Why anyone would spend 1500 dollars and 300 hours on a parody is beyond me but it’s impressive work nonetheless for a solo dev.
The gameplay was fun to watch, but mostly just because the characters steps sounded like their shoes were sticky after they stepped into some spilled cola or zombie guts or whatever.
This is all well and good, but what of all those MMORPGs that got shut down?
The Crew is a bizarre game to do this kinda treatment for, since the sequel is very similar to the first, less terrible crime syndicate story, more planes and other nonsense. It’s also pretty middling, car handling is really weird, and the lack of rear view mirrors looks pretty weird nowadays.
I’m guessing it’s car licensing that’s causing the shutdown. It’s what happened to Forza Horizon 1 and 2. If that is the case, this game isn’t going to get open sourced ever. Also: why didn’t this guy go after Microsoft to make them playable again?
It’s because MMOs were sold as subscriptions (most of the time) so they’re legally covered in being allowed to end their service. The crew however was sold as a full game with no subscription. They didn’t make it clear that the game could cease to exist even though you paid for it outright.
Sadly, I feel like a lawsuit line this won’t have the benefit we’re all hoping for (open sourcing on closure of services) but will instead just make all subsequent games free-to-play, which would make them more exempt to the same scrutiny. And we’re already seemingly heading that way too, warts and all.
For the future maybe. For games that were sold one day, they would have to either keep supporting it, or release server software.
It is up to the gamers to keep supporting this practice in the future.
I can still play Unreal Tournament '99 and 2004 even though the servers are offline. I can even still play it online with the server ip and even use the server browser with fan mods.
You can’t say the same for the crew when it goes offline.
The reason you can still play UT99 and 2004 is because those games were never hosted by epic on a central server. The game shipped with the server hosting tools, and it was designed to allow you to host your own server (if your connection was fast enough) or to rent your own server from a third party.
They’re also very different types of games from the current crop of live service games that this youtuber is targeting.
I am aware it’s different. All I’m trying to say is either make it single player, release dedicated server software or keep supporting it. You sold it as a product. Don’t remove access to a product.
For the last few years, most MMOs have been, or become, Free to Play, with (a lot of) microtransactions. The only subscription MMOs I can think of off the top of my head are FFXIV, WoW and Eve. Then you have the buy to play, with no sub (or optional sub, but not required to play), games like New World and Elder Scrolls Online. Making the vast majority F2P.
All of those games can become EOL and be removed from sale for any number of reasons, and they’ll have the same terms in the EULA that the crew would have. There is literally nothing different legally between The Crew and something like Elyon. Both were paid for up front, no subscription with some optional microtransactions.
Since legallly there is nothing different between all these live service games, it makes this youtubers campaign all the more odd. Car Licensing is notoriously well enforced, so why is this guy, a Half Life youtuber of all things, thinking he can go after Ubisoft on this when it’s pretty obvious that it’s the license agreements that are the likely cause of the shutdown.
Since it’s free they were never sold to you as product, their asses are covered on this one, you can make an arguement for Elder Scrolls Online, Black Desert Online (I bought this one, I have the receipt to prove it) and Guild Wars 2 since they use the b2p model with an optional subscription. Car licensing can only prevent ubisoft to sell the game, it’s not required for them to shut it down and render your copy unusable.
It’s all about how they’re sold and marketed rather than what’s in a EULA. They can’t be used the same way as a contract upon purchase and have been shown just as such in law cases in the past. FFXIV, WOW and Eve have always been sold under the pretence you need to keep paying to keep playing.
You just made it look even worse for Ubisoft since the first 3 Horizon games work offline and everyone that bought them can still play it just fine, you just can’t buy them right now.
I don’t care if it’s true please let’s just leave it dead and not encourage this. I don’t want to buy games wondering if the studio is going to make it 100x better after I’ve already played through the plot. Like, I’m happy CDPR fixed Cyberpunk, I really am, but it should have been good day one.
We (Payday 2 Players) also racked up hours upon hours (I think I am around 1000 total) and they didn’t really give us anything for all that work. We got a underwhelming skin. A bare bones weapon, and some weapon charms …do they realize how hard it was to beat every heist on Deathwish without a hacker in the lobby? A Charm? For Real? Give me my deathwish mask back and I will play your new game
It’s a new engine, which is more than enough to warrant a new title imo. CS has been practically the same game many years and has been incredibly successful all that time. The community does not want major gameplay changes, just minor improvements. CS as a series is not like COD or Battlefield.
CS2 has much more advanced and consistent smokes, vastly improved graphics, more advanced netcode, competitive improvments alongside a new competitive mode similar to FaceIT, and loads of quality of life improvements. I think this is more than enough to be considered a sequel.
I’m pretty happy personally that the community server browser no longer looks like it was made in 1996. The new one actually works on my ultrawide monitor, so I can find servers on my own now. In CSGO, I had to have a friend find a server for us and then I’d just join him.
because source wasn’t a sequel to them, just an engine port. Why counterstrike 2 is called 2, imo, just because Source 2
Being a new game in a series doesn’t necessarily mean that its the next numbered game, especially to valve. Technically speaking, the other counterstrike project (Condition Zero, single player content) is also a thing.
They should have called it CS: Source 2, then. The game hasn’t changed enough to be considered a sequel. They made the same amount of improvements to this one as they always have in the last. Doesn’t make sense to call it a full-blown sequel.
They probably figured that if Blizzard could get away with calling it Overwatch 2, despite being the same game, they probably could too.
Finally did this a week or so back, I had one of the original accounts (username login, not email). Made me feel like shit and manipulated, all to make Microsoft happier.
I actually would kind of like ai in games. Not slop visuals though. What I really would love would be in a VR game, going up to an NPC, and getting a feel for different cultures of the world I’m in through talking. Maybe you have to have a certain type of conversation to find out the plot for a side quest, or talk to a guard at a bar and work your way to find out the shift rotation as he gets drunk or something so you can infiltrate the castle.
I feel like ai could be useful like that…but getting rid of artists in favor of ai slop is just the worst way to implement this AI thing.
Avoiding slopification seems to be the main priority, and you would have to have the AI be incorporated into a game it would have to do something that AI is already passable at, otherwise it wont pass that barrier and will get shunned like the rest of the slop.
For example, you could have an LLM act as a character or have a neural net incorporated into the game-ai like how tool assisted DOTA2 competitions work.
I see three main problems, first is that you would need the hardware to run it locally, which may be a hard sell to some people depending on what the game it is, only online expirenes should endebt themselves to AWS, if its single player, its going to lose a ton of sales there. Two, its really hard to convince audiences electrons have feelings, remember Final Fantasy (2001)? Thats what happened last time someone tried to personify a digital construct, and well… It went swimmingly (Microsofts Tay, does not count). Lastly, impact, would a narrative focused title have the same impact of an AI wrote the script? How would you feel after playing through a title like “Papers, please” and when the credits roll it says “script generated by CoPilot”? I feel like it would ring hollow, the feelings would be cheapened by it…
I would be interested to see how this plays out, but im content to support the titles and studios that do things the traditional way.
Given some of the fair-use-adjacent fan work the Team Fortress voice actors have done, I sometimes wish there were more fictional characters out there that actors had the rights to represent as outside of media.
I recall interviews where the guy who does Dr Eggman just politely refused simple fun requests because they wouldn’t be approved by Sega, which is too bad.
The only example I can think of where that has happened would be Ryan Reynolds & Deadpool. Iirc he kinda just stole the costume after the 1st movie wrapped filming
pcgamesn.com
Ważne