I haven’t had a look at the original text from China, but wondering how much they accounted for. Any of these rules could be easily circumvented if they didn’t account for multiple scenarios.
Rewards for spending money within a game for the first time
“We don’t have a reward for spending money for the first time, but everyone does have a digital coupon for $5 off of their first $10 purchase when they make an account.”
Rewards for buying consecutive microtransactions
“The players don’t get any extras when they buy more of our digital currency, but every gacha pull does make the next 5 pulls a bit cheaper.”
Rewards for daily log-ins.
“No, we’re not giving rewards for daily log-ins, but players can buy this bonus that adds a gift-giving NPC to the main town for 30 days, who will trade a small parcel of premium currency for a single gold coin once per day.”
How do Chinese judges react to transparent attempts to circumvent laws that have the same effect as just breaking the law? I wouldn’t expect them to fall for the “I’m not touching you” defense.
That’s not what I’m saying. I was just hoping this law has teeth, because companies who are greedy for money will always try to circumvent whatever new restrictions are sent their way.
I’m thinking back to earlier policies set by China like the restrictions against showing undead/human remains in video games. World of Warcraft set up all these euphemistic workarounds to circumvent the law while realistically changing as little as possible, basically defeating the purpose of it.
China outlawed loot boxes, but then season passes and gatcha models were implemented in short order to continue exploiting consumers. If the law doesn’t account for all sorts of scenarios that can be abused, it’s just going to be a game of cat and mouse.
Well, it’s China. How the commerce law affect you will depend heavily on who you know in the government and the party. If the new law is heavily pushed by someone important, they probably won’t turn a blind eye for minor technicality. Someone up high probably got mad with their kids getting addicted with microtransactions and want to neuter it. Once that person lost interest or no longer in power, the enforcement will probably become much lenient.
World of Warcraft set up all these euphemistic workarounds to circumvent the law while realistically changing as little as possible, basically defeating the purpose of it.
The only one I’m aware of is China’s cultural distaste for showing bones, so Blizzard had to hide the skeletal structure in the Undead player class. In other words, it wasn’t about the undead, it was only about showing bones.
Why do people think they are “buying” something when in fact they are “renting”. Everything that’s not in your power is not in your posession, hence it’s not something you have bought. This counts for ebooks with DRM as well as those online games. Amazon and other companies call it “buying” to make people believe it’s equal to real books, games ect. in their posession, and people do believe it.
This is pretty disappointing to me. I know it’s kind of an unpopular opinion these days, but I really enjoyed Outlaws. It was just different enough from other Star Wars properties to be novel, but recognizable enough to be convincingly in the Star Wars universe. Sure some characters were a bit flat, missions were repetitive, and it didn’t invent a new revolutionary mechanic or anything, but does every game have to be groundbreaking? I got solid enjoyment out of it, and was looking forward to how they’d continue the story.
That’s totally fair (though I haven’t played any recent Zelda games, so I can’t speak to that). I actually think quite a few recent open world games didn’t need to be open world at all and would have been better if they were more of a single player guided narrative.
One game that did this perfectly IMO was Guardians of the Galaxy. It wasn’t open world, but you could explore each “chapter” or “level” or whatever as much as you wanted and could replay them individually. That made the whole story feel really tight, coherent, and well thought out. I find myself really wanting that format in some of these big beautiful (and yeah, often boring) open world games.
While it got a lot of flack, I thought the smaller contained worlds of Outer Worlds can be a better in between. Open spaces to explore and run into things accidentally, but constrained enough that the world and plot can still flourish.
I was told the developers were scumbags that abandon all their games, and had abandoned this one to make Palworld, even though they had just updated it at that time as well. Could the idiots review bombing the game on Steam have misled me?
I’m more surprised that it even got offered there. There’s some legal hurdles to clear for selling in a new country, and I guess, one of their distribution platforms decided it was worth it.
I guess, the Vatican might not have a ton of laws, though…
Interesting. I almost guessed that variant, too, but figured it would be a bit too wild for a country to auto-adopt most laws that another country implements. 🙃
I don’t see how they think mobile games are profitable. The market is so saturated and the games are all very samey with the same daily log in bullshit.
It’s because of China and the Asian market in general. It’s beyond huge for mobile games. Even the crappiest piece of shit you could imagine will probably make money in that market if advertised in the right way.
The rating is 77. 77 is the lowest rating a game in the main series of Assassins Creed has received. This means the other games have 78 or up. How in the world is this considered bad? For an entire fucking franchise? Not a fan of the series or anything but I just think it’s ridiculous how this is an actual headline! Don’t the journalists have nothing else to report on regarding video games and the industry? Layoffs? Toxic people and business practices? Microtransactions?
Nah, instead they go: “pretty good (but not great) game is slightly less good than other pretty good (but not great) games in an overall pretty good (but not great) franchise.” Ugh!
The headline says it’s the lowest-rated game in the series, not that Mirage is a bad game. The article bases itself on a single data point, which leaves a lot of room for interpreting. Which the author does a little.
But it’s nowhere mentioned or claimed that Mirage is a badly-reviewed game or doesn’t sell well. It’s just the lowest entry so far. And that’s what everybody should take away from that headline, followed by ignoring the hollow clickbaity article altogether.
I watched a review video that was praising everything in this game. "Finally another good AC." "The vombat is fun and challenging." "Looks fantastic on the new engine."
Then i watched just some guy playing it and it honestly looks janky as hell. He always got stuck while parkouring, the parkour itself seems like the same press one button to do parkour, but this time it's really jank. There is no weapon variety at all. The combat looks really bad, it looks like the least fun combat in all these kind of games. The world looks really good, but the people in the world the jank ass AI and NPC doing weird shit while looking pretty Bethesda like. I haven't played it, but how this got a 77 or anything above a 5/10 is beyond me.
gamerant.com
Ważne