I would also support paying for online servers for games that have multiplayer components. That takes money to maintain.
If the developers were interested in allowing people to keep the servers running, they’d just give us the server code like they used to. If I was in charge of a GOG that was a little more flush with capital, I might fund an easy drop-in replacement library for Steam’s multiplayer APIs so that developers can easily port their games to GOG and be playable, in multiplayer, offline.
They do that already. They’re partnered with Heroic. If you buy GOG games through Heroic, Heroic gets a cut of that sale using a referral code program like you’d see in other stores. It gives Heroic some cash, and it gives GOG a line of sight into exactly how much revenue they’re missing out on by not building the Linux launcher themselves. This is what got me to start buying from GOG again.
Yes, that’s what I use when I need it for GOG saves. But typically, every game puts their save file in a different spot, so you do need to do a one-time setup for each individual game.
Do you not have to update that script every time you play a new game? Cloud saves are pretty automatic, and regardless of platform, they’ve been pretty reliable too. It also fits that use case that you go to a friend’s place and want to show them something in your save file on a whim.
I got the same survey. The ones that they definitely do not want to do, if they value their reputation, are things like “increased cloud save storage (that’s still probably less than what Steam offers)” and things that they took away, like 1.0 installers. But some of the other options look to be more squarely aimed at the enthusiasts of the preservation program that this subscription is designed to financially support, as well as one or two actually good features like legal account sharing. Hopefully they go down that route instead.
It’s a long video, so I guess you’re sitting down with a book. For the record, the visual aides contributed quite a bit, and a lot of it is him contextualizing something that’s already a book: Playing at the World by Jon Peterson.
10 characters, in my experience, is about as small as a roster can be in a fighting game before it feels like you’re seeing the same matchups over and over again. That might be a bit worse in a 2v2 game, but there are other reasons, like Vanguard, that I’d argue are more compelling reasons to avoid 2XKO.
Would you say that the game cleaned up some of conveyance of information from the first game? Or have you not played the first game to compare it against? Maybe I just have to get used to what the game does and doesn’t tell me.
For the record, I didn’t skip the dialogue; I accidentally chose one option too quickly and then was not presented with the option to choose the other one the next time I spoke to the same NPC. The kind of quality of life I’m looking for is the stuff that makes it clear to me, a person in the modern world, what Henry would know. Or at least to be able to jump over a shin-high chain without hitting a collision box that tells me I can’t.