So it ended up being a class based shooter instead of a hero shooter. That’s good at least. Hopefully it doesn’t minimize the benefit portals brought to the original.
Microsoft has implemented a standard Direct3D API for upscalers (DirectSR), so instead of game needing to directly target DLSS AND FSR AND XeSS, it targets DirectSR and your GPU driver provides the rest (ie. nVidia drivers will target DLSS, Intel XeSS, AMD probably nothing for now, since Microsoft’s built-in scaler is a port of FSR3)
This would only be better if Khronos had beaten them to the punch, this is Windows only, but at least it’s GPU vendor neutral.
Just because a game has advertising doesn’t automatically make it a bad game. Need for Speed Underground 2 did this very well.
There was advertising for various real world business sponsors of the game, like Old Spice, Gillette, Best Buy, and various automotive related brands. But NFS U2 is literally peak, best of the best Need for Speed. How is this possible with advertising? Because it made the advertising part of the game world in an unintrustive way. Billboards along the sides of racetracks, Best Buy buildings in the scenery you drive around, these were great ways the developers incorporated ads into the game without them being intrusive or interrupting the game. It was also the correct genre of game for advertising, as this would not work so well if it was in a game like Skyrim, for example.
If another game needs to have ads in it, I am okay with it if they implement them in the same way NFS U2 did. No pop-ups, no " watch 3 ad videos for 2 gas droplets," none of that. Just a static image on a billboard, implemented in a manner that doesnt interrupt my game and that fits its genre.
I find it really weird that in NHL24 they have very limited ads and most of them are just EA’s own shit. As a hockey fan, it’s actually a little jarring because real arenas are just plastered with ads for a variety of shit. Kind of a weird thing to complain about, but I mean… It’s trying to look as real as possible; having real-world ads in the real world way goes a long way to accomplishing that, IMO.
Plus I think it would be cool as hell to see local businesses advertised based on the arena. It would add to the feel of realism, while also benefitting those local businesses.
I’d rather premium games didn’t take money from unrelated companies to modify their games in any way. Not unless they’re sharing the ad profits they’re making off me with me or using it to offset the price of the game for consumers. But I am violently anti-ad.
I’d go even further: developers ought to be required to submit reproducible builds to the Library of Congress in order to be eligible for copyright in the first place.
(And copyright ought to be shortened back to its original term length, by the way.)
Sadly, even if I’m moralistically in favor, there is so much insane computer science logic (and proprietary mechanisms) behind the process of compilation, especially on certain embedded systems where this issue comes up, that I doubt that could ever be pushed into law.
I understand it’s easy for a layperson to have that opinion, but I don’t think it can be hand-waved away as too difficult when people are actually doing it.
It being possible for some is quite literally you using an anecdote to try and prove a norm. I sincerely hope you have enough logic skills to understand why that is stupid, incorrect, and bad logic…
You would maybe not be surprised to know that there is way waaaaay more in common from one software project to another. Especially games which essentially all use one of a handful of game engines and asset sources.
I think proper codifying engineering standards for software would also help… maybe even should happen first.
This doesn’t make sense as the compilers would also be included in this new copyright scheme and would become public property after so much time.
There are open source compilers for all major CPU architectures. In fact the open source compilers regularly outperform the closed source ones. It’s also not exactly that difficult to add on more architectures to an existing compiler these days thanks to the modular way modern compilers are built. Once you build a backend for LLVM you unlock not just one language but about a dozen.
Others have mentioned existing efforts to form reproducible results. So, this might be irrelevant now; but I’m fairly sure if the mindset was “open source compilers are always better than extremely expensive ones”, the expensive ones wouldn’t have a reason to exist.
That could be an old mindset. (Of course, binaries made way back in that age are part of how we got in this mess)
Others have mentioned existing efforts to form reproducible results. So, this might be irrelevant now; but I’m fairly sure if the mindset was “open source compilers are always better than extremely expensive ones”, the expensive ones wouldn’t have a reason to exist.
Actually their reason to exist is that some software and hardware platforms don’t have a real open source alternative.
I have a friend who works with some of these compilers, and also with low level assembly language and stuff. He tells me most of the closed source compilers he works with are way behind the open source ones including Microsoft’s compiler. I’ve seen some evidence of this myself too. The reason people use the Microsoft one is because it integrates better with the Windows APIs and Visual Studio, or just because they don’t know better. I believe Microsoft even have an initiative to integrate LLVM into Visual Studio because they know how bad their compiler is in comparison. Since it’s by a large company specialising in systems software theirs is probably one of the better examples.
In the Apple ecosystem they use LLVM for C and C++. The only stable Rust compiler afaik is LLVM based, though they are working on their own alternative which will also be open source.
This reminds me of warzone 2100. After its publisher (punpkin) ceased trading, some dedicated ex-employees and community members managed to liberate the source code in 2004.
Now it’s available in some of the major distros and is still updated to this day.
Every line of code needs to be Open Source. The people or businesses responsible can buy a subscription to keep it from the public. No more money => Publicly overseeable sources + FOSS licensing.
I was so excited when I got my AMD card last fall, which was my first PC upgrade since 2016. FSR 3.0 was about to come out. Then it dropped, and I realized only a handful of games I didn’t care to play supported it. Almost a year later, I still don’t think I have played anything that uses it. The newer ones look great, but I guess it’s going to be years before it’s well adopted.
These aren’t actually Half-Life 3 leaks. I watched the video. He says everything in the video is about leaks and speculation will be marked as such. But there is nothing that points the files being Half-Life 3 related. He speculates that its about Half-Life 3 (without marking it as speculation).
So no, this is either misleading in order to get more clicks and viewer, or in best case just wishful thinking. There is absolutely nothing that makes this a Half-Life 3 leak, this is just another speculation that Valve would work on the game. You know in the past years, how often Tyler was wrong with his own speculation…
I’m a little surprised either of them have such a strong opinion about something EU related anyway, given it doesn’t affect them directly. Well I guess Louis is just really passionate about that stuff so it’s not all that surprising. As for Thor, maybe he’s using his online presence to kickstart a live service game himself? Obviously regulations are scary in that case. It’s a wild guess from my side but I think that would be on brand for him.
The potential legislation would be specific to the EU, but that doesn’t really matter; this market is large enough that it would directly affect other markets. Either the games are patched for all territories or others will make the EU-specific build available. One option generates positive press, the other negative, and any difference in cost would be negligible.
It would affect video game developers that want to publish in the EU.
It likely won’t affect Thor directly unless he makes a live-service game in the future. He just thinks it’s harmful to the industry and tends to speak out about stuff like that.
Damn, imagine if it passes and devs just don’t release in the eu anymore. I mean the best scenario we are all hoping for is it passes and is obliged by everywhere due to the Brussels effect. Doesnt mean it will though.
In the end, it may pass but publishers stop selling in the EU in an official capacity but europeans still digitally buy the games anyway…
I really don’t see why an indie dev would oppose this. If you were an artist, you wouldn’t want to watch your creation completely disappear from existence because you couldn’t keep working on it, would you?
I remember Thor saying that not tying a single player campaign to a server would be bad for developers and Louis barely covered that statement here. How? How would keeping single player and any server-based systems separate hurt the dev? Just plan for this from the beginning. 🤦♂️
Yep. And wtf happened with LAN multiplayer? Even the Beta from Diablo II Ressurected had it, but they REMOVED IT from the release version. I call BS on what this Thor guy is saying.
Blizzard swore off local multiplayer after what happened with StarCraft esports. The Korean leagues ran huge tournaments and made a ton of money off Blizzard’s IP and essentially told them to pound sand. Now everything has to go through their servers so they control the ecosystem.
Same with how Blizzard now owns every custom game you make. They learned their lesson with DOTA/LOL and feel like all that money should be theirs.
All of which seems to indicate that this is a real problem. People can play Brood War forever, but what happens when the SC2 servers go down?
I imagine fans have already found a way to create their own servers for that very instance. Just to ensure this type of stuff cannot happen to those hardcore dedicated fans.
It hurts the developer by impairing the control over the deployed software. This can mean monetization (like microtransactions or some stuff), this can mean “drop-in multiplayer” or whatever it’s called, this can mean a simple friendlist or statistics page, or something along those lines.
It is seldom something different from monetization. Especially in the AAA compartment.
I’d even be happy with there being a choice between “either release tools needed to unlock and run services necessary to function OR release all source code to public domain so someone else is able to fix and rebuild the software as necessary”
If I pay for something they shouldn’t be able to disable it
youtube.com
Aktywne