any ship configuration that could exist.
While I had forgetten about Kerbal space program, I would point out two major things about that comparison. KSP is entirely about the ship flight. That is the entire games purpose. And second, when I played it a few years after release, it was hardly stable and wouldn’t be a good representation with the atmospheric density discussion. As I remember it that problem was largely ignored.
I’ll grant you the first point, the whole game is centered on space travel simulation, but it’s also the only game I’ve seen that handles what you’re describing. You definitely need to consider atmospheric density though. Managing your speed, angle of attack, and parachutes to avoid overheating is one of the major skills you learn while playing. Some are Earth like (Kerbin), other are thinner (Moho), and some are surrounded in an atmosphere so thick that it makes any return mission a huge achievement (Eve).
It’s been a long while since I’ve played it, so I had forgotten most things.
But the focus of a game makes a big difference in what features exist. I’m honestly not sad Bethesda skipped entry and landing. The game has enough content without it if you follow the quests, and if rather they acknowledge it’s too difficult and finally release a stable game.
That’s not an unsolvable issue, and you can always handwave it away for simplicity with some lore. The ships are already magics, like any star ship, so you can just say that the motors and calibration compensate for different planets and whatnot so the ship is easy to use everywhere.
I mean, to be fair, Starfield doesn’t do it well either. In the 15 hours I played, especially toward the latter end, I ran into plenty of texture pop-in, bad culling, bodies without heads and arms, heads and arms without bodies, bad shading patches, t-posing, stutter, lots of other goofy shit. And granted, my rig’s not the best but I’m playing on medium with a 9600K, 3070, 32GB RAM, and the game’s installed on a Samsung 870 SATA.
I think the bigger deal with Bethesda’s engine is that it’s built to be very easy for designers to iterate on, which is why it is also so easy for users to mod. They trade a lot of efficiency for scripting systems and level editors that let them whip up sprawling open spaces in a short amount of time, and fill them with dynamic systems like NPC routines and tracking thousands of physics-enabled props. This is probably also why their games are prone to buggy behavior.
Building all of the systems Starfield has at its disposal into Unreal would probably take years, and I’m not convinced the results would be any better.
A loading screen lets you load different areas of the game discreetly and make the game performative. This is especially important as Starfield is a single player game, it’s not hosted on a server or anything so it can’t distribute resource load that way, its all happening client side on the player’s system. They would have to simulate the entire world on their PC alone or develop a way to stream the content out dynamically and seamlessly.
That’s not how any of it works.
We have had level streaming in Unreal for like a decade. Sure it’s more complex to do things this way, but in general the way it works is that when you approach some area (are some distance from a planet or part of a planet) the next chunk of the world loads in, together with any NPCs and logic and everything else - it’s basically a self contained map, just seamlessly integrated with other maps. There is no meaningful performance hit if done correctly. You certainly don’t simulate everything all the time.
Additionally, all the other games mentioned (NMS, Elite, Star Citizen) also have basically all of the processing on the client side. The servers don’t help the clients in any way; they only store primitive states for gameplay purposes, but all the simulation and whatnot is done on the client. And they still manage to be better optimized.
It’s more like they really want to use their own engine (for many good reasons) and it’d probably be really hard (if not near impossible without a complete rewrite) to add such a fundamental feature to their existing engine. Even if it wasn’t that hard it’d probably still cost a shitton of developer time and they were spending it elsewhere.
This is basically what No Man’s Sky did. When Bethesda took their crappy RPG engine and mocked up interplanetary travel using loading screens and then started writing quests and storylines, NMS focused on building a very good engine that allowed you to go from surface to air to space to interplanet / stellar while mostly ignoring the rest of gameplay and storytelling.
And not to be too hard on No Man’s Sky given the resource differential, but ultimately all it is is one really rock solid system thats not quite a full game surrounded by a lot of hollow feeling stuff to kinda flesh it out on paper. Ultimately Starfield has way sharper hooks almost immediately simpy because while it has a relatively crappy engine and at time frustrating amounts of loading screens and limitations, they spent more time writing content and dialogue that makes the universe feel actually alive and rich, and polishing each individual system until it’s fun.
I think The Outer Worlds is also worth comparing to as Obsidian is even farther down the same route as Bethesda imho, making a much smaller universe that feels even less free than Starfield but having even better writing and I would argue it’s possibly the best game of the three though I have to withhold my judgement on Starfield until I atleast finish the main quests.
To be honest, I mainly bought the game to make a statement & show my support for what type of treatment & product I want as a customer. Nowadays everything just seems to want to milk me, games are quite often literally designed around it so that it becomes a core part of the games themselves. And I'm so damn over all of this bullshit.
A lot of us just want to have some fun after work and it is not fun when you feel served up like a buttered hot meal. I don’t want to feel like my games are consuming me.
I can see how Game Pass popularity could be bad for a number of studios, as he says in the article. But, I’ve never understood how Game Pass’s existence was anti-consumer.
We always get these baffling quotes like “Microsoft insists on renting you your games, and you will like it.” or “I’m not going to be forced to pay $17 a month just to play my games”. GP never gained popularity off Microsoft forcing people into it, people voluntarily signed up, even when MS continues to make their games available for direct purchase.
The previous quote from Ubisoft even seemed more like an investor excuse than a threat to gamers.
It requires a surprising amount of digging to really try and figure out what started all this, but from my rudimentary research, it seems to me that this is a problem that's existed for a few games now and has steadily gotten worse, stemming from high DLC prices and an equally high number of, potentially game breaking, bugs, across multiple games that don't get fixed as it's very quickly on to the next one for CA.
There's rumination that it's because the studio is constantly working on multiple games at the same time and just shoves everything out without having the proper time to go back and make sure everything works like it should.
This seems like it came to a head with a recent DLC pack's price increase while containing equal or lesser content than Warhammer 2 DLC, which was cheaper on release. This prompted review bombing from the community, which prompted a response from one of the lead devs, Rob, who basically said (paraphrasing here) "Costs are up, there's no good time to do this, but we have to raise the DLC prices and challenge ourselves to make the content better to match".
Turns out the community doesn't think the content is better to match. CA doubled down on that position, and here we are.
Right, I can't remember the Creator's name, but apparently they supported a boycott and got banned for it, removing access to their workshop account as well, and they created one of, if not the most subscribed mod for the game. Maybe you know that, I haven't played Total War since Rome 1, so I'm way out of touch
Cheap money (in the form of loans) has reduced. This means that investors are suddenly putting a lot more pressure on the top. In good companies, this is dealt with by the leadership team. Unfortunately, a lot just let the shit roll downhill.
There is also the issue of compartmentalization. In larger companies, the people dealing with the complaints have little to do with the people who actually need to change things to fix the root cause. This leads to the schizophrenic/sociopathic behaviour we see. The mouth has very little idea what the hands are doing.
I think customers forget about the, like what, 20-25% inflation in the last few years. Either they f+ck over their employees or they have to charge more
Everytime there's a change in pricing that was already a set precedent there's a hurdle to overcome like this, and it becomes extremely important to handle the situation delicately since 95% of possible ways to handle it could go very wrong.
I feel like the only way to really deal with it correctly if it truly must happen because of rising costs is to just admit that, like they did, but then stick to that and only that message, and just wait for the community to come around. If it's possible to provide any sorts of even vague math around sales and cost to produce this content then that context would help people understand, but there's almost no way to change a precedent for the worse on the consumer end without some amount of backlash.
Well it’s not very complex. A software company has a lot of its cost coming from wages. If the employees see their cost of living increasing by 20%, they’ll expect to see their wages rise to compensate.
Consumers will bitch, but eventually accept the higher cost of the software
That inflation is a large part of why consumers are sensitive to this price increase. This is fundamentally a purchase with disposable income. Inflation reduces the disposable Income of the population until (if ever) wages catch up with inflation.
Or they could lower their corporate profit margin so neither is necessary. Don’t make excuses for them and act like there’s not a huge amount of money being hoovered up by profit.
Except they have been increasing the prices this whole time... Most of the prior race packs which focused on 2 factions from Total Warhammer 2 were 10 dollars per pop. Hell the last 2 dlcs were so much bang for the buck since they basically made a pair of 19$ dlc obsolete (yes, with the new pack you only get 1 lord each but having 1 lord but a whole new faction for 10 bucks is good value and that doesn't even count that you also get a number of units from a different faction as well). So Total Warhammer 3 comes out and to say it was a fucking mess at launch is an understatement. Their first new dlc is a race pack at the price of 16 USD. So we see an increase of about 60% right there for many units that simply should have been in the game at launch since the chaos roster was very light compared to the other 2/3 factions in the game as well. So come around to when we get a new faction, prior to this factions cost around 19$ and the price increases to 25$ and personally the community was angry but I was 100% fine with this since yeah prices increase and factions have been this price since 2016. So its fucking insulting they do a new race pack and give us a bullshit letter saying I quote
To get right into it: our costs are up. Unfortunately, that means that prices have to rise. We know any increase is going to be tough, which is why our prices have remained fairly stable over the past few years. The downside is that any increase today is going to be more noticeable.
When this is a blatant lie, this new race pack that gives us less content than prior is now an increase of 150% from 10$ it used to be in total warhammer 2 but a ~60% increase from the last fucking price they had from a year prior. It also doesn't help when they haven't patched the fucking game when there is obviously broken shit. For instance they dropped a patch for the honorable frenchmen (Bretonnia) but some faction features were broken for nearly half a fucking year until after this whole. Hell Nakai the kroxigor (A big fuck off giant lizard alligator man who can do a death roll) lord for again half a year couldn't recruit his special units and kroxigors. This anger is coming from a place where obviously the money they earn is being misused on other projects that end up crashing and burning. Like a fucking new extraction shooter that was a money pit gets canned that was DOA (technically never got released but I know they were running beta test and I imagine it getting canned was based on how much engagement was around it, I remember seeing so many fucking ads that beta test). A reskin of Total war Troy (A newly released AAA priced game that had a peak of 5,424 user), which has failed by basically most margins. So its god damn insulting to hear a lead say basically if you don't buy this dlc expect this game won't be supported anymore even though it is literally CAs only cash cow right now. People want better support for this game, it is under horrid management. A ton of anger is strictly coming from how poor a game WH3 released as and the continued support it has seen. We need a proper custodian team who can actually patch this game more than once or twice in a span of half a fucking year.
Edit: I also want to hammer home how fucking bad TW Pharaoh did.
Peak users
TWW3: 166,519.
Shogun 2: 10k or 50k (can't get an accurate count since Steamcharts only goes back to 2012 but SG2 came out in 2011) was 10k (as long as we ignore when the game was given away for free then it was at 50k).
Rome 2: 118,240
Attila: 26,237
Rome Remastered: 18,407
Three kingdoms: 191,816
Considering how consistent the complaint of how much SEGA is forcing CA to act like a shittier version of Paradox, that’s not surprising.
Since the niche of players that buys Total War games will hardly budge upwards, the only way to maximize profits is to squeeze those suckers with endless DLC. No wonder every game since Shogun 2 has had blood as a separate DLC.
Theres a definite trend of people elevating the value of opinions of those they agree with. It makes any kind of intelligent discourse very hard to do.
I’d label them legends in the sense that they’re probably one of the game studios I know by name the best even though that’s all they have to show for it. Postal 2 for as bugged and edgy as it is, is an extraordinarily famous game.
Ehh… Even putting aside things like Nintendo… Let’s just say I know the names of actual developers on several small studios, including bad games, and I have no idea of a single person who made Postal
They didn't release the third game, it was done by a third party (I believe with some licensing shenanigans?), which is why they don't acknowledge Postal 3. They didn't make it. Which is why they (somewhat recently) have given the A-OK to pirate that game.
I'd assume that last part is why they say legendary.
Glad to know you never grew out of your edgy gamer bro stage. Being able to pee on things is peak gaming, amirite? /s
I’m literally saying this as one of the few people who watched the Postal movie more than once simply because it had David Foley in it and I’m okay with bad movies.
Pretty much, yeah. I don’t feel the need to posture as somehow intellectually superior to a game that is designed to be fucking stupid. I appreciate and recognise all art for exactly what it is.
It’s more that there’s actually games that rise to the level of great art that are designed to be fucking stupid, like Katamari Damacy, which leans hard into absurdism, and is often quite funny, but more importantly the gameplay is original, brilliant, and fun. The art direction in KD is also off the charts quality, especially the music, all of which was written for the game.
Look, I loved Postal 2 back in the day (I always sort of rolled my eyes at Postal, but 2 seemed less serious and more tongue-in-cheek). I might even replay it someday, but it’s not great art. Especially now it’s ugly, it’s clunky, more importantly it continues to be a buggy mess. Not even a Gary Coleman cameo could save it. They were fun games for what they were and for the time they existed in, and it’s okay to remember them for that, but it’s a little absurd to just act like the world hasn’t moved on and that they were great art to begin with. Art direction was bad, level design was bad, there was a lot of bad stuff about the game, beyond even getting into the edgelord shit.
Bad art is okay. I love B-movies, but we don’t have to pretend they’re anything other than what they are: B-movies.
I’m sorry but that is exactly why postal 2 is good. Unpretentious, offensive, provocative, unpolished raw art designed to generate chaos - whilst simultaneously having that certain charm which is impossible to put into words (hence the cult following) - which is exactly what it did. All of that without punching down (OK there was a bit of dodgy stuff, but for the time period it isn’t too bad). Truly one of the greats and you can’t change my mind, so we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Just my opinion, but that was an intentionally outrageous caricature of the narrative being served by the US government, and in fact the way many americans viewed Muslims at the time. Or it could be outright racism/sectarianism but idk I haven’t looked into it at all. Thats the beauty of postal 2 I guess
but that was an intentionally outrageous caricature of the narrative being served by the US government
I actually agree with you here, but I had a serious experience years later that changed my mind on the whole thing. It’s perfectly fine for folks like us who have any kind of media literacy to understand that it’s maybe not meant to be making fun of Muslims, but rather America, but…
GTA 5 has this torture scene, right? It hit me like a brick wall one day when I met people who read that scene way, way, way differently than I did. I had read it as an indictment of torture. The problem is, there’s way too many people who think that scene is cool as fuck and want to do that kind of shit in real life. It’s like the people who look up to Scarface from the movie Scarface. Like these characters aren’t good people or people to look up to, but because America is full of violent uneducated fucking yokels you had a bunch of absolute fucking idiots taking the exact opposite message from it. ( I mean, just look at Trump voters…)
You can’t control how others interpret your art, and if you’re not clear enough, you might end up in a similar position as the people behind Postal 2 and GTA 5, where you have a lot of folks totally misinterpreting what you’re trying to say, and then deciding it means vile, horrible things are not just okay, but cool.
It’s actually something I worry about a lot in life, because I’ve had so many times where I thought I was teaching a person one thing, but it turned out I was accidentally teaching them something horrible. In a country with basically no media literacy and an average 7th grade reading level, we can’t actually take it for granted that absolute fucking morons might misunderstand us.
The problem in particular with Postal 2’s caricature of the views of Muslims in America is that functionally, most Americans who played the game never understood that intent or cared. So when it came down to it, they further entrenched those ideas in the American consciousness, instead of them being read by most people as a critique. Was that their intent? No. Does it matter that the opposite happened? Yes.
That’s a valid take, and actually explains why a large number of people will never understand the nuances or even primary message of art. For example, conservatives discovering the true meaning of “killing in the name of” by rage against the machine.
I suppose RWS knew the consequences of this, which reveals the nihilistic backbone of the game’s theme.
I’m not sure they knew the consequences, I think at the time, like me, they actually had more faith that the majority of Americans would read it as what it was. As a young person, I definitely thought there were more thoughtful people.
It’s easier to critique now, 20 years on, because we’re not experiencing the same things the video game industry was at the time. From the insufferable Jack Thompson to Hillary Clinton wanting to ban GTA over the leaked Hot Coffee code that wasn’t in the main game, but locked away in files inaccessible to most, the industry was under attack and being blamed for all Americas ills. Several games, but mostly GTA and Postal, were holding up a mirror to American society and saying things similar to what I said in my last comment: “America has a bunch of ignorant violent gun-toting people living in it, and they were there before video games were, it’s a violent consumer and celebrity obsessed society, so America maybe you need to sort your problems first before blaming us.” At the time, a fair stance to take, but 20 years on, a decision that lead to a lot of negativity and more mixed feelings on the legacy of the game due to it.
It was easy to think back then that acceptance of gaming in the mainstream wasn’t a given, but games now out-profit movies, and some of the biggest “blockbusters” are games. We were honestly probably worried over nothing.
While I’m not fond of the company, and perhaps legendary is a bit excessive, they’re still a big name that made remarkable videogames. With Postal 2 they nailed it, can’t say about the other 3 because I’ve never played them.
TL;DR: Employees say his actions led to a lot of direction changing that forced management to scramble, and the lower workers had to bear the brunt of this. They also complained that OW2 needed more work or would be review bombed on Steam and his leadership refused. Shareholders are still happy to fellate him though because he made them a lot of money.
It's crazy how far micro-transactions and monetizing games have come since Bethesda charged $2.50 for cosmetic armor to put on your horse. If you'd told someone back then that one day an in-game mount would cost more than the game itself they would have laughed you out of the room.
Yeah I remember saying that that Bethesda’s horse armor bs would lead to gamers being nickeled and dimed to death and was soundly called a overreacting whinger.
And like you said here we are now and gamers are being outright exploited and you still have people saying it’s all still blown out of proportion like these companies aren’t hiring psychologists to manipulate us to buy this bullshit.
It’s a slippery slope. Money talks. They are accountable to their shareholders. So when they saw that people were paying for them, they started to monetise more and more.
Some people would have laughed you out of the room. A lot of people, myself included, warned that this was the kind of shit we’d spiral into with these microtransactions. It was basically confirmed within a year or two with the absolutely insane amount of money mobile gaming was seeing where the base product was just addictive crap with as many microtransactions shoveled in as possible. These games just completely blew the revenue of actual AAA titles would out of the water. It was basically inevitable and we’re now in a situation where we’ve got a generation of consumers raised on this trash.
I’m so sick of this revisionist bs. Plenty of us were outraged then and warned of EXACTLY this. Y’all reaped what you sowed. Now micro transactions and paid early access are the norm. We screamed and yelled to “vote with your wallets”, and by god, you did. “It’s just a few bucks” is the most common one I hear. Well, now EVERYTHING is “just a few bucks”.
This. That’s why I gave up on arguing with people a long time ago. There is a shimmer of hope in me that this industry still comes crashing down at some point. I would celebrate it. But by the looks of it, it won’t happen anytime soon.
The best I could do is not buying anything on release, early access or riddled with microtransactions, mostly indie games and maybe one AAA title a year, also avoid certain studios. Oh, and also don’t really care at all when these kind of news come up. I cared back then, I voted with my wallet and still do, but the other side won. Shit happens. There is nothing I can do other than get angry, but that’s not worth the hassle.
I’m with you. I buy almost exclusively on-sale games. I try to buy the super-premium editions about a year after release so I can get lots of content for less than the original game costs, and I avoid any p2w or lootbox games altogether.
Do I miss interactions with some friends who only play the latest titles? Absolutely. I have primarily been a single player gamer anyway, so maybe it just doesn’t impact me as terribly.
A crash is impossible at this point, the market is too big and vast, if AAA dies, mobile will live on like nothing happened, and guess where lootboxes and gacha started…
If we trusted the Market to make it good for us, we’d still have children working 16 hour shifts until they get their arms chewed off by machinery and get thrown on the streets to starve.
“Vote with your wallet” is just something business say to try to convince us that regulation isn’t needed, conveniently forgetting to mention that the fattest wallet in the room is the CEO’s.
Its crazy to me that a ban from the community page removes your contributed mods too.
Guess it must be pretty bad if your mod creators, the ones making you free content to keep your players around, are getting banned for being pro boycott.
If they ban the right creator, I wonder if a bunch of mods will start breaking similar to that guy who removed his packages from npm, breaking everything
If you want to blame someone, blame the producers, not the devs. They don’t want to be pushed to strict deadlines with artificially limited budgets and whatever enshittification method the execs bought into this week. They want to make good games, but often they work under stifling conditions.
How’s the frame rate? I saw some reports of 7-12fps from systems that kick the absolute shit out of my 2 year old gaming laptop and had flashbacks of wasting $50 on KSP2, which I still can’t play despite exceeding the minimum specs. So I figured I’d wait to hear from people for a week or so this time instead of potentially wasting money on release day.
There’s a lot of entitled people who are upset because they kicked everything to ultra and yeah , that’s where that 7-12 fps is. Most people can’t fathom fiddling with the settings a bit and maybe lowering them.
The dev sent out a forum post on what settings are causing the biggest lag. I followed their advice and it is completely playable. I’m about 10 hours in and I’m loving it
I am a firm believer that if you have a bleeding edge system you are 100% entitled to playing stuff in max settings (at least in reasonable resolution). I don’t see the point in blaming the customers when there is clearly a faulty product here.
Just to clear things up I am definitely not one of those people with the bleeding edge system with my 3060.
I don’t have a dog in this fight but bleeding edge literally implies that unreliability is to be expected. That’s why it’s bleeding edge and not leading edge.
No worries; that would be leading edge, which you’re probably correct in your original statement with that in mind.
Bleeding edge in English generally refers to day zero hardware, software, or services, in which mainstream support most likely doesn’t exist and it is generally anticipated that issues will be encountered.
It’s not being pedantic; I’m not correcting their use of an incorrect word that doesn’t matter. There’s a pretty big distinction between leading edge and bleeding edge, especially when it comes to stated disappointment that a software or program isn’t as stable as expected.
No need to toss insults just to jump to the defense of someone in a pretty simple misunderstanding.
There isnt jack shit difference in the colloquial sense, except for the fact that one word people generally know, and the other people dont. If you were telling this to a native english speaker I wouldnt care, but to an ESL person I feel the need to step in and say “Yeah no, everyone will understand what you mean with the phrasing you chose, the person correcting you is being hyper literal”
Difference here is, Crysis had graphics never seen before. C:S2 on max settings is nothing groundbreaking, it doesn’t even have raytracing. In this case there’s performance issues, not futuristic technologies.
100% a top of the line cpu and gpu should not have problems running the game on max settings. It’s so weird seeing everyone defend a game with terrible performance if you want to exercise any of the graphics options
Can you send that forum post? It would have been cool for Paradox to have put a link in their useless launcher, or the steam news, or in the launch announcement, or wherever else. My observation is that Volumetrics and Global Illumination make the game run like garbage, but with global illumination off entirely, the game looks flaaaaaaat.
A laptop with a 1660ti 6GB got me 20-25fps 1080p low to medium around 10- 20k population. But I turned nearly everything off except for level of detail. Turning off Vsync somehow made it run around 5fps faster.
I was getting 7 fps in the main menu before poking at the settings, but my VII is damaged due to a new faulty 1kW psu that suicide-bombed my machine. I’m amazed it works at all, tbh.
Ultra with 1080 and no motion blur (e: and no AA), I’m getting the same as I got in 1 on 1440 (25-30, also with half dead gpu). I have hope that the additional fixes will bring it on par with 1 for fps.
I’ve been playing on my 7840U (integrated graphics) laptop, 1440x900 low settings and FSR averaged around 30fps in early game, so not great but playable
Radeon VII (damaged from a psu failure, though). 1080 ultra, no motion blur, no AA. 25-30 fps, as expected on this card (a fully working one I’d expect ~70, it’s about half dead).
Also played a ton yesterday. Biggest issue I had was a small stutter every 20 mins or so when zooming in or something. Maybe with certain hardware it’s having issues, high end cards or something? Overall I’m having a great time
Yeah, honestly, the state of the game is fine. Yes, they should have taken a couple of more weeks to fix up the performance, and they definitively should have chosen more sane default settings…
But, other than that, the launch state is fine. There are no major bugs, and there is nothing too major missing. A lot of things are done and designed quite well actually, I’d say.
Just give it a month or two and then look again. There’s no rush, it’s not a story game. But I’ve been enjoying my time so far.
The thing is that this guy is not the head of a public company where shareholders demand massive and continually growing profits. So he acts in the interests of the consumer, the customer, the gamer. But if this was a public company, shareholders would buy shares and then demand he do something to grow that share price, so they can sell the shares later for profit.
When that happens we see that CEOs do everything they can to maximize profits, like promising release dates in earnings calls.
The difference between private and public companies is the single biggest threat to us all because as soon as the company acts in the exclusive interest of profit, everything else gets fucked. And most do.
That means employees, customers, everyone. Only the 1% benefit from the gutting of everyone else.
Those top level folks are sometimes “incentived” by bottom line targets and other end targets. So sure, you do get greedy people inside private companies.
I don’t think shareholders driving for infinite profit is easily disregarded.
It’s clear from context that he was discussing publicly-traded companies because, like you said, there basically are no public companies in the US. Your post is unnecessary and pedantic.
Technically public still means you act in the interests of the owners, aka shareholders (at least in germany anything else is illegal), it’s just that naturally that will always be profit for the majority.
Maybe turn the AAA stock into a meme stock, have gamers buy that shit up and give reduced game prices to stock holders to incentivise gamers to buy them. Et voila, No demand for profit that costs quality in the gaming experience.
The difference between private and public companies is the single biggest threat to us all
Nah. One does not build a company to provide a service but to earn money. “Well-being of the company” only matters if you are sure you can sell it for more if you grow it more
There are a hundred different reasons to start a company other than to make profit. Don’t be fooled by the lies of market capitalism. Some people want to create a legacy that generates income for themselves and their employees, maybe even their children. Not everyone is looking to sell to the highest bidder. With that said, the bigger the company, especially if they plan to go, or already are, publicly traded, or are owned by private equity firms whose sole focus is profit and value of the entity the more likely the assumption is true.
It’s not a standard xbox controller. There’s a gyro with several ways to handle it, including flick, which does take a little time to get used to, but works really well as a mouse substitution for such an environment. Some people are just that good with a thumbstick as well and can easily enjoy casual gamemodes.
Steam Deck is a capable beast, even for a game like Counter-Strike.
The same was said about the steam controller, but in the end it was still shit compared to a mouse. It's just not feasible in a game as competitive as csgo.
It’s not for everyone, but calling it shit just because it doesn’t work easily for your liking is
a bit much since it’s still usable to some. I beat plethora of shooters on gyro and it wasn’t that much harder than playing on mouse once I got used to it.
Eh, people always say this yet data shows it’s not true. Many competitive games have had controller vs m+k and found no discernible advantage. Halo for one, gears of war is another I remember.
I play with an elite controller and I have had zero problem winning and going mvp against m+k players in any game I’ve played. I play PUBG where m+k use is rampant and I still maintain a 30-40% win rate in squads, often in 2 man squads.
CS:GO is dead, though, and neither of the popular and beloved entries to the series was ever solely focused on the competitive scene - the community and the casual fun also matter in the world of Counter-Strike, and that’s one of its parts that can be enjoyed on a controller just fine. Of course I don’t expect to be able to perform just as well or better than the M+K players when playing on a controller, regardless of its gyro capabilities, especially in the competitive modes. Counter-Strike is just much more than just a competitive game.
At its core, CS is a competitive shooter. Having casual maps and modes is fun but the game should not cater to this play mode. If valve tries to make it casual friendly they will disappoint the competitive players and will not be able to compete with other casual shooters.
Basically I don’t want then to cater too much to the casual scene
CSGO was made entirely for the purpose of being a console game, no body played it on console so they abandoned it
You are perfectly capable of setting on the couch at any time. The computer does not stop this. You are actively making the decision to not sit on a couch, as an adult you’re allowed to do this.
Of course, I don’t doubt that. But someone with say 500 hours in csgo playing with keyboard mouse will absolutely destroy someone with 500 hours playing with sticks/gyro. But honestly I can’t think of a single streamer or pro that doesn’t use keyboard mouse
Small adjustments from rotating a controller will never be nearly as precise as moving a mouse.
Fast flicking wide turns is going to be far too slow even at the fastest joystick speed, which would screw up aiming in other ways as well
Strafing would be very limited even if you somehow overcame all those issues and were magically a human robot. Your controller can only rotate so much to track the player over a distance.
Joystick movement is simply never as precise as mouse, including with gyro that has a separate slow speed to try and be accurate as possible. Which doing that then means you can’t strafe or quick turn.
Mouse can do it all with significantly less effort, and with a much higher skill ceiling. Which that is what matters if you’re in competitive play. If you’re not trying to be competitive, then fuck it, use whatever is fun.
I had to check. They actually said this. I’ve never played Warhammer (I have been interested, just haven’t gotten around to it) and I don’t know these devs at all, but contradicting themselves with just seven words in the same sentence is actually kind of impressive.
pcgamesn.com
Ważne