This is about starting a conversation, so hopefully we can have a conversation. I don’t disagree with consumer protection nor do I want to protect billion dollar corporations. I just don’t think that signing petitions to create new laws isn’t the best way to go about this. Law changes come with all kinds of side effects. Anti-abortion laws have caused lots of issues that even pro-life supporters aren’t happy with. I think it’s much better to directly bring concerns to the companies that are causing the issue. I really do think it’s only a handful of corporations pulling these anti-consumer shenanigans and I think they should be called out directly.
He makes it clear that this wouldn’t affect most games, since most games aren’t sold as a service, and even those that are often do have a way to continue to run after the service ends. So this initiative is quite literally aimed at a specific style of game that he doesn’t like and fears will become more common. He’s afraid selling games as a service is too profitable and companies will start selling all games in this way even if there’s no need. To the question about “why not boycott companies selling games this way?” he explains boycotts don’t work. But when Bud Light ran a pro LGBT ad, so many bigots switched beer that Bud Light had to apologize and fire their executives. It fell from #1 beer to #3 and the parent company is now switching their flagship beer from Bud Light to Michelob. Boycotts work. The fact that gamers can’t stop themselves from buying a single game shows they don’t actually care. It’s way easier to sign a petition then it is to not play the newest Ubisoft release. If 1,000,000 people didn’t buy the newest Ubisoft game, they would change course. Helldivers said everyone would need a PSN account to play the game on PC and it got so much backlash that the company changed course in a few days. Companies absolutely listen to their customers.
This is my issue with the direction this is heading. The question is “I am a developer with an online-only game. What will happen if this initiative passes?”. The response is “Shut down your game and never make another online-only game ever again”. He spends a lot of time talking about how games are works of art that need to be preserved for the sake of humanity and the good of consumers, and then he tells devs to shutdown their game and never make another one. This isn’t preservation of games anymore than an anti-abortion law is preservation of life. Anti-abortion supporters don’t actually care about life, they care about restricting choice because they don’t think the choice is ethical. It’s like saying any company that sells a movie must ensure the purchaser can watch that movie forever and when told that would make it difficult, if not impossible, for movie theatres and streaming services to run, respond by saying “Oh well! Who cares about theatres and streaming services? Those shouldn’t exist anyways! They’re unethical and anti-consumer!” Nobody supports a company selling you a licence to watch a movie on a specific date and time…unless it’s a movie theatre. Sometimes, what sounds anti-consumer, isn’t actually anti-consumer, and a broad law could take away something that people actually like as collateral damage.
Creating a law to change how companies operate brings up a lot of issues and questions. This video explaining all the issues and questions is 40 minutes long and often says there’s no clear answers to the questions and concerns since no actual law exists yet. I honestly think that the better way of handling this is an awareness campaign (like is currently happening, keep the conversation going!) and boycott against the worst offenders, not a petition to create a new law. Even if this did get 1,000,000 signatures, I don’t think that any government would pass a law that consumers actually like. No government is keen on messing with multi-billion dollar a year industries. I do think that if 1,000,000 people told Ubisoft or EA or any company to do a specific thing with a specific game or they won’t buy it, they would make the change.
even those that are often do have a way to continue to run after the service ends
I’m going to guess you use a different definition than the rest of do if you came to this conclusion. Even still, we’ve got an enormous graveyard of games rendered nonfunctional once the servers were taken offline, and we can objectively measure those and see no way it’s going to slow down. Sony’s about to push out Concord this month. The two RTS games pushing themselves most as successors to StarCraft are both online-only. All three of these games will be completely unplayable and lost to time in just a few short years.
To the question about “why not boycott companies selling games this way?” he explains boycotts don’t work. But when Bud Light ran a pro LGBT ad, so many bigots switched beer that Bud Light had to apologize and fire their executives. It fell from #1 beer to #3 and the parent company is now switching their flagship beer from Bud Light to Michelob. Boycotts work.
I agree with you. A lot of people don’t realize the power they have in the marketplace. Unfortunately, a lot of this stuff is very obfuscated. Why would they tell you clearly that the game is going to stop functioning at some point in the future if they don’t have to? It would be terrible for business. They’ll put it in their EULAs, the things you only see after you’ve already purchased the game, and declining it means you can’t use the thing you bought. It might be in some small italics text on the store page that’s difficult to find. But if you’re looking at Diablo IV next to Titan Quest II, you as the consumer have very little indication that one of those games will live forever while the other lives on borrowed time.
Plus, yes, games are art that are worth preserving.
Helldivers said everyone would need a PSN account to play the game on PC and it got so much backlash that the company changed course in a few days.
It’s worth noting that, because this game can’t exist offline, this is a change they could impose on you after you’ve already bought it.
The response is “Shut down your game and never make another online-only game ever again”. He spends a lot of time talking about how games are works of art that need to be preserved for the sake of humanity and the good of consumers, and then he tells devs to shutdown their game and never make another one.
There was a gaming VPN program called Tunngle that I would use when Hamachi would fail me. It was surely collecting untold quantities of my personal data without my knowledge. When the GDPR passed, Tunngle decided to just close up shop rather than finding another way forward. That was a casualty of consumer protections, but it doesn’t mean that consumers aren’t worth protecting. He acknowledges the very real scenario that this is a non-starter for a lot of current games’ business models, and they’ll sooner shut down than comply, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth making sure that people get what they expect to receive when they pay for a game: actual ownership.
This isn’t preservation of games anymore than…
I’m not touching that metaphor for all sorts of reasons that could derail this discussion, but yes, requiring that a game remains playable after the servers are shut down is preservation. Requiring them to put a label on it, like a surgeon general’s warning on a pack of cigarettes, describing exactly what it is they’re selling to me; that would be consumer protection. I’ll still happily take the preservation as one step further than that.
I honestly think that the better way of handling this is an awareness campaign (like is currently happening, keep the conversation going!) and boycott against the worst offenders, not a petition to create a new law.
Awareness is a huge problem, because, much like I stated earlier, games aren’t even required to inform me that I wouldn’t want to buy them, and it takes me a lot of work to find that out.
If a free market solution (which I like and prefer, by the way) was going to solve this, it would have done it by now.
seconding this! Crosscode is an insanely good game! IMPORTANTLY before you go in though! there are two main criticisms against the game, which to me are both incredibly strong positives, but it’s important to know what you’re getting in to!
First is that the dungeons are very long. we’re talking an hour minimum, often even longer. You are spending time in these locations.
Second is that there are a lot of puzzles, and they are not always baby easy action game puzzles. This game is an action/puzzle game and it does not slack in either regard. Expect to be utterly stumped sometimes. Also fights are puzzles too, and if you’re struggling on a fight try to see if you can figure out its puzzle, I promise it will make it a lot easier!
I just looked it up and I already own it from the Itch.io Bundle for Ukraine. I should play it sometime! Also on sale on GOG rn at a historical low price DRM-free.
I used to play defensively either by myself or with a friend against the computer. Most people seemed to play a rush strategy. I didn’t find much fun in that. The games were over too quick. Instead I’d simply find a difficulty where I’d last anywhere from 1-2 hours in a game, beating back the cpu while building up more defenses and progressing through the ages and technology, in the early stages of the game. Eventually I could tell I was overpowered and then moved to defeat the enemy. There was a challenge in the beginning half of the game, then just crushing! And none of that rush stuff!
I love the aesthetic of this. I played the white label version back when it came out and then kinda forgot it existed till now. I’m not always big on rhythm games so I’m not yet sure if this will be for me. But I can already tell the OST is gonna rip.
I might be missing something since I’m not completely dialed in with TD lore but didn’t we kill Keener? Are they bringing him back or will this just be more of his usual gloating through audio logs? I’m not sure how I feel about either of those options.
Guess I’ll wait for a full detail breakdown before thinking about coming back.
I don’t play, but watched a vid on this. Apparently we never killed hin or Theo Parnell - they both somehow faked their deaths (Theo was the one with all the decoy shit) and are back at it.
Yeah, I just watched the Ubisoft Forward stream with some additional details on the new update. Can’t say I’m a fan but whatever - guess they still can’t let go of their obsession with him.
I remember when he was harder. Day 1, he was like a level 90 boss because of a bug when he was meant to be a level 60 one. Beat him before they fixed it; now he feels too easy. lol
Nothing compared to what we had, but when it’s only one: dropping an AP/HE Strat between your positions will draw it into the concussive fire, and chuckin’ a couple grenades under it en route tends to result in a cinematically satisfying skid to a dead stop in a heap a few meters from you… 🤓🤘🏽
Yeah, I feel like 1 is easy enough to deal with. Orbital rail strike will 1 shot anything. But once there are more than 2 chargers out, I felt like it is impossible.
Expendable Anti-Tank one of the (front) legs and then shoot the exposed leg still seems to be viable solution. EAT also works with Bile Titans pretty well.
EAT is a bit high risk high reward with Bile Titans. Wait just before (or dodge) the puke shower and aim at the mouth. Other option is to shoot at their underbelly, but it seems to need more damage on top of two EATs.
We had two members with EATs basically littering them on our path whenever the cooldown was off. That way there usually is couple of EATs to be used when stuff hits the fan. You can also destroy the pod they land in, so the EATs show up in the map as well, which makes them easier to find when needed. Usually patrolling bugs will take care of the pod, though.
Another tip I have (not directly related to dealing with the Chargers): If you happen to cross the extract point while doing the main / secondary, it doesn’t hurt to drop supplies and other any support stratagems there beforehand. You can also drop all the samples gathered at that point, so they will be waiting for the extracting time. It never hurts to plan ahead, so we are usually planning the mission route that crossing the extraction point will happen.
Doing this has in my expetience increased the chances of getting out with the all important samples, especially when the mission time is running out and the Super Destroyer leaves.
Just played tonight with using EAT for Chargers. Aiming for the leg strips the armor in one shot and then they’re easy to take down with your primary or another EAT after that.
Anywhere on body: 110mm rocket pods*, railcannon strike, orbital laser, orbital precision strike*, 2 x EAT, Arc Thrower (20+ to body), flamethrower, Spear, might be others
Headshots: Arc Thrower seems to kill a charger in about 10-12 shots if you can land it on their face. The lightning is somewhat more accurate and reliable at medium ranges, so get some distance.
Front leg and then shoot exposed flesh: EAT, Recoilless Rifle, Railgun on Unsafe mode (4 shots to break),
When paused after a charge**: autocannon to backside of front leg, laser cannon to backside of front leg, impact grenade to backside of front leg, probably many others
*These stratagems seem to be sticky for some reason and I’ve had good success attaching them to the chargers as they pass or after they’ve stopped.
**Some people seem to think that this strategy takes advantage of a hitbox bug where the charger’s armor is temporarily reduced after their charge attack.
Flamer can now kill a charger as fast or faster than the previous railgun strategy. Just aim body, let it rip and make sure you don’t burn yourself. What you don’t have is the range of the railgun so you can’t help someone else fighting a charger in the distance.
Proceedurally.
So, “hands are supposed to be here” and the arms figure out the rest.
By the time add in “finger pointing at this” combined with spells to make your thumb big (or whatever, ultimately everything is made at a base level to allow for a lot of creativity further up the stack) means the finger might drive the scaling of the arm.
Same with the strange jumping. Body “jumped” in a downwards direction, and the feet animated correctly in an upwards direction. Ends up with a body doing a strange wrap around itself as it figures out how the feet can be above the torso.
Walking books might be a really easy way to animate a book flying around, have physics and a health pool without having to create a whole new object/entity class (just inherit all the features and disable the standard person/object body).
The faces-talking-out-the-head thing is animation data imported with the wrong scaling. Some parts can just move to where the animation says they are, others warp the geometry of the rest of the model.
Remember that a lot of the models and animation will be made with no idea how they end up being used, at the same time as they are actually programmed into the game. There might be some iteration, but its not like they know the end result, make the models, make the animations, make the game. All this happens at the same time, and any iteration might set multiple departments back days or weeks.
So, super flexible APIs, models and animations are designed at the start in a way that allows for a small amount of specialisation and iteration, but the rest is all “bodge what you have available”. Ultimately if it isnt flexible enough early in development then its going to cost a lot to fix
Every time I think about this sort of thing I remember that in Fallout 3 the developers added a moving train to the game by making the train a hat that was worn by a man that ran really fast underneath the ground to make the train move.
youtu.be
Ważne