I don't think it's rose-tinted glasses really. I think it's just the change in dynamic. It was definitely different during the "real" classic times (I would say classic to Wrath).
In 2005 when I started playing you needed to group up to get things done really. When you did this you met people. You talked, not with a microphone, but you would be talking. You'd get to know people, they'd invite you to dungeon groups and vice-versa, it would widen both of your in game circles and so on.
When I got to the position to raid, I was on an RP-PvP realm and while there were raiding guilds, many people were in smaller guilds that were either role-playing or guilds of friends. So, there were often raiding groups. I was in one of these, and we had our own guild chat-esque thing that everyone in the group could chat through and of course raids were mandatory voice. Because generally you did need to have communications to raid. This increased your in game circle too.
I still speak to some people now, on social media in various forms that I played the game with in 2005-2010. Some I met, others I never did. I've not really played retail much for a while now. But, it's not the same. To an extent, neither is classic now.
Now, probably an unpopular opinion because I think a lot of people think Blizzard's actions led to this change in community spirit. I actually think it's the other way round. I think they saw their player-base changing, and adjusted the game to suit. The side effect is that it put off some of those with a more social gaming mindset for good. But, it would have happened anyway.
This is the answer. If you don't like live service don't buy live service games. If the majority have the same opinion there won't be profit in it.
Games publishers are businesses and they want to make money.
Now in reality I think they make more money from those that are buying microtransactions and so long as that makes them more money than selling a plain single player game, it's a no brainer they'll keep making the.
My first ever international business trip (in the late 90s) was to Skovde, and that was for software development reasons. So the town has a long history for it.
That's weird. I'm getting to the age where I wouldn't see the point in 4k, I'd need to have my head on top of the screen to see it. But refresh rate can be felt in fluid scrolling etc and definitely even if only on the unconcious level, improves awareness in games too.
Here you had several town maps, including dual carriageways, main roads, side roads, one way streets. And you could just drive down any of them. They were all nondescript, but the amount of memory really limited what could be done.
There was also the games using the freescape engine. Driller, Darkside and Total Eclipse. These were all about as open world as you could achieve on the hardware of the time.
In terms of "open world" the definition is open to interpretation. I'd argue that text based adventures were open world too in their own way. So it really depends on what features people agree makes an "open world" game as to what the first game that contains all those features was.
There have been "open world" games since the 1980s. Just of course, memory limited how big that world could be, and how much you could do in it. The genre as a whole is ancient.
So if you mind sharing your data, don't get the shiny. You know it will become like that shiny pony back in wow's wrath expansion. It told you more about the person than anything else.
I really don't see the problem, provided it is cosmetic. If you don't want to link, you don't get a glittering, whatever in game. If you don't mind sharing your datas, then you get the shiny thing (and everyone knows you don't mind sharing your datas).
Well, in the first line they reference an article from yesterday which made it very clear.
I'm not too sure why the response was so defensive. That point made up a miniscule part of my overall comment and wasn't even close to the primary subject matter.
Read the article. It's the UK (which still has most EU employment law active). Now, I don't think it's illegal to do what they're doing. Effectively, I can bet I know exactly how they're framing this, and it'll be totally legal.
The calls were almost certainly initiating the redundancy process. That is, technically EVERYONE (probably below management) is being made redundant. As part of the redundancy process, an employer is expected to attempt to find internal opportunities for the employees to be culled, and this new position is what they are likely offering as said opportunity. I suspect this is working around a bit of a grey area in redundancy law. But, I don't think they're falling foul of any law. But, I'm not a legal expert.
So, at the end of the required redundancy period (it varies based on employment duration) they will either be let go (with whatever statutory redundancy pay they're owed) or re-employed under the new zero hours contract.
Personally, I think this has the potential to blow up in their face a bit. It's not allowed in the UK to employ someone on a zero-hour contract and not allow them to work elsewhere. Such a clause in a contract may be ignored. Now, this could well mean they say "Oh we need you on Wednesday" and you say "Well, actually I've already agreed a shift elsewhere on Wednesday" and there's really not much they can do about it. I also hope the people working there just move on.
The worst thing that can happen is that the parent company benefits from this. It'll just make other retail companies do the same in a race to the bottom.