jdreyer wrote on Feb 8, 2022, 19:43:
Tried it when it first came out, decided it was half baked, and never tried it again. I think they did continue to improve it for several years though. Did it ever get good?

I don't play games that don't have an ending anymore, and in making that transition, only a few years after its release, I stopped playing this. I thought it was excellent. I didn't like having nothing to do for 10 minutes sometimes when I died early, though. It wasn't the dyeing I minded, but the sitting around doing nothing. Before Americas Army, I played the heck out of Counterstrike. Big difference between the two, and I preferred a less run-and-gun, more tactically cooperative style of play.

Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 30, 2022, 14:38:

selection7 wrote on Jan 30, 2022, 13:57:
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not looking to debate the merits of NFTs. You don't even have to tell me why you don't think the NFTs are what Ubisoft says they are. I'm just looking for those who are complaining about it to plainly state exactly what their problem is with it. I don't think they realize it's not clear at all.

First of all, I realize I can't keep idiots from wasting their money. Anyone who would buy Ubisoft NFTs is likely to find something just as stupid to spend their money on if Ubisoft does a 180 and never creates NFTs. Second, at some level, NFTs in games certainly aren't much worse than selling cosmetics for your character. And I don't have any particular issue with game cosmetics, I'll even confess to having bought some (ship paint jobs in E:D).

So, what's the problem? The problem is the representation this could be some kind of way for the gamers to make money. I feel this is disingenuous, at best. At worst it is a borderline criminal scam on their customers. It is nothing more than an attempt to con their customers. I object to people being conned.

Thanks, got it. It's true the only people I've heard talking about personally buying NFTs (some sports radio hosts in their 20s) were doing so speculatively, i.e., to make money. So I was aware of that angle, but NFTs are typically presented as something frivolous but apparently still 'cool' to the right kind of buyer (like Steam digital trading cards/badges). So I was confused why anyone would be up in arms about it. Going forward, I'll keep the speculative nature of NFTs more in mind when I'm reading about the subject.

Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 29, 2022, 17:31:
While it might be true that, "A fool and his money are soon parted" -- that doesn't mean we should be on board for systematic ways of doing it. Are you good with the clown who sells "Miracle Water"?

So that's a "yes" to my question if the outrage is entirely based on protecting those who are foolish or uninformed? Because you also imply the NFTs are "Miracle Water" that are not what they're purported to be. As you read in my original post, I can't see that Ubisofts NFTs aren't exactly what they say they are, so I also need you to confirm that's another complaint. Don't just imply it.
To summarize, confirm that the source of the anti-NFT crowd's complaint is only a) altruistically looking out for the foolish/uninformed, and b) misleading about what they are selling. If there is a c), then say that too.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not looking to debate the merits of NFTs. You don't even have to tell me why you don't think the NFTs are what Ubisoft says they are. I'm just looking for those who are complaining about it to plainly state exactly what their problem is with it. I don't think they realize it's not clear at all.

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 28, 2022, 12:26:
Oh we get it, it's another money making scheme for the rich to get richer on the back of players, by implementing features that by their very nature turn a game from something you play for fun, to something you play for earning money while the actual pitboss makes the actual money (here, Ubisoft Investors). And those games can go fuck themselves so hard that they come out of the other end of a black hole in the Gamma Quadrant.

Also it takes a special kind of mindset to think that we, Gamers, who live and breath the bleeding edge of technology, "don't get" new technology. Lmao. If there were anything about NFT's that weren't a pyramid scam maybe more people who aren't crypto-bros would support it.

I don't know much about this, which may be why I don't understand why you (and others like you) care. My 'first take' is that I'll never buy an NFT, so it makes no difference to me. To the people who do, no one is forcing them, and they get to decide for themselves how they want to spend their money. Neither you nor I have any say in it. If buying an NFT makes them happy, more power to them. Presumably, it makes the gaming business more profitable at no cost to me.

Is it that you think Ubisoft is taking advantage of foolish people or people with gambling addictions? You used the term "pyramid scam". One other post on this thread seems to be suggesting Ubisoft is offering something that is not what they say it is. But I found that same post too confusing to follow, and it's not otherwise clear to me that Ubisoft isn't being transparent about what they're selling. And it doesn't seem that any of the people complaining think the NFTs are actually going to hurt their own selves.

Is said thief's name "Garrett"?

"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II: Black Ops 5: Zombie Strike 3 Online"

RedEye9 wrote on Sep 15, 2021, 18:15:

WannaLogAlready wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 13:52:

selection7 wrote on Sep 14, 2021, 12:59:
How many console games will then allow me to use mouse and keyboard? As a pc gamer exclusively, I've been waiting basically my whole life for that from consoles

You can do it right now.
Note: I don't have a gamepad.
In your PC, convert any game supporting gamepad but *not* K&M, to a perfectly controlled K&M one.

Example: played Borderlands 2 VR (TMC or gamepad only, CAN'T use K&M ) with the same K&M settings as any other Bordelands game.

Download x360ce, and Glovepie, both free and clean.

*Run x360ce, and your PC thinks a gamepad is plugged in.*
It has a menu to convert all gamepad inputs to any keyboard and mouse inputs that you choose.

If you have problems with the mouse axes in some games (maybe resolved already), run Glovepie, and copy this exactly as shown.

Key.Left = delta(Mouse.DirectInputX) < -1 in mickeys
Key.Right = delta(Mouse.DirectInputX) > 1 in mickeys
Key.Up = delta(Mouse.DirectInputY) < -1 in mickeys
Key.Down = delta(Mouse.DirectInputY) > 1 in mickeys

You can use the arrow keys, Up, Down, Left, Right or *any* other keys.
Setup the chosen Glovepie keys as mouse movements in x360ce.

Voila, play the game and forget that Glovepie and x360ce are running.
K&M wil work as in any PC game.

Surprises me, how many empowering game changing tricks are unknown to redoubtable PC gamers.

Thanks!

Although part of me is annoyed that the reply to my plea is "use a 3rd party workaround!"—considering PC Gaming has been kicking Xbox gaming's butt for years now (and they still refuse to cater to the keyboard & mouse gamers!), and considering implementing proper native support would account for <1% of their dev costs—that is a separate issue from your suggestion, which does sound intriguing if it's a universal, fully compatible solution. I'll check it out! And I even learned what "redoubtable" means, which I haven't heard anyone use in at least a decade.

BTW, the last console I bought was in the 90s when I was a kid. I have had no desire to settle for a blatantly inferior control scheme*, and when I make up my mind, I tend to stick with it.
*unless you're playing a platformer, driving game, or sports, and you can always plug in a controller and play those on a pc

How many console games will then allow me to use mouse and keyboard? As a pc gamer exclusively, I've been waiting basically my whole life for that from consoles

With all the remakes out there lately, I've definitely seen the occasional comment here wondering when we'll get an updated version of KOTOR. Wonder no more!

Goodtry wrote on Aug 20, 2021, 12:36:

selection7 wrote on Aug 20, 2021, 00:44:
I've never played Skyrim, and I don't have VR yet, but I'm curious.
If I do get around to playing it and hypothetically I have VR then, would I want to play this Anniversary Edition instead of the VR one just because the VR one isn't as complete in terms of content? And/or maybe the VR one isn't as mod-friendly (I modded the heck out of Oblivion, for example removing the horrible enemy difficulty scaling).

If you want VR, then you definitely need the VR version.
I can't speak to SE vs. AE for sure, but I might just go with SE to start, because you are going to want mods, and I don't know what the mod compatibility looks like between SE and AE.

Okay, thanks, I get you.

I've never played Skyrim, and I don't have VR yet, but I'm curious.
If I do get around to playing it and hypothetically I have VR then, would I want to play this Anniversary Edition instead of the VR one just because the VR one isn't as complete in terms of content? And/or maybe the VR one isn't as mod-friendly (I modded the heck out of Oblivion, for example removing the horrible enemy difficulty scaling).

"Super karate monkey death car" mania

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Aug 9, 2021, 18:36:

EricFate wrote on Aug 9, 2021, 17:21:
SO, Freedom Force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Force_(2002_video_game)

That's what I said earlier, but keep in mind, it'll be Freedom Force, with a much better engine, and 10-20x the budget.
And turn based.

I've wondered for years, and was thinking about it just recently too, considering the never-ending revolving door of comic book movies making hundreds of millions a pop, how a video game in the freedom force mold has managed to elude us for over 15 years. Of course, I thought the same thing about isometric RPGs about 10 years ago and now we've got a slew of them. Turns out the answer is that an entire industry was too busy chasing the latest trends to recognize a not insignificant, underserved market.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Aug 3, 2021, 22:58:

selection7 wrote on Aug 3, 2021, 19:02:
Wouldn't it be better to invest nothing, sell a buttload of gpu's in whatever market, keep selling a buttload of SOCs to Sony and Microsoft, and now directly to consumers? And prioritizing GPUs wouldn't kill their current APU "cash cow". That APUs are significantly larger revenue stream (assuming you're correct about that) isn't the same thing as saying it has a higher margin than GPUs. I don't necessarily doubt that you're right. I just can't see it based on the exact answer you gave.

...
So to bring this back to the top, why would AMD focus more on making chips they can sell in the enterprise space and SOCs for Microsoft and Sony than GPUs when they are both fab and shipment constrained? Margins. There's just simply more money to be made. You don't go chasing after nickels and dimes when there are dollar bills to be had. Sure, they are producing GPUs because you want as high as profit margin as you can get but you're also going to prioritize when you're facing shortages and you can't fulfill every product stack order.

Hopefully that makes sense to you. If not, I apologize. I am running on less than three hours sleep and if my ass was dragging any harder, I'd be leaving a furrow in my wake.

You seem to be saying the margins on APUs are high enough, and the favoritism is strong enough towards the biggest segment of their sales, that AMD, as a matter of conventional wisdom, will consider GPUs lower priority. I don't think you brought up margins in your original post. And I also latched onto "kill that (APU) cash cow", which was probably intentional hyperbole on your part...but I do get why they'd want to protect market share of their biggest selling products that also produce high margins. Thanks.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Aug 3, 2021, 13:23:

Cutter wrote on Aug 3, 2021, 11:20:
Why waste more fab time, money and resources on APUs when the world needs GPUs?

<sighs>
Roughly 57 million PS5s and Xbox Ones (all models) have been sold. That is 57 million APU/SOCs that AMD has manufactured. That's not including the Chinese market where AMD has created and sold custom APUs not available anywhere else. AMD is selling more APUs globablly than they ever have GPUs.
Moreover, Cezanne is Renoir with the Zen 2 cores being swapped out for Zen 3 cores. So it's not a new APU by any stretch. It's a dirt cheap way of refreshing their APU lineup while maximizing profits.
So AMD is investing minimally, selling a buttload of 5700 APUs in the OEM market, selling a buttload of SOCs to Sony and Microsoft, and now directly to consumers. Why kill that cash cow when it is a significantly larger revenue stream than discrete graphics and fab capacity is limited?

Wouldn't it be better to invest nothing, sell a buttload of gpu's in whatever market, keep selling a buttload of SOCs to Sony and Microsoft, and now directly to consumers? And prioritizing GPUs wouldn't kill their current APU "cash cow". That APUs are significantly larger revenue stream (assuming you're correct about that) isn't the same thing as saying it has a higher margin than GPUs. I don't necessarily doubt that you're right. I just can't see it based on the exact answer you gave.

Talk about a Rorschach test for politcal leaning. We've got comments here incorrectly stating that 230 doesn't provide safe-harbor for businesses who block content [it does; see below 230(c)(2A) and a toothless 230(d)], and that a business blocking a user can mean a violation of 230 [it can't; although, via 230(b)(3), Congress does want to encourage software development that expressly allows users (e.g., Trump) to block content, it doesn't suggest that 230 is grounds for suing a business that doesn't comply with that goal. Note that Judge Thomas suggested 230 should be changed so that it does, though, at least allow for it in some specific cases.]. And then others mocking the previous poster and, in so doing, weirdly explaining that (paraphrased) "there's nothing about businesses who don't block content except for, you know, the part where there definitely is" [see below 230(c)(1)]. And then conveniently failing to point out the subparts that expressly encourage the ability of the end user (not explicitly the business) to control what is blocked [see below, 230(b)(3)&(4)].

To summarize the relevant parts describing when the business has or doesn't have immunity from lawsuit:
(Limited protection for not blocking content)
230(c)(1) immunity from being equated as the speaker* of information
*the originator, as I understand it, which the (f)(3) definitions section defines as "information content provider", i.e. the person who posted the comment. Yes, they confusingly use the word (information content) "provider" to also describe the person who posts the comment, not just the internet "provider" or software "provider".

(Limited protection for blocking content)
230(c)(2A) immunity from good faith restriction of access to obscene, lewd,..., excessively harrassing, or otherwise ojbectionable* material
*in line with the adjectives that precede it, as I understand it

(No protection for not providing content blocking info to parents)
230(d) no immunity* for failing to notify customers of parental controls
*except that it says this requirement can be met "in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider", which refers to "A provider of interactive computer service"**, which means it requires the business to do something for which it has its own discretion as to what is "appropriate", which makes this subpart of the stature effectively moot. *smh*
**i.e., internet provider, twitter, etc., as defined in the (f)(2) definitions section and expanded upon in (f)(4)

It is also stated that Congress' policy is to:
(Encourage businesses to give users the control to block)
230(b)(3) ...maximize user control over what information is recieved by (those) who use the internet

(Encourage businesses to give users the control to block)
230(b)(4) allow incentives for blocking content that empowers parents to restrict kids access

Orogogus wrote on Apr 6, 2021, 17:42:

WaltC wrote on Apr 6, 2021, 17:08:
Section 230 only provides safe-harbor for sites if they refuse to edit/delete posts from the public without a valid reason, (ie, egregious profanity or threats of violence against named individuals, are valid reasons for deletion.) When FB and Twitter delete and tag posts with prejudicial descriptions--it's the most extreme kind of editing there is. Disagreeing with the opinion expressed is not a valid reason to delete a post on a 230 site. Both of these sites can be sued for violating 230--which is what any honest government would do--but so far no government entity has stepped up to enforce 230's safe-harbor restrictions on these two web sites--the Trump administration, included. They should be fined $100k a day for every post they delete & tag with supercilious warnings, imo--and eventually they'd get the message, I feel sure...;) Today, we have an unusually timid government in Washington when it comes to enforcing our laws. Never seen it this bad.

I get that posting rightwing falsehoods is your thing -- not exaggerations or distortions, but just straight up lies -- but this is public information that anyone can look up.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;

It specifically protects entities who do restrict content. There's nothing about entities who don't restrict content, except the blanket protection that shields providers such as ISPs, social media and message board hosts from liability for content they didn't create, regardless of whether or not they restrict content.

As an exclusive PC gamer for two decades now, I saw the evolution of Gamestop's folly firsthand, and learned something about business in the process. They chased the cash cow (consoles, at the time, and the used game sales racket) while marginalizing PC gaming, for which it was difficult to rope in PC gamers due to their quicker adoption of doing such things online instead. Following the money with unwavering tunnel vision makes sense, right? Wrong.

For me, even when they relegated PC games to one sad, little standalone shelf in the middle of the store, through habit or maybe my identity as a gamer, I was still drawn to visit the store somewhat regularly to see the new titles/boxes in person and maybe look for a deal or two. Once they eventually eliminated PC games entirely, I never had a good reason to even walk into the store. It took two or three years, but eventually I stopped setting foot in Gamestop altogether.

My ultimate point is how little it would have taken Gamestop to maintain their connection to a smaller, but important, portion of the gaming market (physical sales of PC games, of which they were the market leader among gaming stores), if for nothing more than insurance for an unpredictable future. Even with the advent of Steam making physical sales niche, physical sales would have remained not insignificant (up to the present 2021, anyway). Instead, physical PC game sales are mostly obsolete now. [And Gabe Newell should send that Gamestop CEO a fat thank-you check for that fatal misstep*.]
The double whammy was that they put all their bets on the wrong horse since PC gaming is now the big dog (eh...horse?), and in recent years Gamestop has been flirting with going out of business in booming market. ...having entirely severed their connection to PC gamers that aren't coming back.

*I'm being facetious here. CEOs usually have a golden parachute, allowing them to chase short term wins even if it cripples the company 20 years later...5 years after said CEO has retired and cashed out.

This comment was edited on Mar 24, 2021, 20:01.

jacobvandy wrote on Jan 29, 2021, 20:15:

"When a market, such as this one, is highly concentrated, a new entrant can benefit consumers by undercutting the incumbent’s prices. The ability to provide PC games to consumers at lower prices is one way a firm or new entrant could gain market share. If this market functioned properly--that is, if the Steam MFN did not exist and platforms were able to compete on price--platforms competing with Steam would be able to provide the same (or higher) margins to game developers while simultaneously providing lower prices to consumers."

If ThIs MaRkEt FuNcTiOnEd PrOpErLy...
Epic pays publishers to put their game ONLY on EGS, in addition to offering a better margin, so why aren't prices lower there? It's an even sweeter deal than what this complaint describes ought to benefit consumers. Why doesn't Ubisoft charge lower prices now that they don't release on Steam? Why didn't EA when they were off on their own for so many years?
The market is functioning the way it wants to. Suing Valve isn't going to turn it into some idealistic fantasy.

Walmart often requires suppliers to wholesale to Walmart at prices lower than they wholesale to Walmart's competitors. Imagine if Walmart instead made all their suppliers agree to wholesale to them at the same price that they sell to every other store—as opposed to Walmart using their market position to keep them in a position to undercut—in some cases putting the little guy out of business. The point is, they're going after Valve for requiring price equality, of all things.

That said, if a competitor can figure out how to do things more efficiently, apparently "favored" provisions would preclude the competitor from selling at lower prices to gain market share; their only option then would be to provide a higher quality service. I suppose a reasonable compromise would be to have the "favored" provision refer to a sale price that has been reduced to compensate for the distributor's cut. So, rather than giving devs an 88% cut, if Epic Games Store wanted to give devs the same 70% cut as Steam, but set the consumer sale price to 82% of the Steam price, then it could. Epic would still get a 12% cut, and the devs would still get 70%, but at a higher sales volume due to the reduced overall sale price. But then, when I read the quote "will be the same price the game developers sell their PC games on other platforms", I wonder if that isn't exactly what the current provision already allows. After all, other distributors do sometimes sell the same game at lower non-sale prices than Steam.
For the record, I'm of the group that considers Steam to be mostly a benevolent monopoly, and my guess is it will stay that way as long as Gabe stays the majority owner.

Jivaro wrote on Aug 28, 2020, 16:10:
I play sports games all the time and am an admitted Maddenaholic, I know nothing of Warhammer. Two of my friends played 1 and 2 and on their recommendation (and a great sale) I bought the GOTY editions of both. I haven't gotten particularly far in either but I tried each and I have to say I feel like I missed out on something. Looking forward to 3.

A turn-based, fictional sports game seemed pretty foreign to me too...when I first played Blood Bowl 1 about four years ago. It didn't take long before I was really into it though. The way I play, the matches can take an hour to two hours, so I can only imagine how long the table top version would be (5 hours per match??)

Slashman wrote on Apr 20, 2020, 18:32:

Cutter wrote on Apr 20, 2020, 18:03:
People forget - or didn't know to begin with - that WC games got made in spite of CR, not because of him. He was a shitty producer from day one. Anyone can come up with wild ideas, it's another thing to deliver them on scope, on time, and on budget. He's never been able to do that and he still can't.

This is actually true. I have heard several developers say this. Ideas aren't in short supply in the game industry...but they are not where the real work begins.

There's a difference between creative, boundary pushing, easy to market ideas and ideas that are those things while also being reasonably doable. If the latter aren't in short supply in the games industry, then it's the only entertainment industry that can say that, and devs should spend their days appreciating what an amazing time it is to be making games.