Can't help but feel like that was a missed opportunity. Exploration being risky could lead the player to make meaningful choices with meaningful consequences. It certainly seemed to have that effect in Dark Souls (yes I just invoked Dark Souls please don't dogpile me).
Excited to play “multiplayer” again with my friend. Discord and streaming wasn’t possible for me back then so we just used Skype voice to describe what we found in each puzzle. Of course we’d give each other a chance to figure it out ourselves first, but we had so much fun for a couple weeks.
Monopoly doesn’t mean “Largest market share”. It’s a real term with a real meaning.
Monopoly:
the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
What, exactly, does Valve control? They don’t require exclusivity, they don’t require their DRM, they don’t require the use of their network system. Hell, they don’t even require you to to give them 30% if you sell your own key.
Valve is also not a publicly traded company, while this doesn’t mean you can fully trust them it does mean they aren’t required to seek profit at all costs. This allows then to do things like, support Linux, make their own hardware (twice after their first attempt was a failure), work on Proton, develope games that make them no money, etc.
Itch.io, GOG, EA, Epic, Windows Store, Game Pass, Humble Bundle, personal websites. These are all examples of places you can buy video games on computers.
Timmy Tencent’s propaganda is working on you if you think Valve is any sort of monopoly.
Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a “monopolist” is a firm with significant and durable market power.
I don’t think Steam qualifies still. There are still plenty of competitors such as GOG, Green Man Gaming, itch.io, Epic, Humble Store, Microsoft Store, and so on.
The “significant durable market power” part is why I went on to explain how they don’t lock you into their ecosystem. How can Valve raise prices or exclude their competitors when they literally do not have any mechanisms in place to do any of those things?
I have no problem with someone getting paid for their work. In fact, I encourage people to get paid for their work. But if you decide to sabotage your own product for the sake of attacking people who refuse to pay for it, you just make your product worse for everyone who did pay for it and you do nothing to actually solve the piracy issue. In that case, you’re reaping what you sow.
The modder, PureDark is talking about putting in anti-theft mines into their mods. Exactly like the Mad Max game where you can’t win and it makes it impossibly difficult if you’re playing a cracked copy. Below is the quote from the article, emphasis mine.
PureDark also responded to how quickly the Starfield mod was cracked.
"It was expected since it was something I put together within a day or two, but I did get enough patrons so it’s done its job. So from now on I will place hidden mines in all my mods to make it harder for these people.
Wow a day or two of work and you earn probably 200k+ from it, crazy. Guess he is hurting for cash or he see’s the end of the cash train as other people start making equivalent mods. Or maybe he is afraid of bethesda/nividia/amd coming down on him.
It’s a day of work to implement the DRM, not the mod itself, which he did release day 1 for free on Nexus, only the frame gen version is behind the patreon wall, additionally he’s released many such DLSS+FG mods for various games (which all come with the sub) so he has a lot of experience implementing it and has clearly gotten it down pretty well.
Every game has its own challenges but Starfield was particularly easy (according to him) because of how FSR was implemented
That… is not at all specified what kind of “mine” it would be. You’re assuming it’s innocuous, everyone else is assuming it’s malicious. But we’re all making assumptions.
Which has never happened in the history of forever and I’m sure this will go just fine after he spent a whole two days implementing DRM in the first place.
Sorry, I dont mean to laugh, but where have you been?
The bulk of gamers only care about their instant gratification. If they actually were capable of taking a stand then there’d be a lot less awful companies pulling in billion dollar+ game releases.
More resources are put in because there is an incredible amount of money to make with the game industry being bigger than movies and music combined. It’s no longer a niche upcoming industry but mainstream. And companies put in those resources because the market is that much bigger with more potential return on investment.
Game would $100 but the same as they are now. Could be $200 and it’d be the same as they are now and still have mtx, since why would a company leave the option to get more money. Few companies operate with the approach of this is enough money we are content.
And games have only gotten worse if you are looking at triple a titles the same way someone might say movies have gotten worse because they think high budget super hero movies are the only ones that exist.
If the market could sustain $100 it would be, but barrier to making and releasing games has never been lower. So consumers would just move to alternative games that are cheaper or old titles they haven’t gotten around to. And worst of all to these comlanies the top sellers aren’t always these high budget titles, but some indie title that’s not even 3d. Then there’s game pass people would just turn to if game prices went up moving more people to subscription.
Most companies needing $100 per unit for a game to be profitable aren’t going to bother approving that type of game to begin with over a game that can be priced $100 and have much broader mainstream appeal.
Why would a company want to risk putting money into a game so niche it needs $100 per unit over a game that can make more money despite being priced $60. And you know… Just price it $100.
If a game today came with a nice solid box, a cloth map, a 250 page manual that actually explains almost everything about the mechanics of the game, and WAS FUCKING FINISHED WHEN I BUY IT, getting maybe one patch and otherwise never changing, then I might be willing to pay more.
The ability to patch games has been a huge improvement, but it has also caused most games to release in state that is worse than older games ever were. Maybe after 6 months to anyear a modern game is at a comparable level of finish to older games, but only if it sold well. Lots of games don’t get the patching they need.
Yes Mario 64 has a lot of glitches, but it’s playable all the way through. Similarly superman 64 is notable for being a buggy Ness because it was uncommon. BG3 released with multiple game breaking bugs, same with Stanfield. Payday 3 has several crashing bugs, but nothing gamebreaking beyond overloaded servers.
games
Najnowsze
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.