“Instead of getting more accepting of microtransactions these days because they’ve become so normalized, I’m moving the opposite direction. I genuinely resent Diablo 4 for sinking so, so much work into its $15-30 armor sets in the store when they could have been farmable in the game, and in-game sets are already starting to fall behind in the seasonal model.”
You clearly don’t resent it that much, considering you gave Diablo 4 a 9/10.
It's not a burn; it's a poorly constructed comment made out of context. The author's criticism on Diablo 4 is based within the context of Baldur's Gate 3's release. The review for D4 was written before BG3 was released.
Simplifying is really different from what they did which is completely alter characters, unnecessarily kill off characters, introduce new plots that didn't exist, etc. The Lord of the Rings movies, and the recent Dune movie both did a lot of that but are considered fantastic adaptations. Even Game of Thrones was an excellent adaptation for the first ~5 seasons and had huge mass market appeal while still being complex.
man the dune movie was so interesting sounding and watching it was such a … idk… it was an experience. There was so much stuff that seemed so loosely strung together to the point of feeling almost baffling. I wouldn’t think LoTR or early GoT are comparable?
You might need to go back and watch it again. I had a completely different experience, and I found the plot rather cohesive. It's one of the best movies I've ever seen in my opinion.
I felt like Dune needed some prior knowledge of the books to really follow the plot. Not because the plot wasn’t cohesive, but because so much plot was condensed into a movie that was already 2 and half hours long. It’s not the fault of the movie, the book is just dense. But it does end up disorienting for the average viewer who can’t instantly adjust their understanding of the universe to fully follow the plot.
That's fair. I never read the books or even watched the original movie, but I do have fans in my circle that have given me a bit of an indirect knowledge of the Duniverse. Even still, the acting, the cinematography, the music, everything in this movie is just amazing to me.
I agree it's particularly dumb thing to complain about. You can land on Pluto. Well for posterity, I'm assuming they mean going to the planet and landing directly, which you can't do to any planet. You can land on Pluto, just not by flying directly to it. You can't really fly to any planet and land on it like that because when you're at the planet, selecting it has you bring up the planetary map to initiate landing/destinations.
Basically, if I'm anywhere in the galaxy I can select Pluto, plot a course, and land in it's orbit. Or, if I've landed on it before and visited a settlement, or made my own outpost, then I can select either of those.
You cannot fly from earth to Mars and then directly land on Mars. You can select a location near mars and then press a button to travel to it, likewise for any waypoints you can see.
At no point does the game or the marketing say that you can fly to planets without menus and land on the planet with a seamless transition, so I don't really understand what everyone is up in arms about. They told us long ago that cutscenes would be the transitions so frankly I'm just seeing people complain for making assumptions they were never promised. (unlike 2077 which actually did have some missed promises).
So yeah, "can't land" on Pluto without using the map menu... Just like literally everything else except waypoints in the game
Wouldn't it be relatively simple to have the ship be automatically stopped as soon as it gets at a certain distance from a land-able object and open some dialog asking whether you want to land / enter atmosphere or something like that to initiate a cutscene / loadscreen?
And if you say no, the ship's computer could make up some in-game excuse, such as needing to avoid the gravity well of the planet, for it to automatically turn around and move away from it.
I mean, I get that they probably didn't expect someone to spend the time to actually go and attempt physically reaching the planet, but after all the attention this thing is getting it could be an appropriate approach to take for when they do the full release, if only to shut people's mouths. It's just one small detail.
I see where he's coming from, as when cross-play isn't available niche online games can die quickly and exclusives are annoying, but if there was only one platform holder, that status would quickly be exploited with high online fees and tighter controls of how games are purchased/resold.
Nintendo has IP lawyers. They have to, at their scale, because they will constantly be bombarded by patent trolls, licensing companies etc. trying to extract profit out of Nintendo. So, like any other large business, they hire IP lawyers to protect themselves.
Most patent disagreements are resolved by cross-licensing. That’s where one business says, in response to a law suit, “oh, but you’re actually using 6 of our patents, so maybe we can come to an agreement”. A patent is both a shield and a sword. Even against trolls they can be useful, as they can be used to argue against troll arguments, if it gets to court, or pull in other business to the defense, if helpful.
IP lawyers know this. So they extract every patent they can out of everything a company does, as a way to build up the IP bank.
So, I highly doubt “Nintendo wants to prevent others” bla bla. It’s just IP lawyers doing their job.
I’ve sat in MANY discovery sessions with IP lawyers where they push and prod at software I, or my team, have written. “So, what you’ve effectively done is written a unique data structure to connect elements in memory?!”, “no, it’s a linked list, next question please”.
Well then i hope phisical games come back to be a thing because i will never downlaod a 100gb+ game. They should make game in USB or Hardrive format that an user can buy at store like was with CD and DVD.
Honestly, things like this were why I thought that Blu-Ray drives would take off. It's why I bought a Blu-ray RW drive in 2014 for my PC build because I thought it would be the future as game and media sizes would only get bigger and more of a pain to download.
I was wrong, but I wish I hadn't been. At least I can rip my PS3 Blu-rays to play them on emulators now. It's hard to go back and play them at 720p on a big screen without all the features that emulators give me. Rendering at 1440p (minimum) just being the start.
Soon or later the progress will gonna need to going back as new generation of physical disk-like. Also this depency on the net is simple unsafe, service can go offline anytime and hundred of dollars in game just become nothing. We should relearning the value of owning something really in our hands and not in virtual libraries.
Never? There's that infamous quote about how people will never need more than 64KB of RAM that comes to mind. SSD prices are falling rapidly, and internet bandwidth is only increasing. I understand if you don't have the means right this moment, but 100+ GB games are here and will only happen more often.
I don’t have a problem with large games if I get the option of what I want to download. Most often these large sizes are because it forces you to get full 4K textures and multiple copies of the audio files for languages you don’t speak.
I would bet half the size of this game is unnecessary for the average player. We really need the ability to download the core game and then these add-ons separately.
Those managers and publishers were likely looking at their burn rate and needed to get some funding to come in to keep the studio afloat. It's tough out there for games right now.
So if you've published a game, just keep on keeping on. You can sell that game, maintain an older copy of Unity to update it for bugs, even develop new content for that game with the older version of Unity.
I figured this must have been in here. No professional organization would allow a TOS to pass into publishing that allowed a company to unilaterally change fees.
Yes, the fee applies to eligible games currently in market that continue to distribute the runtime. We look at a game's lifetime installs to determine eligibility for the runtime fee. Then we bill the runtime fee based on all new installs that occur after January 1, 2024.
So if you've published a game, just keep on keeping on. You can sell that game, maintain an older copy of Unity to update it for bugs, even develop new content for that game with the older version of Unity.
According to the article, probably no.
Many devs may have updated unity and used it for minor updates, but also the clause in question probably doesn't protect anyone anyway. There's a broader ToS that supercedes it with much more restrictive language.
According to the article, it's not that simple. This is from the ToS for the Unity Editor, which is subservient to a broader Unity ToS that has much stricter legal language about changing anything without warning and the customer being able to go fuck themselves.
So, yes, technically this bullshit may be completely legal. Devs who were sold Unity on "no royalties" may be forced to pay royalties. Which is definitely healthy for our society and not obviously a problem.
He’s said that way before 2020, also. Publicly. It seems that has not changed. Most in that kind of position would come to the same conclusions of buying up the competition and making money off their products. It’s cheaper, it’s easier, you already get the infrastructure and customer base, etc. What capitalist wouldn’t try to go that route?
gaming
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.