The original PS1 controller didn’t have joysticks, and when it did, the position sucked for larger hands. I have always preferred the XBox layout.
you had to map it
Did you? I thought most games worked fine, though admittedly I only played a couple because I never got used to the trackpads.
I think it wasn’t very post all popular because it was so different. Even if it worked as expected out of the box, a lot of people dismissed it at first glance. It was also only available through steam, so there was less reach.
But even then, I still don’t think it failed on its own merits. I think there wasn’t a compelling reason to get it without a Steam Machine, which flopped because Valve didn’t commit to it.
Right, I’m explaining how Stop Killing Games would change things if adopted.
Public servers will either sell micro transactions themselves
That can certainly be restricted, since they’re profiting off someone else’s IP. Selling hosting is one thing, reselling assets in the game is another thing entirely and AFAIK would be a violation of copyright’s fair use provisions.
If they’re no longer profiting from a game, surely releasing access to gated content isn’t an issue any more? It’s not like they are losing anything. So I think unlocking cosmetics for everyone would be fine, but it’s up to them. If they want to preserve the restriction, they can find a way that doesn’t reauire ongoing costs, such as the ones I mentioned.
They should be compelled to either make those cosmetics available for everyone or have some technical means to prove ownership (e.g. blockchain or cryptographically signed file). You can’t lose stuff you bought just because the publisher shut down the servers.
Sure, you’re paying for a performance when you watch a film or play at a theater. If I pay to watch a video game tournament, I’m likewise paying for a performance, not the game.
When you buy a film (DVD, Bluray, or Digital Copy) or a recording of a play performance, you own that copy and can watch it as often as you want for as many years into the future as you want. What we’re saying is that video games should work the same way, if I buy a game, I should be able to play it whenever I want at any point in the future. That’s it, it’s the same thing as with a film.
Sort of. They need to have the tools as well. So I suppose they could release the APIs for their servers before shutting down their servers so community servers can be created, that would probably be sufficient. But they need to do something beyond just saying, “we won’t sue you if you reverse engineer it.”
True. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t attack predatory behavior when we see it. If they want to sell me something, I need to own it, and that means I get to use it after they’ve stopped supporting it.
If they want to protect against piracy (losing game IMO) or try to limit cheating, that’s fine as long as it doesn’t impact gameplay (i.e. I can still party SP offline) and it keeps working in 20 years when they’ve stopped supporting the game. If that means releasing a patch to remove server interaction when they shut the servers down, that’s fine.
I am not okay with needing to install a kernel module just to play a game. That’s a security risk, prevents compatibility tools like WINE from preserving the game, and makes the game more fragile (will a kernel update break the game?). That’s a red line for me, and I refuse to play any game with kernel-level DRM or anti-cheat.
What do you mean? Pretty much every game on Steam is “third party.” They do mention certain things on the store though, like kernel level anti-cheat or needing a third party account, though I don’t know how many people check that.
Exactly, and that also includes online games like Minecraft. Nobody is going to sue Microsoft because of what someone said or did in a private Minecraft server, though they might if it’s a Microsoft hosted one.