Since you played all Borderlands and just finished a D&D game, why not play “B&B” on Borderlands, there’s a game called Tiny Tina’s Wonderland which plays like Borderlands but is set in “medieval” fantasy (but still has gun for some reason)
Open world RPGs were always the goal, old games tried to mask the hardware limitations by using several techniques. By the time the Witcher 3 came along open world RPGs were the most common thing, in fact at the time lots of people called the Witcher a sellout because of that, it’s like if it had come up a couple years ago and had base buildiechanics, EVERYONE else was doing it.
There are LOTS of examples that pre-date TW3, I’ll limit myself to a few, just because it’s the ones I played. In the 90s and early 2000s I used to play Ultima Online, which is an MMO from 97 that has a vast open world. But if you want first person, Oblivion is old enough to drink.
Somehow related is pretty far away from claiming they are the same thing.
First of all they’re both consumer protection laws related to IT, which was my point that EU already has a track of enforcing these kinds of law, and it has nothing to do with one irrelevant lawsuit in the US.
But also GDPR is a law to protect customers data, after it was enforced and people saw the big companies were not untouchable other laws started to be discussed to further regulate them. Parallel to this the DSM was being enforced, part of which has the P2B Regulations, which regulates unfair contracts and trading practices. After both of these came into effect a new law, which is essentially the child of these two, started being discussed which would regulate how large companies corner the market and other abusive practices. To think that this law has nothing to do with GDPR but instead is because of a random lawsuit some random company lost in some random country is ridiculous.
I’ve already addressed this in other replies below. This goes beyond the existence of app store and into the abusive nature of them. Here’s some light reading for you.
Irrelevant, the news from OP is that secondary stores are now allowed on Android and iOS. Not defending Google or anything, but whatever abuse they did is irrelevant to this point. The fact remains, other stores exist on Android.
You’re just repeating yourself. Number go up, I guess?
No, 2 is a conclusion from 1. You didn’t even got through 1 properly trying to bring whatever bad things Google might do with their power, fact 1 is there are other stores on Android, fact 2, which is a conclusion derived from fact 1 is that Epic could have released their own store there regardless of the lawsuit. This takes Android off the picture from the remaining of the discussion.
Your parents should have taught you when you were 5 that just because other people are doing it doesn’t make it okay.
That’s not the point, if someone claims that a company is using their monopoly power to force a high tax on developers, but the tax is the same on every other store regardless of being monopoly or not then their argument is bullshit. Why do you think developers pay 30% to Steam? If they thought Steam didn’t provided value they would just not release there. But they do, therefore 30% is not abusive, it’s what developers are willing to pay for the service.
Well the EU picked up where the US failed. That’s why they have an app store. But Epic continues the fight regardless. As mentioned elsewhere, they won their lawsuit against Google with the state of California stating Google’s app store is indeed a monopoly. Epic is responsible for both.
No they didn’t, DMA is an extension of GDPR and P2B Regulations, it has nothing to do with Epic.
Highly doubt that that is a coincidence. It has everything to do with Epic.
Like I told you in your other reply, laws as complex as DMA don’t get written in a short amount of time, it’s impossible for these to be related.
You’re repeating yourself again.
Again, I’m drawing a conclusion from a point before. From 1 you have 2 which means the lawsuit has nothing to do with Android, and from 5 you have 6 which means their lawsuit had nothing to do with iOS either, since those are the two platforms being discussed we have the overall conclusion that the lawsuits and this announcement are unrelated.
You haven’t disproven any of the propositions, nor found any logical error with the conclusion from those propositions (in fact both times you thought the conclusion was just a repetition of the proposition before). Just claiming I’m wrong is not gonna cut it, unless you have any facts that counter anything I said my conclusion stands.
The EU has had digital legislations since long before that lawsuit. Or do you think Epic is also responsible for GDPR?.
So you think that the European commission saw a lawsuit in a different country and decided “We need that” then rushed to write the entirety of DMA in less than 4 months. If you think DMA and Epic lawsuits are related the most possible order of events is that Epic saw what was going to be passed in the EU and decided to suit Apple and Google to get the same in the USA
The iOS version also has nothing to do with their lawsuit of Apple, they lost that one. It’s due to an unrelated law in the EU, which is why this is only available in the EU.
There are alternative stores on Android since forever.
From 1, Opening a secondary store on Android was always an option.
30% they claim is abusive is the industry standard, i.e. no one is taking advantage of their monopoly to enforce that, because even in markets without a monopoly that’s the amount charged.
Epic lost their lawsuit against Apple, which was the only company he was suing that actually enforced a monopoly in their platform.
Secondary stores are allowed on Apple in the EU as a result of DMA which has nothing to do with Epic.
From 5, Opening a secondary store on Apple is now an option regardless of what Epic did.
So you have one company that sued two others to be able to launch their store there, one of the companies wasn’t preventing them from doing so, and they lost their lawsuit against the other one. Completely unrelated to that, the EU forced that second company to allow third-party stores. Conclusion, Epic’s lawsuit has nothing to do with this announcement.
But that’s nothing to do with pay to win, that is a form of balancing. If you’re bad at the game the game gives you advantages so you can play with the big boys. Hopefully the game gradually turns off those advantages when you start getting good and high skill matches have no one with those advantages on.
That being said I’ve never played the game, or watched anything about it, so I might be missinterpreting what you’re saying, but to me it sounds like a good balancing system to keep noobs from being frustrated and experts from destroying everyone who’s not at their level of skill. It’s like if CS gave you more damage or auto-aim if your account was low K/D ratio, they’re trying to make everyone be on a leveled play field. Obviously competitive matches need to have that turned off, but for people playing just for fun that’s the difference between every time I spawn I die and I can kill someone every once in a while.
Yes, but read that again, he’s making a new language, not a new engine… To put it in terms of food, using things like Unity is equivalent to eating industrialized food, you have absolutely no control and you get what you get; Using other engines like Unreal or Godot that have open source is like cooking at home, some work but you can get it just the way you like; Building an engine yourself is like having a little farm in your backyard and doing everything from start to finish, it’s slow, you’ll face problems that have nothing to do with cooking that were handled by the farmers before and at the end you’ll get something only slightly better than what you could using store bought products; Building a language from scratch is the personification of the saying “to make an apple pie from scratch first you have to invent the universe”.
And you know the worst part? It won’t be any faster or better in any mensurable way, large groups of developers spend decades to develop the languages we have today.
I know how Valve’s publisher API works, others are similar in case you didn’t know. But that is only true for games that need online validation of some sort, DLCs for offline games don’t need to implement this.
Valve is hosting the game, providing the storefront and bringing in a lot of customers. If you didn’t think those 30% were worth it you would not have put your game on steam.
Plus all of this is irrelevant to the point that Valve doesn’t enforce price parity.
They don’t. The thing most people who have never published a game on steam don’t know is that valve gives you infinite steam keys (for free) that you can give or sell as you wish. This is to allow studios/publishers to give keys to whoever they want, and also allows them to sell those keys on their own or third-party websites. This is a HUGE deal, Valve is letting studios/publishers sell games on a separate site without charging anything while hosting the game themselves. The only condition to those keys is that they can’t be sold cheaper than on Steam.
That’s a completely different thing from what you’re claiming. This means that games can be cheaper on GoG, Epic, etc as long as they don’t give you a steam key together (which they could, for free).