The modern AAA video game industry, in a nutshell.
The sooner this lumbering beast topples into a tar pit and goes extinct, the better.
Also, on a more specific note, god how sick and tired I am of even hearing the term "extraction shooter."
The modern AAA video game industry, in a nutshell.
The sooner this lumbering beast topples into a tar pit and goes extinct, the better.
Also, on a more specific note, god how sick and tired I am of even hearing the term "extraction shooter."
Reason number, like, a hundred billion or something in the list of reasons why I don't play online multiplayer games. Not that I ever want to play competitive multiplayer games at all, even if I did otherwise play online multiplayer games, which I don't.
Also, it's something that wasn't touched on in the clip above, but an extension of that is why I don't ever want to play online-only-even-for-singleplayer games, either. If a """""server"""""" is telling me I didn't do a thing in a game that I clearly saw myself do in that game on my own computer, or vice versa, then that game is fucked up and I don't want to play it. (But, really, it's more the "no, you can't play your singleplayer game right now because the servers are down and you can't login and we stupidly don't allow you to play this singleplayer game offline" type of issues that make me never want to play online-only-even-for-singleplayer" games.)
(EDIT) It reminds me, again, of that stuff I talked about with Interstate '76, though that was a direct result of a shitty multiplayer system that calculated things client side rather than server side and allowed egregious "hacking" simply via modifying some non-encrypted text-readable config files, but it's still the same sort of issue. (/EDIT)
No real comment on this one. The tags below are pretty much the gist of the topics this clip was about.
(Also, this is yet another "the 'diablo iii' and 'asinine anti-singleplayer trend' tags are serving as the de facto 'blizzard sucks' and 'asinine anti-offline trend' tags, respectively" post.)
Meh. Blizzard has been nothing but complete dogshit in my eyes ever since 2011.
But yeah, even before that, I remember being super hyped for Warcraft Adventures back in the day, and then them scrapping that shit for no good reason. And I remember most everyone else being hyped about StarCraft: Ghost, though it wasn't a game I could have cared less about, and then them scrapping that shit for dubiously good reasons, too.
Diablo was good and Diablo II was great. Warcraft was okay and Warcraft II was good and Warcraft III was... back to okay, again. StarCraft (and Brood War) was pretty close to great, too. Probably better than anything Warcraft related, anyway.
Beyond that... meh and guh and blah. I obviously don't give a shit about Diablo III anymore, except to mock it again whenever the subject happens to come up, and I never gave a shit about Diablo IV because of the lack of shit given about Diablo III, and I stopped giving a shit about three-part StarCraft II over a decade ago, and I only ever had the vaguest of vague interests in World of Warcraft for about five minutes back in 2004, though I never actually played it, and I never once gave even the slightest shit about anything related to Overwatch at all, in the first place. If Blizzard has even done anything else aside from those (e.g. Hearthstone, Heroes of the Storm, whatever), it has been so far off my radar that I had to look up a list of Blizzard games in Google just then to make sure I was even remembering those last two names correctly.
(This has been another "the 'diablo iii' tag is my de facto 'blizzard sucks' tag" post.)
I just want to say again that the first of the only two things I know about this game is that it has a custom PS5 controller skin. The other thing I know about this game, as of the above video, is that it is apparently some ugly "hero shooter" game that I will never play and never would have played, even if it had been marketed well, because I simply do not touch multiplayer-only dogshit like this or Overwatch or Team Fortress or <insert flavor-of-the-month multiplayer-only dogshit game here>.
Full headline, due to the inexorable fact that the Dreamwith subject field size is inadequate: "If 1 million people sign a petition, a ban on rendering multiplayer games unplayable has a chance to become law in Europe"
"A European initiative is now underway for videogame preservation and consumer protections against publishers 'killing games.'"
As a bonus, I'll embed the Ross Scott (remember him?) video they mention in the article:
Europeans can save videogames from being destroyed! The European Citizens' Initiative has just launched and represents the biggest and most ambitious chance to create new law against publishers destroying games they have already sold to you. Get EU citizens to sign it!
Link to sign EU initiative:
https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu...
Guides on how to sign EU initiative:
https://www.stopkillinggames.com/eci
(EDIT) See also: this, to which all of this is a follow-up. (/EDIT)
I'll just say it again. Companies have been gravitating toward online-only games (multiplayer-only or otherwise) not because they believe that's what people actually want to play. They've been during it purely for DRM reasons. That's also a big reason why games are split up into DLC now, rather than being released whole. Well, that and all the extra money they get from selling the game piecemeal at inflated prices, but also because of DRM reasons (i.e. the game having to phone home all the time to "verify" the DLC and all that shit).
As for me, I'm in the US and can't sign the petition, and thus this doesn't directly apply to me, and I don't personally know anyone who lives in the EU, but if my posting this here helps even the tiniest bit, then... *shrug* ...great! That said, I'm not going to be holding my breath until this thing succeeds, that's for sure.
Just for the hell of it, I signed up for the newsletter on the Stop Killing Games base-level site, too (or, at least, tried to, as I haven't gotten any kind of confirmation yet or any other indication that it actually went through [EDIT I tried it again later and actually got an email verification almost immediately, so I guess the first one just got eaten by my aggressive spam filters or something /EDIT]). And I also added the Accursed Farms Youtube channel to my Feedly, which I hadn't already done, for whatever reason.
The comments under the PC Gamer article are about half and half between people saying this is a bad idea (i.e. reputation management drones, utter fucking morons, etc.) and people who can't believe that there would exist anyone who would say this is a bad idea. I think my favorite interaction was the one between one guy (one of the "this is a bad idea" guys) saying something like "But this could have a chilling effect and just end up with them not making multiplayer games at all anymore. They'd go back to making single player games." (Despite the fact that that's not even what was being discussed here.) And a few of the replies were something like "Yes, and? That would be great, actually." (Personally speaking, I don't care if multiplayer-only games exist, I just also wouldn't care if they didn't exist, either, especially if they're being made instead of/at the expense of offline singleplayer games. But again, that's mostly irrelevant to the actual discussion at hand.)
"A European initiative is now underway for videogame preservation and consumer protections against publishers 'killing games.'"
As a bonus, I'll embed the Ross Scott (remember him?) video they mention in the article:
Europeans can save videogames from being destroyed! The European Citizens' Initiative has just launched and represents the biggest and most ambitious chance to create new law against publishers destroying games they have already sold to you. Get EU citizens to sign it!
Link to sign EU initiative:
https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu...
Guides on how to sign EU initiative:
https://www.stopkillinggames.com/eci
(EDIT) See also: this, to which all of this is a follow-up. (/EDIT)
I'll just say it again. Companies have been gravitating toward online-only games (multiplayer-only or otherwise) not because they believe that's what people actually want to play. They've been during it purely for DRM reasons. That's also a big reason why games are split up into DLC now, rather than being released whole. Well, that and all the extra money they get from selling the game piecemeal at inflated prices, but also because of DRM reasons (i.e. the game having to phone home all the time to "verify" the DLC and all that shit).
As for me, I'm in the US and can't sign the petition, and thus this doesn't directly apply to me, and I don't personally know anyone who lives in the EU, but if my posting this here helps even the tiniest bit, then... *shrug* ...great! That said, I'm not going to be holding my breath until this thing succeeds, that's for sure.
Just for the hell of it, I signed up for the newsletter on the Stop Killing Games base-level site, too (or, at least, tried to, as I haven't gotten any kind of confirmation yet or any other indication that it actually went through [EDIT I tried it again later and actually got an email verification almost immediately, so I guess the first one just got eaten by my aggressive spam filters or something /EDIT]). And I also added the Accursed Farms Youtube channel to my Feedly, which I hadn't already done, for whatever reason.
The comments under the PC Gamer article are about half and half between people saying this is a bad idea (i.e. reputation management drones, utter fucking morons, etc.) and people who can't believe that there would exist anyone who would say this is a bad idea. I think my favorite interaction was the one between one guy (one of the "this is a bad idea" guys) saying something like "But this could have a chilling effect and just end up with them not making multiplayer games at all anymore. They'd go back to making single player games." (Despite the fact that that's not even what was being discussed here.) And a few of the replies were something like "Yes, and? That would be great, actually." (Personally speaking, I don't care if multiplayer-only games exist, I just also wouldn't care if they didn't exist, either, especially if they're being made instead of/at the expense of offline singleplayer games. But again, that's mostly irrelevant to the actual discussion at hand.)
(EDIT) And now this is also a Mord's post my comments post. (/EDIT)
Thanks, Sony, for giving me yet another reason to never buy this game, on Steam or PS5 or anywhere else. Not that I would have bought it to start with, mind you, since it's a multiplayer only[1] "live service" game. Fuck to hell forever with that asinine horseshit. About the only thing they could do that would be even worse than this would be to add in Denuvo after the fact.
I mean, hell, even ignoring the facts that (1) I had no interest in this game to start with, and (2) I even have a PSN account already[2], and (3) I've bought games on Steam in the past that required a third-party account, I still think it's terrible, just on general principles, for them to add this shit in after the fact.
I don't mind watching other chucklefucks play it, because it's funny (more because of the chucklefucks than because of the game itself), but that's about it.
[1] - Or, at the very least, it's a game where you still must be online even to (try to) play it """""singleplayer/solo."""""
[2] - Well, I had one a decade ago, though I haven't tried to log into it at all since then... *pause to check* ...yeah, it's still there, though I had to reset my password in order to access it. I set up 2-factor authentication on it, as well, which I hadn't done before, so I guess it was a good thing I bothered to try it, regardless. And now, back to forgetting that I have a PSN account that I'll probably never use for anything again. In the increasingly unlikely event that I ever do buy another Sony console at some point, at least it should be there, for what little that's worth.
Thanks, Sony, for giving me yet another reason to never buy this game, on Steam or PS5 or anywhere else. Not that I would have bought it to start with, mind you, since it's a multiplayer only[1] "live service" game. Fuck to hell forever with that asinine horseshit. About the only thing they could do that would be even worse than this would be to add in Denuvo after the fact.
I mean, hell, even ignoring the facts that (1) I had no interest in this game to start with, and (2) I even have a PSN account already[2], and (3) I've bought games on Steam in the past that required a third-party account, I still think it's terrible, just on general principles, for them to add this shit in after the fact.
I don't mind watching other chucklefucks play it, because it's funny (more because of the chucklefucks than because of the game itself), but that's about it.
[1] - Or, at the very least, it's a game where you still must be online even to (try to) play it """""singleplayer/solo."""""
[2] - Well, I had one a decade ago, though I haven't tried to log into it at all since then... *pause to check* ...yeah, it's still there, though I had to reset my password in order to access it. I set up 2-factor authentication on it, as well, which I hadn't done before, so I guess it was a good thing I bothered to try it, regardless. And now, back to forgetting that I have a PSN account that I'll probably never use for anything again. In the increasingly unlikely event that I ever do buy another Sony console at some point, at least it should be there, for what little that's worth.
*weary sigh*
Apr. 28th, 2024 12:39 pmJust in case anyone needed yet another example of why I consider the phrase "modern video game industry" to be one of the most grievous insults: here you go.
(EDIT) Just to note: I'd never heard of this game or dev before, but now that I have, they've instantaneously gone onto my "never buy" shitlist forever. Not that I would have ever considered paying $250 (or even just $50) for a fucking beta to start with, especially when the game sounds like utter dogshit to me, even before taking the devs' current greedy idiocy into consideration.
(Or, at least, if I had heard of them and potentially posted about them before, which I haven't bothered to look back at old posts to check, because I really don't care to waste the time, then I was apparently successful in completely blotting them out of my memory until now. And so, thus begins anew the process of blotting them out of my memory entirely.) (/EDIT)
(EDIT 2)
Via Mord's comment below:
Yeah, pretty much this.
That said, all those other games that Joe recommends instead of this Tarkov shit... nah. I'll pass. I have no interest in gritty war shooter games. Last one I played was one of those Calluhdoody games at some point between 10 to 15 years ago, and that was only because I was drafted to replace, for a single day, one of the testers who was out sick at the no longer existing QA company I used to work for back when I lived in Redmond, WA.
I should start watching Angry Joe again, more often.
(/EDIT 2)
(EDIT) Just to note: I'd never heard of this game or dev before, but now that I have, they've instantaneously gone onto my "never buy" shitlist forever. Not that I would have ever considered paying $250 (or even just $50) for a fucking beta to start with, especially when the game sounds like utter dogshit to me, even before taking the devs' current greedy idiocy into consideration.
(Or, at least, if I had heard of them and potentially posted about them before, which I haven't bothered to look back at old posts to check, because I really don't care to waste the time, then I was apparently successful in completely blotting them out of my memory until now. And so, thus begins anew the process of blotting them out of my memory entirely.) (/EDIT)
(EDIT 2)
Via Mord's comment below:
Yeah, pretty much this.
That said, all those other games that Joe recommends instead of this Tarkov shit... nah. I'll pass. I have no interest in gritty war shooter games. Last one I played was one of those Calluhdoody games at some point between 10 to 15 years ago, and that was only because I was drafted to replace, for a single day, one of the testers who was out sick at the no longer existing QA company I used to work for back when I lived in Redmond, WA.
I should start watching Angry Joe again, more often.
(/EDIT 2)
Full headline, due to PC Gamer's typically garrulous headlines that don't fit in Dreamwidth's subject field: "Gamers seek legal win that would stop developers from rendering online games unplayable: 'It is an assault on both consumer rights and preservation of media'"
"The organizer of 'Stop Killing Games' hopes to get France and other governments to examine the legality of live service shutdowns."
I'd prefer the modern video game industry to just stop making "live service" "games" in the first place, but I wish these guys the best of luck with the already existing horseshit. If they can get governments to crack down on this, then more power to them, I guess. I'm not going to be holding my breath with this one, though.
There are some pretty misguided, unsound takes down in the comments under the article (from, probably, industry reputation management drones), too.
(In the case of this specific The Crew game, I don't give a fuck about it and won't lose a wink of sleep when it goes away forever, because I don't even care that much about offline singleplayer racing games, let alone online shit, but that's just me. I still don't like that it's going away, though, just on general principle, even if I personally never played it and never would play it. Also, I don't see why anyone at all should be interested in Ubisoft's new online-only shit racing game, The Crew: Motorfest or whatever, because we'll be seeing this exact same thing happening again in 10 years or so with that one, too.)
Also, welcome to the new "to hell with live service games" tag. There's a fair bit of overlap with other tags, but whatever.
"The organizer of 'Stop Killing Games' hopes to get France and other governments to examine the legality of live service shutdowns."
I'd prefer the modern video game industry to just stop making "live service" "games" in the first place, but I wish these guys the best of luck with the already existing horseshit. If they can get governments to crack down on this, then more power to them, I guess. I'm not going to be holding my breath with this one, though.
There are some pretty misguided, unsound takes down in the comments under the article (from, probably, industry reputation management drones), too.
(In the case of this specific The Crew game, I don't give a fuck about it and won't lose a wink of sleep when it goes away forever, because I don't even care that much about offline singleplayer racing games, let alone online shit, but that's just me. I still don't like that it's going away, though, just on general principle, even if I personally never played it and never would play it. Also, I don't see why anyone at all should be interested in Ubisoft's new online-only shit racing game, The Crew: Motorfest or whatever, because we'll be seeing this exact same thing happening again in 10 years or so with that one, too.)
Also, welcome to the new "to hell with live service games" tag. There's a fair bit of overlap with other tags, but whatever.
"live-service Control spin-off"
Apr. 1st, 2024 03:13 pmFull headline, because of reasons: "Remedy comms director says upcoming live-service Control spin-off is 'for fans we don't have yet' as he muses on 'how challenging the co-op multiplayer space is'"
"A dime a dozen."
Here's the thing. Control[1] is a pretty cool game. It's kind of like a third-person perspective, action-adventure, light Metroidvania-ish game that is basically the current best possible SCP Foundation game that exists which isn't actually directly based on the SCP Foundation (though it is absolutely heavily inspired by the SCP Foundation) and is way better than most of the games that are actually directly based on the SCP Foundation. It also is connected in some ways to the Alan Wake games (which kind of makes sense, since they're both made by Remedy).
And I would expect that any Control 2 that happens to get made someday probably will be similarly pretty cool... assuming, of course, that it manages to avoid all the usual modern video game industry horseshit. Which, given trends (such as the one discussed in the above-linked PC Gamer article, in fact), is probably highly unlikely. And if that does turn out to be the case, then any hypothetical Control 2 that may come to exist in the future can already go ahead and piss off, too. (Though, to be fair, even the original Control game wasn't completely free of modern video game industry dogshit. It's doing plenty well enough now, though, for what it's worth.)
With all that said (and speaking of modern video game industry horseshit), this "live-service Control spin-off" game that PC Gamer is talking about here is something that I have less-than-zero interest in and which can quite heartily fuck off and die, as far as I am concerned. The entire "multiplayer live service arena" genre can eat shit and choke on it forever.
[1] - Which, coincidentally, is on sale for 75% off on both Steam and GOG, making it $9.99 USD, as of the time of this post. (It is, I guess, also available on modern consoles, though I'm not sure if it's on a similar sale on those right now, since I don't much follow news about specific console games anymore. *shrug*)
"A dime a dozen."
Here's the thing. Control[1] is a pretty cool game. It's kind of like a third-person perspective, action-adventure, light Metroidvania-ish game that is basically the current best possible SCP Foundation game that exists which isn't actually directly based on the SCP Foundation (though it is absolutely heavily inspired by the SCP Foundation) and is way better than most of the games that are actually directly based on the SCP Foundation. It also is connected in some ways to the Alan Wake games (which kind of makes sense, since they're both made by Remedy).
And I would expect that any Control 2 that happens to get made someday probably will be similarly pretty cool... assuming, of course, that it manages to avoid all the usual modern video game industry horseshit. Which, given trends (such as the one discussed in the above-linked PC Gamer article, in fact), is probably highly unlikely. And if that does turn out to be the case, then any hypothetical Control 2 that may come to exist in the future can already go ahead and piss off, too. (Though, to be fair, even the original Control game wasn't completely free of modern video game industry dogshit. It's doing plenty well enough now, though, for what it's worth.)
With all that said (and speaking of modern video game industry horseshit), this "live-service Control spin-off" game that PC Gamer is talking about here is something that I have less-than-zero interest in and which can quite heartily fuck off and die, as far as I am concerned. The entire "multiplayer live service arena" genre can eat shit and choke on it forever.
[1] - Which, coincidentally, is on sale for 75% off on both Steam and GOG, making it $9.99 USD, as of the time of this post. (It is, I guess, also available on modern consoles, though I'm not sure if it's on a similar sale on those right now, since I don't much follow news about specific console games anymore. *shrug*)
Full headline, because PC Gamer loves being verbose with their headlines: "Helldivers 2 players find creative ways to punish toxic hosts: 'I ran with your super samples to the edge of the mission area, and kept on running'"
To put it succinctly: this article, and the comments under this article, demonstrate yet more reasons why I have no interest in playing Helldivers 2 (or any other, similar, flavor-of-the-month, multiplayer-only video game).
To put it succinctly: this article, and the comments under this article, demonstrate yet more reasons why I have no interest in playing Helldivers 2 (or any other, similar, flavor-of-the-month, multiplayer-only video game).
Full headline, because reasons: "Some Helldivers 2 players are inexplicably killing each other for resources, despite a dozen different UI elements telling you they're shared"
I wouldn't know from personal experience as I haven't played this game myself, nor do I have any interest in ever playing this game, but it seems like a good chunk of the playerbase of this game is made up either of fucking morons or explicit griefers (not that being a griefer and being a moron is mutually exclusive).
In any case, consider this to be bullet point four hundred or so on the list of reasons why I don't play multiplayer games.
I wouldn't know from personal experience as I haven't played this game myself, nor do I have any interest in ever playing this game, but it seems like a good chunk of the playerbase of this game is made up either of fucking morons or explicit griefers (not that being a griefer and being a moron is mutually exclusive).
In any case, consider this to be bullet point four hundred or so on the list of reasons why I don't play multiplayer games.
Real headline, which wouldn't fit in the Dreamwidth subject field because of course it wouldn't: "EA and a studio reportedly invested $125 million making a new singleplayer IP with zero microtransactions, no grind, a shorter running time, and guess what: 'No one bought it'"
I simply decided to replace that headline with a slightly shorter, more accurate alternative.
Also, this here article is the first time I've ever heard of this game, so it looks like all that money EA spent on advertising this crap was well spent. *eye roll* And as one of the comments mentions, Immortals of Aveum is one of the most generic, banal titles for a video game that I've heard in a while. To me, it just conjures images of garbage-tier MOBA games like Defense of the Ancients or League of Legends or whatever. *shrug*
Of course, the biggest reason this game didn't sell well is almost assuredly due to the very simple fact that it was a game that was published by Electronic Arts. You know, a publisher that has been notoriously anti-singleplayer for over a decade now. Why should anyone trust them to publish a singleplayer game that is actually worth a damn? You reap what you sow, EA.
I simply decided to replace that headline with a slightly shorter, more accurate alternative.
Also, this here article is the first time I've ever heard of this game, so it looks like all that money EA spent on advertising this crap was well spent. *eye roll* And as one of the comments mentions, Immortals of Aveum is one of the most generic, banal titles for a video game that I've heard in a while. To me, it just conjures images of garbage-tier MOBA games like Defense of the Ancients or League of Legends or whatever. *shrug*
Of course, the biggest reason this game didn't sell well is almost assuredly due to the very simple fact that it was a game that was published by Electronic Arts. You know, a publisher that has been notoriously anti-singleplayer for over a decade now. Why should anyone trust them to publish a singleplayer game that is actually worth a damn? You reap what you sow, EA.
When they started talking about the Grand Theft Auto VI hacker around 6 minutes in, that was probably about as serious as I've ever heard Pat and Woolie get (relatively speaking), for a span of 20 minutes or so. Pat was really putting that psychology major and sociology minor to good use there (I say, only maybe half facetiously).
And then they set that topic aside and resumed just shitting all over the modern video game industry in general, in that sort of "you gotta laugh and joke about this stuff because it would be incredibly depressing otherwise" way that they do. Seriously, the likelihood of me ever buying another so-called AAA video game becomes ever tinier with every passing year, especially if the industry really is thinking about doing that "sell half games for twice the price" horseshit (or even just the more likely "raise prices to $100 USD by 2027" bullshit) that Pat and Woolie are talking about here.
"Several live service and online games had to close their doors this year."
Seriously, how many books, movies, TV shows, songs, paintings, etc., once they have been created and released, have you ever heard of having to "close their doors" or "shut down"? A TV show being canceled after only a season or whatever is the only thing that comes close, but even then, it's not like the season that was already released suddenly disappears forever, the way this fucking "live service video game" shit does. It's goddamn asinine.
Normal, real-ass video games simply don't need to "shut down," once they're released. Even if you may have to resort to playing them "any way you can," as SNES Drunk would say, you can still fucking play them. You won't even be able to do that much with these online only pieces of shit, though. Maybe, just maybe, they can stop with this "live service" shit and get back to making normal, real-ass video games. Yeah, right, fat chance of that. Thank goodness for the sensible few (though fewer with every passing year) who do still make normal, real-ass video games.
Honestly, though, in the case of these particular games mentioned in the article... nothing of value was lost, simply by virtue of them being "games as a service" to start with. Nothing of value as far as I am concerned, anyway, as I never touched and never would have touched them with a ten-foot pole at all, explicitly because of their very nature as "live service" shit. That doesn't mean I'm not still going to rant about the fact that such things exist in the first place, because they're all going to "close their doors" sooner or later. Every last fucking one of them.
Seriously, how many books, movies, TV shows, songs, paintings, etc., once they have been created and released, have you ever heard of having to "close their doors" or "shut down"? A TV show being canceled after only a season or whatever is the only thing that comes close, but even then, it's not like the season that was already released suddenly disappears forever, the way this fucking "live service video game" shit does. It's goddamn asinine.
Normal, real-ass video games simply don't need to "shut down," once they're released. Even if you may have to resort to playing them "any way you can," as SNES Drunk would say, you can still fucking play them. You won't even be able to do that much with these online only pieces of shit, though. Maybe, just maybe, they can stop with this "live service" shit and get back to making normal, real-ass video games. Yeah, right, fat chance of that. Thank goodness for the sensible few (though fewer with every passing year) who do still make normal, real-ass video games.
Honestly, though, in the case of these particular games mentioned in the article... nothing of value was lost, simply by virtue of them being "games as a service" to start with. Nothing of value as far as I am concerned, anyway, as I never touched and never would have touched them with a ten-foot pole at all, explicitly because of their very nature as "live service" shit. That doesn't mean I'm not still going to rant about the fact that such things exist in the first place, because they're all going to "close their doors" sooner or later. Every last fucking one of them.
Full headline, because Dreamwidth subject field limitations blow: "Study finds around 87 percent of games are unplayable without resorting to piracy, scavenger hunts, or travelling to an archive"
And here (or, more accurately, here) is the study itself.
Yeah... shit sucks.
And here (or, more accurately, here) is the study itself.
Yeah... shit sucks.
"Conveniente"
Jun. 9th, 2023 02:46 pm
Link to comic.
Well... I mean... the actual problem there is that you're playing Diablo IV in the first place. *shrug*
Also, it's kind of funny (weird funny, not ha ha funny), because last time, they were mocking gamers who complained about this stuff. Now, they're complaining about this stuff. Go figure.
(Yet another "'diablo iii' tag is my de facto 'blizzard sucks' tag" and "I wish I'd called it 'asinine anti-offline trend' instead of 'asinine anti-singleplayer trend' but oh well" type of post.)
Really?
That is what convinced him? And not, you know, every other instance of the utterly asinine "online only even for singleplayer" dumbshit that has been shat out of the malignant anus of the modern video game industry over the past decade or two, all of which have had the exact same dumbfuck issues that this guy is complaining about with this specific Redfall game that I personally will never touch with a ten-foot pole?
Yet another worthless piece of shit published by modern day Bethesda Softworks. That Horse Armor crap really was the beginning of the end for them, I guess. Oh, and this Redfall game is infested with the malware Denuvo, too, which is probably why it's always online even for singleplayer to begin with (and is, of course, another reason why I will never touch this game with a ten-foot pole). My vague hopes for Starfield and any future (non-MMO) Elder Scrolls game to actually be worth my time and attention dwindle with every passing news story like this about how fucked up stupid Bethesda has become.
Of course, for any talk of how shitty "Bethesda" has become, you could safely replace "Bethesda" with "Microsoft" at this point, and it would be equally as accurate, perhaps even more so.
That is what convinced him? And not, you know, every other instance of the utterly asinine "online only even for singleplayer" dumbshit that has been shat out of the malignant anus of the modern video game industry over the past decade or two, all of which have had the exact same dumbfuck issues that this guy is complaining about with this specific Redfall game that I personally will never touch with a ten-foot pole?
Yet another worthless piece of shit published by modern day Bethesda Softworks. That Horse Armor crap really was the beginning of the end for them, I guess. Oh, and this Redfall game is infested with the malware Denuvo, too, which is probably why it's always online even for singleplayer to begin with (and is, of course, another reason why I will never touch this game with a ten-foot pole). My vague hopes for Starfield and any future (non-MMO) Elder Scrolls game to actually be worth my time and attention dwindle with every passing news story like this about how fucked up stupid Bethesda has become.
Of course, for any talk of how shitty "Bethesda" has become, you could safely replace "Bethesda" with "Microsoft" at this point, and it would be equally as accurate, perhaps even more so.
Full headline, because Dreamwidth sucks, at least in the subject line length department: "Game that promised no paid DLC ever is getting paid DLC: 'We need a way to continue to fund the development'"
Here's an idea! Perhaps, you know, this developer could, and I'm just throwing this out here, try making a new game! This is a thing that they could do, instead of finding banal, obnoxious ways to monetize a game that's already been out for seven years (an entire half decade of which were apparently spent in so-called "Early Access").
And, of course, all the sycophantic lickspittles (or, possibly, reputation management drones) in the comments under that PC Gamer article who are supporting and defending this shitty behavior are a huge part of the reason why such shitty behavior continues to pervade the modern video game industry. Modern video game creators will never stop shitting this kind of thing down the sewer pipe as long as modern video game consumers never stop willfully and militantly sucking said shit from said sewer pipe. But yadda yadda it's not like that's a thing I haven't already pointed out dozens and dozens of times by this point.
In any case, this is a game that I, personally, only learned existed just now, today, thanks to that there PC Gamer article, and it is a game in which I, personally, have less than zero interest, because it's apparently nothing more than yet another unoriginal multiplayer-only first person shooter game, in a vast, vast sewer of such games. My only interaction with this game has been to go onto its Steam store page and mark it as Ignored, same as I do with all such multiplayer-only games I see.
Here's an idea! Perhaps, you know, this developer could, and I'm just throwing this out here, try making a new game! This is a thing that they could do, instead of finding banal, obnoxious ways to monetize a game that's already been out for seven years (an entire half decade of which were apparently spent in so-called "Early Access").
And, of course, all the sycophantic lickspittles (or, possibly, reputation management drones) in the comments under that PC Gamer article who are supporting and defending this shitty behavior are a huge part of the reason why such shitty behavior continues to pervade the modern video game industry. Modern video game creators will never stop shitting this kind of thing down the sewer pipe as long as modern video game consumers never stop willfully and militantly sucking said shit from said sewer pipe. But yadda yadda it's not like that's a thing I haven't already pointed out dozens and dozens of times by this point.
In any case, this is a game that I, personally, only learned existed just now, today, thanks to that there PC Gamer article, and it is a game in which I, personally, have less than zero interest, because it's apparently nothing more than yet another unoriginal multiplayer-only first person shooter game, in a vast, vast sewer of such games. My only interaction with this game has been to go onto its Steam store page and mark it as Ignored, same as I do with all such multiplayer-only games I see.
"One of modern gaming's laziest inventions."
I'm way ahead of you on that one, article writer Mollie Taylor. I'm so far ahead of you that the light of the sun has yet to reach me. Mainly because I've never once bought a "battle pass" for a multiplayer game. And that is because I've never played a multiplayer game that had such things as "battle passes" available for purchase. And that is because I almost never play multiplayer games, period. (The last time was a couple hours of Terraria with![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
owsf2000 about a year ago.) But then, that has only a little to do with the whole "battle pass" thing, I suppose.
That said, I have, in the past, regrettably, bought "season passes" for singleplayer games that have them. Granted, especially lately, that's usually in the form of buying the "complete" version of such games years later, which by that point just came with whatever content was in the "season pass" (as it should have from the start, along with any other DLC that may not have been included in the "season pass"), all for a relatively reasonable price (for which I then usually still waited for a 60-75-plus-percent off sale, as has been the case for over a decade now), but still. "Season passes" for singleplayer games are the dog's diseased dickhole, even so.
Of course, I'm not even sure if a "season pass" for a singleplayer game is analogous to a "battle pass" for a multiplayer game, because I can honestly say that, prior to Googling it, I wasn't really familiar with what "battle passes" even are. And now that I do (kind of) know what they are... yeah, just from a theoretical, outsider's perspective, as someone who will never, ever play a game with this stuff involved, "battle passes" appear to be some of the dumbest dumbshit to ever dirty the underwear of the modern video game industry, which they then scraped off and sold to consumers like it was chocolate. I guess "season passes" (hell, even the Wikipedia page says "Not to be confused with battle pass" right there at the top) for singleplayer games aren't quite that bad, yet. I mean, they're bad enough, but not quite to "battle pass" levels of abject asininity. But I'm sure if/when the modern video game industry finds a way to make them as bad (or worse), they will do so. At which point, I'll probably start buying singleplayer games with "season passes" the same way I currently buy multiplayer games with "battle passes."
(EDIT) Looking at this list, it doesn't appear that I am missing anything at all, whatsoever. The only one of those I've ever even tried was Path of Exile, and the less said about that, the better, probably, especially if it's using this "battle pass" dumbfuckery now. (/EDIT)
I'm way ahead of you on that one, article writer Mollie Taylor. I'm so far ahead of you that the light of the sun has yet to reach me. Mainly because I've never once bought a "battle pass" for a multiplayer game. And that is because I've never played a multiplayer game that had such things as "battle passes" available for purchase. And that is because I almost never play multiplayer games, period. (The last time was a couple hours of Terraria with
owsf2000 about a year ago.) But then, that has only a little to do with the whole "battle pass" thing, I suppose.That said, I have, in the past, regrettably, bought "season passes" for singleplayer games that have them. Granted, especially lately, that's usually in the form of buying the "complete" version of such games years later, which by that point just came with whatever content was in the "season pass" (as it should have from the start, along with any other DLC that may not have been included in the "season pass"), all for a relatively reasonable price (for which I then usually still waited for a 60-75-plus-percent off sale, as has been the case for over a decade now), but still. "Season passes" for singleplayer games are the dog's diseased dickhole, even so.
Of course, I'm not even sure if a "season pass" for a singleplayer game is analogous to a "battle pass" for a multiplayer game, because I can honestly say that, prior to Googling it, I wasn't really familiar with what "battle passes" even are. And now that I do (kind of) know what they are... yeah, just from a theoretical, outsider's perspective, as someone who will never, ever play a game with this stuff involved, "battle passes" appear to be some of the dumbest dumbshit to ever dirty the underwear of the modern video game industry, which they then scraped off and sold to consumers like it was chocolate. I guess "season passes" (hell, even the Wikipedia page says "Not to be confused with battle pass" right there at the top) for singleplayer games aren't quite that bad, yet. I mean, they're bad enough, but not quite to "battle pass" levels of abject asininity. But I'm sure if/when the modern video game industry finds a way to make them as bad (or worse), they will do so. At which point, I'll probably start buying singleplayer games with "season passes" the same way I currently buy multiplayer games with "battle passes."
(EDIT) Looking at this list, it doesn't appear that I am missing anything at all, whatsoever. The only one of those I've ever even tried was Path of Exile, and the less said about that, the better, probably, especially if it's using this "battle pass" dumbfuckery now. (/EDIT)