I’m frankly astounded by the sheer ineptitude on display here. I don’t know what’s happening at Microsoft, but whatever it is, it’s insanity. How tone deaf can you be? And this is only days after the gamepad fiasco.
If you sell individual games, you have basically two ways of making more money: make more games or make better games so more people buy them.
The economies for a subscription service are completely different. People don’t subscribe to GamePass for a specific game, they subscribe for the entire collection. More games or better games don’t really drive up the number of subscribers. The only way to make more money is to drive down costs. You don’t make expensive, awesome games. Instead you drip-feed a steady stream of low-budget titles. You just have to make sure that the value of access to the entire collection is just about worth the subscription price.
Microsoft doesn’t care about games, they care about making money. They didn’t get into gaming because of a love for games, they realized it’s a market they didn’t dominate yet.
They lured people into GamePass with day-1 drops of AAA titles and now that the subscribers are there it’s time to squeeze as much money out of the service as possible.
And it’s not just GamePass. It’s all subscription services. Netflix is a good example: quality has been going down there for years.
The only real exception seems to be music streaming, but that’s mainly because there are so many artists and practically no exclusivity. In other words: there is healthy competition in the music streaming business.
Very nicely explained, I find myself in agreement with you. This makes a lot of sense and would explain their current behaviour. So, with this in mind, if I look at Microsoft’s statement from the article, it now reads slightly differently. Before, it was just their statement verbatim: “we need games like Hi-Fi rush”, but now it’s “we need games like Hi-Fi Rush, but a hell of a lot cheaper”. All because of GamePass. Dude, I am so sick of subscription services.
This is an excellent explanation of why the layoffs were a terrible idea.
I wouldn’t have volunteered $30-$40 for Hi-Fi Rush on release because of my low budget for new singleplayer games - but I did play it through Game Pass, and knowing how good it is now I would’ve paid more. Similarly, MS has put out many “mixed” games that are perfect for certain types of people but not many others. Those are the things that keep people on Game Pass. Nobody needs to be paying $100 a year to keep playing the few familiar live service games they know.
The “unsubscribe” button is really easy to reach the month Game Pass stops putting out anything new and interesting, and that’s coming soon now that they have no one ready to put out these surprise hits.
The gamepass numbers looks way better than they actually are. There is that loophole where you can buy Xbox gold and convert to gamepass for a really small amount compared to what gamepass actually charges. A ton of people like myself got that deal, because it was like $100 for 3 years of gamepass. I will never renew or do gamepass again, as it’s just not worth it for me. I imagine there a ton of people like myself on the discounted converted plans with no plans of renewal, especially at full price.
They have set themselves up to lose a ton of users, and fail, and they are unaware.
And music streaming is only as good as it is because artists are getting completely shafted at every turn by both the streaming services and the record labels.
From the translation of the claims, they appear to describe Pokémon-style activities, with ‘191 focused on the act of throwing a ball at characters in a field, ‘117 tied to aiming, and ‘390 on riding characters.
If this is indeed the case, the lawsuit is clearly illegitimate (in the real sense, can’t speak for legal nuances). Not surprising.
That’s not exactly it. I read the description of '191 and it seems to be more like “throwing a ball to capture a character and place it in the player’s possession or throwing it to release a captured character”. You can see the patent drawings also depecting that, so it’s basically a patent of the Pokeball.
Not a lawyer so I have no idea how it’ll go in court but it does sound like Palworld infringes on this. It’s kinda funny that they could’ve avoided this by being a bit more legally distinct, like how TemTem throws cards instead of balls.
The second one is an older application of the first patent (pokeball again). The third one is literally just being able to mount an object or creature with some caveats like a flying one having to come down and carry you up, that one is ridiculous and a lot of games do something similar all the time.
Skyrim did it first with dragons. Honestly I bought palworld specifically to spite shitendo and ended up pleasantly surprised by a very playable game. Shitendo is just mad that someone else did it better on a shoestring budget
It would be funny if a legal defense would have been using an n-sided 3d polygon that definitely isn’t a sphere. Is a tetrahedron legally distinct enough? How about a truncated isocohedron? Seems silly for the shape to matter.
The one thing about patent law I know is that you can’t patent something that already exists in the wild (“prior art”), so surely that can’t be the case, and if it is then it’s open-and-shut, right?
Make fun of Apex all you want, it was the best performing game of its kind on the Deck and kept me from selling my Deck sooner. Now, I’m even a Linux convert because of how well games like Apex worked away from their Windows origins. Seeing a large game like this be killed off on Linux is awful. I’m not sure where the blame lies (with EA, right?) but it needs to be fixed.
I mean, the problem is kind of fundamental. They have a competitive multiplayer game. Many competitive multiplayer games are vulnerable to cheating if you can manipulate the client software; some software just can’t really be hardened and still deal with latency and such reasonably. Consoles are reasonably well locked down. PCs are not, and trying to clamp down on them at all is a pain – there are lots of holes to modify the software. Linux is specifically made to be open and thus modifiable. You’re never going to get major Linux distros committing to a closed system.
Frankly, my answer has been “Consoles are really the right answer for competitive multiplayer, not PCs.” It’s not just the cheating issue, but that you also want a level playing field, and PCs fundamentally are not that. Someone can, to at least some degree, pay to win with higher framerates or resolution or a more-responsive system on a PC.
My guess is that the most-realistic way to do do games like this on the PC is to introduce some kind of trusted hardware sufficient to handle all the critical data in a game, like a PCI card or something, and then stick critical portions of the game on that trusted hardware. But that infrastructure doesn’t exist today, and it’s still trying to make an open system imperfectly act like a closed one.
I think that the real answer here is to use consoles for that, because they already are what game developers are after – a locked-down, non-expandable system. In the specific context of competitive multiplayer games, that’s desirable. I don’t like it for most other things, but consoles are well-suited to that.
My own personal guess is the even longer run answer is going to be a slow shift away from multiplayer games.
Inexpensive, low-latency, long-range data connectivity started to give multiplayer games a boost around 2000-ish. Suddenly, it was possible to play a lot of games against people remotely. And there are neat things you can do with multiplayer games. Humans are a sophisticated, “smarter game AI”. They have their own problems, like sometimes doing things that aren’t fun for other players – like cheating – but if you can rely on other players, you don’t have to write a lot of complicated game AI.
The problem is that it also comes with a lot of drawbacks. You can’t pause most multiplayer games, and even when you do, it’s disruptive. If you’re, say, raising a kid who can get themselves into trouble, not being able to simply stand up and walk away from the keyboard is kinda limiting. You cannot play a multiplayer game without data connectivity. At some point, the game isn’t going to be playable any more, as the player base falls off and central servers go away. You have to deal with other people exploiting the game in various ways that aren’t fun for other players. That could be a game’s meta evolving to use strategies that aren’t very much fun to counter, or cheating, or people just abusing other people. Yeah, you can try to structure a game to discourage that, but we’ve been working on that for many years and griefing and such is still a thing.
Writing game AI is hard and expensive, but I think that in the long run, what we’re going to do is to see game AI take up a lot of the slack. I think that we’re going to to see advances in generic game AI engines, the sort of way we do graphics or sound engines, where one company makes a game AI software package that is reused in many, many games and only slightly tweaked by the game developers.
Multiplayer games are always going to be around, short of us hitting human-level AI. But I think that the trend will be towards single-player games over time, just because of those technical limitations I mentioned. I think that where multiplayer happens, it’ll be more-frequently with people that someone knows – someone’s friends or spouse or such – and where someone specifically wants to interact with that other person, and where the human isn’t just a faceless random person filling in for a smart piece of game AI that doesn’t exist. That’d also hopefully solve the cheating problem.
Some ways I could see the problem at least partially resolved on PC are: Returning to server-side validation, and designing games such that player location knowledge and aiming reflexes are not always the biggest tests for victory. Hackers may, in fact, develop wallhacks and aimhacks for such a game, but may exhibit frustration finding these alone don’t necessarily bag them a win because of bad tactical decisionmaking.
Such games wouldn’t be realistic tactical shooters in the vein of COD, though.
I was with you up until the shift away from multiplayer part. I do not see that happening at all, and I don’t even like multiplayer games myself. There’s no denying that more multiplayer has been the trend for the last 30 years, spanning multiple (people) generations, and I don’t see AI changing that.
Developers have full control over servers in most cases. A viable server side anti cheat should be a thing. For every case of “client sending false data to server” we can come up with a solution to verify that to some degree. Finally, it should help a lot to rely on player generated reports and utilize replay recording on server.
But no, developers will continue to rely on 3rd party solutions (made by people who never developed a game), even infect their co-op-only games with it, and complain “uh oh we can’t handle Linux cheaters”.
The problem is EAs business model for this game. It is free to pay, so EA need to extract money otherwise. They introduce some gamified resource collection and crafting with exponentially rising costs, etc. And hope that gamers circumvent that by buying stuff with real money. Now players don’t all want or can’t do that, and look for alternative solutions.
So EAs business model drives people to cheat. To cheat them primarily and other players secondarily.
And because of their business model, they cannot solve the cheating between players by giving them dedicated servers or just let them P2P match, because they would loose control over them and their ability to extract more money.
It’s important to be said that you have to be very careful when playing a satire character, because if you’re not you will just become the satire character. Larry the Cable Guy is not even from the south. If you’re doing something ironically or you like something ironically you have to make sure that it’s something that you’re okay with doing unironically or that you really take care to separate yourself from that thing in certain ways otherwise you will start to believe, like, and/or do those things unironically
Actual proof of what? That Dr. Disrespect sent private messages to a minor? I guess I would take him at his own word since he tweeted about it admitting it hours ago.
I hadn’t seen the post on Twitter, I don’t use Twitter. Looks like he posted that about an hour before I commented, so it’s not like you’d expect everyone in the world to have seen it.
Having read it I’ve obviously got new information and can update my opinion accordingly.
To be clear, though, he hadn’t made this statement until today, and so everyone until now was acting based on hearsay, not proof.
Were there twitch whisper messages with an individual minor back in 2017? The answer is yes. Were there real intentions behind these messages, the answer is absolutely not. These were casual, mutual conversations that sometimes leaned too much in the direction of being inappropriate, but nothing more.
what? he said it himself. he admitted, today, in his OWN words he had inappropriate chats with a minor. What more proof do you need? Like if someone came up to you and said “you know essteeyou, I did this” you’d be like “well you allegedly did it”. cope some more bro, cope some more.
I started using Discord because Skype was pissing me off. Now, Discord starts to piss me off with their bullshit. I’m just too tired to move to yet another platform that will start sucking once it’s grown bigger. I hate this “social media” focus on every little fucking thing. This stupid “we are building a community” garbage should die.
Maybe it’s time for me to burn everything down and go live in the woods. I don’t particularly resonate with people anyway.
You’ve touched on the cycle of enshittification. Step 1, everything is free and wonderful. Step 2: milk those customers for money.
The solution is to favor and support services which take capitalism out of the equation. It might cost a little bit, but I think a few small donations can go a long way.
So, it’s the lack of admin rights? Inability to decide your own sitewide TOS, lack of privacy from Discord admins, possibility of getting shut down, that’s what they meant?
More than that. They own the content and relationships and can use them in ways you cannot predict. LLMs gobble up human produced content because we entrusted it to corporations. What hit hardest for me was when Facebook published a study where they found they could influence users attitude by prioritizing certain posts in their feeds.
Imagine it. Corporations owning your relationships and using them to get a profit out of you
It’s a closed system owned by a single company. If you provide data or information there, the company owns the data, other people can’t find the data using search engines and they would need an account to access the data. Imagine the internet is owned by a single company and they could sell, change, censor, delete restrict access to or use the information in means you cannot predict.
I hate to say it, but games should stop using licensed music. Or at least if it has an expiry date, which they all seem to. Every game that licenses a song becomes a ticking time bomb before it is either pulled from sale or all of the music gets patched out, even if you purchased it before then.
I don't understand why a company would even want to use the music if it means they can only sell the game for so long. Obviously, it's not the current reality, but I would outright refuse any deal that involves a limited amount of time to use material that goes into a video game, movie, any form of media except maybe live services that are constantly changing anyways (which is a separate issue).
At the very least, people should be made aware of a game's sale period, though I'm sure that's kept under NDA.
I mean the game came out in 2012. It’s not really that absurd to base ones licensing contracts for 14 years when the medium (games) generate the vast majority of their revenue in the first months.
Most digital products have an end of life. I agree that the whole digital ownership part isn’t fair, but I don’t think a 14 year selling window due to licensing is the part to be mad at.
It makes sense financially if the game is expected to have a big spike of sales initially, and after a while have very few sales, so the expected additional lifetime revenue is less than the cost difference between a temporary and perpetual license.
Kotick is retiring because he can't take direction. But will receive hundreds of millions to do so. Why would MS fire anyone else when Activision and King makes money?
“We technically thought we would get away with this shit, which was an error. How pissed would you guys be about Coca Cola showing up in ancient Baghdad?”
Probably for the best. The Deck certification process on games would probably be annoying if they had a whole bunch of revisions with only like 10% difference in performance.
Wait a few years and make the next one a meaningful jump.
Exactly. I’d like to see a few significant improvements for the next gen - namely in screen and performance to match, but my dream would be to see Valve license Framework’s module system (or build something similar of their own) and integrate one of those somewhere on the deck.
It’d be great for the obvious, like adding high-speed storage, but just imagine the possibilities for a handheld gaming console of attachments people could build with a module system that locks in place like that.
Obviously the module thing is a pipe dream and unlikely to happen, but I just feel like there’s a ton of additional potential for that form factor that’s unexplored, and I’d like to see longer generations not only for support, but also so that larger iterative work like designing a module system or whatever can be prioritized over rushing out regular performance upgrades.
Since the Oblivion and Fallout 3 remasters will be on the Creation Engine, they will probably just be the old games with HD textures more or less. So basically what is already possible with mods.
EDIT: Also, I wonder if the Skyblivion project will finally be finished just to get a cease and desist letter by MS because they do their own remaster of the game.
Yeah, i was about to say. Oblivion’s UI is actually miles better than Starfield’s. All it really needs is to have the height of UI list elements to be scaled down so that theyre fit for modern monitors and TVs rather than a low res CRT
“Schwacher Trank der Lebensenergie-Wiederherstellung.”
Oblivion auto generated potion names based on their effects and the template they used lead to this super long names in german. A proper translation would have been “Schwacher Heiltrank” or “Schwacher Lebensregenerstionstrank”
I’m sure most of them have already been available on GoG for quite some time, I don’t know what took them so long to port them over competing storefronts.
are already available through the classic game service GOG. But more choice is always a good thing. This is particularly true when it comes to making older games more accessible on modern platforms, something that’s becoming increasingly rare for all but the biggest titles.
They were on GOG, more access to more people and compatibility.
That’s not an explanation of why it took them so long.
It’s the article’s writer (not an EA representative, so it’s just the writer’s subjective opinion) saying “the games were already available elsewhere, but it’s good they are now available on Steam as well”.
are already available through the classic game service GOG. But more choice is always a good thing. This is particularly true when it comes to making older games more accessible on modern platforms, something that’s becoming increasingly rare for all but the biggest titles.
They were on GOG, and it’s for more access to more people and compatibility.
Article was only a few paragraphs, I thought Reddit was bad for people not reading articles, fucking shit lmfao.
Maybe go back to Reddit if your replies are that toxic. I read that. It’s the author’s opinion that he’s happy it’s on steam now. It is not the answer to the question, so I thought maybe you had some insight or I misread something. I gave another user (you) the benefit of the doubt that maybe I missed something. Maybe you’re in defensive mode from Reddit. It’s not needed here
Steam wins on market share. You’d think they would have started on steam if it was to make more money, or added them to Steam a long time ago. I’m sure their reasoning is sound, just curious what it was. Licensing deals, listing cost, whatever. Maybe they waited for all the true believers to get it on gog and now hope they’ll all buy again on steam for the achievements. By pride do you mean the Origin failure?
Steam takes a 30% cut of the profit last I read. EA tried to avoid this with Orgin to not pay that 30%. I assume Steam sales have to be pretty good VS Orgin numbers keep using Steam.
People hate using extra launchers, and EA has a reputation of being comic book villain evil. I assume any tiny bits of good will they get from customers is rare and this is low hanging fruit. People also love Steam to the point of not buying a game without it. The 30% cut probably seemed worth the trade for the wriggling masses running EA.
Maybe they had an agreement with GOG? This is all personal speculation, but GOG was primarily known as Good Old (Ol’?) Games for a long time, as they would put that under their GOG acronym back in the day. It was essentially a storefront that primarily dealt with classics and keeping them available to consumers before they pivoted and started also focusing a lot on modern games. Maybe my memory is flawed and I’m completely misremembering the old GOG and they’ve always focused on modern games as well, so anyone feel free to correct me if that’s the case.
Anyway, I wouldn’t be surprised if GOG struck a deal with a lot of publishers for selling all their classics exclusively. On the flip side, it could also be that the publishers just didn’t care enough about their old offerings to put any effort into porting them into other storefronts. Now that retrogaming is much more ubiquitous than it once was, some bean counter pitched this idea in a mid-quarter profit seeking brainstorming meeting and here we are.
I wouldn’t think getting exclusive access to 20+ year old games that are mostly obscure would cost very much, but who knows. It was just a theory either way.
Just on install, the legal stuff you need to accept is just creepy af. Next time i will get a AMD graphics card, it has a lot more open drivers ( especially because i am a linux user )
theverge.com
Ważne