It’s a lot like stardew valley. And less than $2 in the sale. It might be a bit more puzzle game in places. Probably best to read some reviews before you buy.
The fatal flaw is that it is old and you need to do a lot of extra steps to play online in 2025, but aside from that, the game has a very steep learning curve so even the greatest otaku can struggle to get into it, competitively specially, if there is a room for that word in 2025 😅
I have one and I can tell you that even though it’s not an OLED, the screen is not bad in the slightest. It’s really big, super sharp, and the high refresh rate just makes anything that takes advantage of it look fantastic. The battery is more or less the same as the Switch 1. It’s also pretty comparable to my Steam Deck. It really just depends on the game. I tend to keep a charger nearby and I haven’t had it come close to dying on me yet. While some of the joycons may have an issue with drift, I am sure plenty of them won’t. I haven’t had an issue with mine yet, and I can say they are a massive step up from the Switch 1 joycons. It is definitely pricey and that is certainly a valid concern. There will still be plenty of physical carts released, that really depends on what the developer wants to do. Nintendo definitely has that strong anti piracy stance and that does have the potential to cause issues. But if you don’t use it for anything other than legitimately purchased games, it’s extremely unlikely that you’ll run into any issues caused by it.
Rocket League. I find myself going back to it because I like the concept but you need to have chat turned off completely and even then the games usually devolve into one or more players throwing a hissy fit a minute into any match because something didn’t go perfectly.
I think this movement is based on feelings. It feels bad that a game died, so we should fix it. Unfortunately the real world is more complicated than that, and overly broad rules are goint to cause unintended consequences for small developers.
The art argument is nonsense, although the other extreme is too. Artists need protections so they can earn a living, but the protections currently last far too long.
Either way, nothing is stopping a company creating a game similar to any number of often referenced “dead” games, and there is nothing wrong with letting something run its course and die off, to allow room for new creativity.
I’m not aware of really any small developers pulling stunts like Ubisoft is doing. And there’s always the option to limit new laws to bigger publishers, like the EU is doing with the DMA.
The art argument is not nonsense, not sure where you get the idea. Games like Assassin’s Creed 2 have influenced many people in their design choices for their own games.
And of course there’s something wrong when a company takes away access to singleplayer games you bought, just because they use always-online DRM and don’t want to pay for the servers. These games don’t take away space from new games, it’s a ridiculous idea that them dying off is improving the situation for new games. It’s also ridiculous to think “hey, someone can just develop a game like the old one!”.
Because it’s a massive time and money investment, because the market and gaming landscape has changed, because mechanics and approaches can be patented, …
It’s a game with a story. You can’t just create a literal copy of that story since it connects to the story of the games before and after it. Come on, this isn’t hard to understand.
First, how the hell did you get that from what I wrote?
Second, do you really think art is this replaceable? “Oh, we don’t need old movies and music, we have better ones now, so let’s just take away the copies people have already bought”? What a sad way to look at art.
But that’s what’s happening, games like AC2 are being taken from people.
How the hell were people supposed to know that the game would be taken from them when they bought it? You are aware that clear communication on that issue is literally one of the objectives of Stop Killing Games?
Have you done any thinking & reflection on why people support the campaign? It feels like you’re desperately throwing arguments against the wall to see what sticks, even though nothing actually makes sense.
Can you give some detail on the assassins creed 2 thing? I can’t find anything in a search and I’d be interested in reading about that as it might change my view.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want a game that I paid for to remain functional long term. In my case I have a copy of the Hitman trilogy in my Steam library, and as it stands when the servers for that game go offline it will become nearly unplayable just because the unlock system is reliant on the publisher’s servers. It would be easy for them to just release a patch as they decommission those servers to allow the unlock system to function offline, but right now there is no guarantee of that happening, nor any real reason to do so besides some consumer goodwill.
I mean that you straight up cannot unlock new equipment, costumes, starting points, and the like while offline and/or disconnected from the game servers. IIRC the game just doesn’t track stage mastery without a connection.
I think you’re allowed to be selfish when it’s your game. I paid £80 for that game, I should have the right to play it for as long as I have the hardware to run it, even if I have to do some fiddling and modding to get it to work.
This is about maintaining the compromise that is intellectual property law.
IP law has been so perverted that I see a lot of the takietarians around here wanting to abolish it completely. That’s not a good idea. The US constitution empowers Congress to make laws that for a limited time give creators exclusive rights to their creations. FOR A LIMITED TIME. That’s the key feature. I know this is an EU petition, I imagine they have a similar concept of IP. That it belongs to the creator for awhile, and then enters the public domain as the heritage of all mankind.
Do away with copyright protection entirely, and you kill a lot of people’s jobs. The rate at which things will be created will drastically decrease. Throughout the 1980s, how many decade defining or genre defining video games came out of the United States? The nation known for a video game industry crash that decade? How many came out of the UK? How many out of Japan? How many out of the Soviet Union?
Okay so let’s make copyright permanent! Well no, because then you get Disney, a collection of stuffed suits who have MBAs instead of souls holding as much western culture hostage as they can in perpetuity.
So, we compromise. You create something, you get an amount of time of exclusive right of way, then it becomes public domain.
That length of time has gotten longer and longer to the point now that it’s more than 2 human lifetimes long. To an individual human, that’s as good as forever, so it has the problems of permanent copyright.
Especially in the realm of computer software and video games, where the life of a platform averages 10 years. There’s a whole body of software and games written for OLD systems that are still protected under copyright, but finding the copyright holder is damn near impossible. I’ll make up a game: Turtle Adventure for the Commodore 64, copyright 1985 by Bedsoft Inc. Bedsoft Inc was a sole proprietorship operated by Bartholomew Teethwick in Bristol, England. Mr. Teethwick published Turtle Adventure, a typing tutor game that didn’t really work right, and an advertisement for a Pacman clone to release in 1987 was circulated but that game was never made. The “company” was shut down in 1988 and Mr. Teethwick died of AIDS in 1991, unmarried, no children. Who’s going to sue me for posting Turtle Adventure on Github? Whose rights is copyright law protecting here?
Then you get into this model where video games don’t work at all without a central server somewhere. That’s just an end around of the deal. This software is supposed to end up in the public domain eventually. By copyrighting it, that’s the deal you made.
To patent something, you’re required to submit a technical description of your invention in sufficient detail for it to be replicated, because patent law is a similar compromise. You invent something, it’s yours for awhile then it belongs to humanity. You cannot have a patented trade secret. Why do we allow closed source software to be copyrighted?
The rules for software weren’t created for software, they were created for human readable works of literature, and they’ve been misused in ways that benefit large greed-based organizations like Microsoft.
Requiring game developers to publish their server side code when the game goes defunct is holding them to the deal they made when they installed that copyright notice. It is what they owe humanity.
Thats all a great argument for far shorter copyright lengths, sort of a pity this bill isn’t asking for that but maybe thats how it will shake out anyways.
I’m so happy you’re finding your way out of a pit! I don’t know why you think it would be an unpopular thing to share, you’re on Beehaw here! People tend to be(e) a bit nicer
Back in Control, all the stoplight did was teleport you back to the entrance if you moved on red. That’s way too easy for co-op though, so I’m sure Remedy changed it.
bin.pol.social
Ważne