kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
*facepalm + weary sigh + eye roll*

Speaking of companies that obviously don't give a shit, as mentioned in my previous post...

Okay, I've finally just made an "ubisoft sucks" tag to go along with my "ea sucks" tag. Took me long enough. It might take me a bit to go back and tag all the relevant posts with it, though, and I'm sure to miss a few.

(EDIT) And, of course, we already have at least one clueless fanboy and/or reputation management drone down there in the comments making an asinine "I don't necessarily see an issue with this" comment. Not surprised by that in the slightest. (/EDIT)
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
While this sort of thing is great and all, it's bad that it has gotten to the point in the video game industry that this is even a thing that is newsworthy at all, let alone something to be lauded (by both the article itself and people in the comments below). This kind of thing should simply be taken for granted as standard behavior across the board, but sadly it is not. Basically, to restate what I'm saying here, CD Projekt Red is doing what is essentially the bare minimum of what all of those who make video games should be doing, but because most of those others don't do this, those that do, like CD Projekt Red here, get treated as going above and beyond in their duties to the customer. It's certainly not a bad thing that CD Projekt Red doing this, obviously, and I'm glad it's getting highlighted, because if nothing else, it could potentially shame at least a few of those others who don't already do this into reevaluating themselves and how they do things (assuming, of course, they give a shit at all, which most of them don't seem to).
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
I agree with the majority of this article. The only real points of contention I have are with his unwarranted personal dig against ("non-celebrity") Wil Wheaton at the beginning, and his assertion that more agency to punish other players should be given to players, rather than less. I mean, he freely admits that humans are assholes, and they are, but he also says that players should be allowed to police themselves (as opposed to having punishments handed down from on high by the game developers or mods hired by them or whatever), as if he didn't know full well that said players, tending toward asshattery as they are generally wont to do, wouldn't abuse the living hell out of such a system. It's one thing to promote individual accountability, but another thing entirely to hand assholes the tools to be even bigger assholes.

For example, he praises the invasion system in Dark Souls as, apparently, a good example of how this sort of thing is done right. Well, I personally feel that the invasion system in Dark Souls is by far the very worst thing about that game series, and it is why I have played through almost the entirety of Dark Souls 1 completely hollow (and thus impervious to player invasion). There are no downsides to this for me, as I am similarly entirely uninterested in summoning in other players to help me (since they can often be even bigger encrusted dickholes than the invaders who are actively trying to kill you). If I go human at all, it's only to kindle a bonfire, and then I immediately throw myself off the nearest cliff, just so that I can become hollow again and thus don't have to deal with other random assholes showing up and briefly ruining my otherwise singleplayer game. The only reason I don't just go offline entirely is because I at least like to see the player messages strewn about, though roughly even half of those are likely to be liars and trolls anyway. It's also why I'm hesitant to buy and play Dark Souls II, since in that game you can still be invaded even if you're hollow, albeit more rarely.

In any case, as I've said many times before, this sort of shit, generally speaking, is why I almost never play multiplayer games at all, ever.
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
Ha ha ha ha ha... ...that's a good one.

Wait, no, was he serious?

Well, sarcasm aside, the reasons he puts forth for why he says this are actually somewhat sound. Still, he apparently means a golden age for developers, though, and not necessarily for players. In fact, a whole bunch of little guys producing tons of mostly crap (e.g. the mobile games market as it currently exists) is partially what led to the previous big game industry crash. Not that that would necessarily be a bad thing to repreat, either, in this day and age.
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
Not exactly sure how this in any way constitutes "PC" or "Gaming" or especially "PC Gaming" news, PC Gamer. I don't see why anyone should give a single shit what that sellout buys with the money he got from whoring out to Microsoft. I hope this doesn't become a trend in gaming "journalism."

(EDIT) And now, the damn thing has been recreated inside of Minecraft. *facepalm* So I guess I now have to actually add the "games" and "minecraft" tags to this post, given that it's relevant to those things now, whereas it wasn't before. (/EDIT)
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
"Saying, apparently without any trace of irony, that 'Rigorous quality control is of paramount importance to us,' Ubisoft has put the fourth Assassin's Creed: Unity patch on hold while it continues to 'refurbish' the Paris map."

Heh. Usually it's RPS that brings the snark while PC Gamer tends to stick more with straight reporting, but sometimes they get some decent ones in.

But really, let that sink in for a bit. They're delaying a patch to fix the broken crap that was their game on release because they ostensibly care about quality control.
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
"We're still going to look at how to do [an offline mode]. You know, It's not off the table. We just can't promise it, and that's caused a lot of people to get very angry. I am always upset when people are [angry]—especially when they've backed us—but we had a vision and we're trying to stick as closely to that vision as possible, which is to do something new."

If they can't promise it, then why the hell did they, you know, promise it? That's a rhetorical question, by the way, because I already know full well why they promised it: they wouldn't have gotten enough funding and the Kickstarter would have failed otherwise.

(Disclaimer: I did not watch that 20 minute interview at all.)
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
Do you know what would really gauge interest in a new PC release of Freespace? Fucking releasing a new Freespace game for PC. Putting out something that is decidedly not a proper new release in a beloved franchise is absolutely not a proper way to "test the waters," because nobody will buy it and thus you'll get the mistaken impression that nobody wants the other thing either. I might very well be interested in another Freespace game. What I'm not interested in, however, is some barely related tabletop bullshit.

You know, I feel like I have said something like this before about another once beloved game series for which they were releasing stupid bullshit that nobody wanted in order to "gauge interest." At least in that case, the things that were being put out to "test the waters" were still (ostensibly) video games, which can't even be said here with this tabletop crap.
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
I don't give a shit about Destiny itself, as such. I only care about this news insofar as it is yet another reason for and example of why DLC is bullshit, that's all. The gist of the story is that there is some sort of weekly reward quest in Destiny, but this week, that weekly quest is only available for those who bought the DLC. That's it. No more, no less. First heard about this on Penny Arcade.
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
Street Fighter V Exclusivity! - Angry Rant:

He keeps saying "Capcom isn't doing so well." Well, golly gee, I wonder why that is. Could it possibly be because they keep doing boneheaded bullshit like this and other stuff? Yeah, that could very well be why Capcom isn't doing so well now.


Street Fighter V & Capcom's Copyright Claims - Angry Rant:

Strange, though, that the video he claims was taken down is still up there, at least as of the time of this edit, anyway. Remains to be seen if it does get removed later. My guess is he just set it to unlisted instead of actually removing it, at least for now.

(EDIT 2) Having had time to watch the whole second video now, aside from whatever specifics about the deal between him and Capcom or between Capcom/Sony/Microsoft about which I don't personally have any knowledge of, I absolutely agree with him about the generalities. (/EDIT 2)



Dec. 5th, 2014 06:02 pm
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
Link to comic. Link to blog.

"People like to say that it's only censorship when an agent of the state kicks down your door and burns your printing press or whatever. That bit about 'agents of the state' isn’t anywhere in the definition of censorship, it's just something censors reflexively say whenever you make the clear-eyed, wholly observable assertion that they are fundamentally opposed to art.

"They say they aren't censors because censorship is bad. And
they're not bad. So they can't be censors - that's really the extent of it. But there's nothing there. Poke this framework once and it flies around the room, farting, like a balloon."
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
I post this not for the article itself, but for one of the first comments underneath.

Someone posted:

"Unexpected technical issues

Really? They were unexpected? Testing didn't bring ANY of these issues up?

I could understand a few bugs might slip through the cracks but I would have thought a game publisher would not have these kind of issues after launching many games without major bugs. (I have no citation on this, by I would figure that most of their games aren't this bad on launch day)."

And a response was:

"You would be surprised at the number of so-called expert testers who ask for the latest, most powerful machines with the latest OS versions etc. as they claim that this will aid their testing. I've seen this in a company where the target machines that actual users were using were known to be older with less powerful graphics cards and some old software for compatibility with some products. I'd imagine the lure of a new machine is eve greater when they don't know what users will be using."

Speaking as someone who worked for a QA testing company for about 10 years, I will say that the second guy is right. If that's how you're doing your testing, then you're doing it wrong. Yes, we did testing on the most state-of-the-art PCs (and Macs and Linux machines) that we could get our hands on, but we also did the same testing on funky, old-ass shit (meaning software such as OS [think Windows 95/98/XP or older Linux and MacOS versions] or graphics software such as DirectX or OpenGL or whatever, as well as hardware such as decades old graphics cards and such) that nobody in their right minds would ever recommend continuing to use in this day and age, because we knew that there were people out there who were still using that old-ass shit. And we'd definitely find bugs on that shit, without a doubt. Sometimes the response of the companies we were testing for would be to, you know, actually fix the issues. Sometimes the response would be to simply post a "no longer supported" section in their ReadMe.txt or whatever for the affected software/hardware. Sometimes the response, disappointingly and vexingly, would be to simply not address (or even acknowledge) the issue at all. On less frequent occasions, we'd find bugs where it'd be broken on the new shit, but work fine on the old shit. Those tended to get fixed more promptly than the other stuff.

Then again, for this Ubisoft Assassin's Creed bullshit, a lot of the horrible broken crap shows up on the consoles as well as (or instead of) the PC stuff, so I don't know what their crummy excuse is for letting that slip through.
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)

You know, in case you're one of the few on my LJ friends list who isn't also on [livejournal.com profile] owsf2000's, for whatever reason, or else otherwise missed it. Essentially, he sums up most of the reasons why I give almost no fucks whatsoever about modern video games anymore.
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
While I'm on the subject of Assassin's Creed Unity (which I don't plan to be for too much longer, as I'd have had almost zero interest in that game even if it wasn't a roach motel), here is this as well. Someone else can watch that Jimquisition video that they embedded in the article to see if he's making any sense, though, as I'd just about rather stab a pencil through my eardrum than listen to that asshole, even on the rare occasions when he may be in the right on any given issue.

Also, this. Because giving away a free game always makes everything all better. (I'm only being half sarcastic with that, because it's the same goddamn thing EA did when that travesty of a game called SimCity was released, and people sucked that shit down like candy through a sewer pipe.)
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
Cracked, there has been a definitive downward slide in the quality of your overall output lately, but this one is one of the good ones.

Also, unlike on most other Internet websites, the comments under this article are pretty good as well (at least as long as you press the button to sort by votes first, anyway). Of course, replies to said comments may not be the most intelligent in the world, mind you, but you can't win 'em all.
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
I'm actually sort of glad that, nine times out of ten, I usually don't even hear about this sort of thing prior to the news that they've already been shut down like this. It saves me the trouble of starting to get interested in what could have been awesome, but is now essentially non-existent, thanks to uptight copyright holders. :/ Sucks that this got shut down, but lawyers gonna law, after all. Not too awfully much can be done about that unfortunate circumstance.

And, as usual, people in the comments under both articles are once again confusing copyright with trademark.
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
As they fucking well should. Of course, the way Braben is talking, he makes it seem more like he's magnanimously extending a bothersome and unnecessary boon to the peasants rallying at his castle gates with torches and pitchforks, rather than admitting that it was a thing they should have been doing in the goddamn first place. Oh well, better late than never, I suppose.


On an semi-related note, and speaking more in general than about Elite: Dangerous in particular, I've never understood this relatively recent concern that game devs have with "splitting the fanbase" of their game. This was something that came up with Diablo 3 as well. All these game devs lately are claiming that the game is online-only because they don't want to "split the community." (It's a bullshit reason, of course, since the real reason it is online-only is for DRM reasons, but let's ignore that for the moment.) Here are my questions about this. Let's say you have 100 people who want to buy your game. Out of that 100, 25 want offline singleplayer, and 25 want online multiplayer and 50 want both (the actual split may be different in one direction or another in reality, obviously, but let's go with this for now, just to simplify things). Tell me how, exactly, alienating the 25-75 that want offline singleplayer by removing offline singleplayer altogether is somehow "uniting the community," huh? Tell me how, exactly, including an offline option is somehow "splitting the community." The ones that wanted offline only would have never been a part of the multiplayer "community" anyway. Or are you truly saying that you're fine with 25-75 customers total, when you would have had 100 customers had you included an offline option? More money is better than less money, right?

But, okay, now back to reality. First of all, many of those who wanted offline only are likely going to buckle under and still cravenly buy the damn game anyway, even without it, no matter how much they might complain about it, so there's that bit out of the way. Second of all, what these game devs are really saying is that they don't care that they're fucking over the people that wanted offline singleplayer, just so long as they stick it to those damn, dirty apes who pirate their game or, worse, sell their game in a used game store. I guess the real question is do they think that the money they'll lose by people not buying their game because it doesn't have an offline option (such as myself) is less than the money they'll lose by people pirating their game (assuming that the pirates don't find a way to hack around the DRM anyway, which is not inconceivable) or selling their game used? Looks like the answer so far is that these game devs really don't care that they're angering and alienating legit potential customers by removing features just to inconvenience pirates and used game buyers/sellers (who, in the eyes of these devs, are probably indistinguishable, anyway).

kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
I used to be amused by this sort of thing, but no more. This is just DRM, same as SecuROM and same as always online, no matter how cutesy they try to be when they implement it. And, just like any other DRM, if this crap ends up adversely affecting even one legitimate customer (and in at least some of those cases, it definitely already has), then it has failed, as far as I am concerned.

And, wouldn't you know it, the comments have filled up with pirates vs anti-pirates. How utterly shocking. *yawn* I read down into that morass a little ways, but I just couldn't stomach it.
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
(EDIT) And here is the Rock, Paper, Shotgun version. They seem to be a bit more willing to take Frontier to task over this, as opposed to PC Gamer, which just seems to be more interested in reporting as is, rather than editorializing about it. And the comments under there are just as negative to this overall as they are at PC Gamer, which is nice, though there are still a few idiots trying to defend the indefensible there as there are under the PC Gamer article (probably the same idiots, it wouldn't surprise me). (/EDIT)

"Those who have already been playing the game online in the Alpha and/or Beta phases, regardless of whether they backed the project via Kickstarter or purchased access to Alpha and/or Beta through our online store, are not eligible for a refund."

So, essentially, if you're someone who has actually played the unfinished game, such as, let's say, one of those people who were colossally idiotic enough to pay $150 to play the game early[1], then you are apparently shit outta luck for getting a refund if you wanted one now that Frontier Developments has revealed that they've been lying to you all along about including an offline mode, which might have been the main/only reason you backed them in the first place.

I hope someone files a damn class action lawsuit against these assclowns, I honestly, truly do. Then again, they've probably got one of those horseshit "you can't sue us" clauses hidden in their EULA. So completely glad I dodged a bullet by not backing this shit. Also glad that I didn't go for the higher-tier "pay us more and we'll let you test our game early" tiers on the KS projects I have actually backed in the past as well, or that I usually completely ignore the beta invites and such even if that sort of thing was included in my pledge level.

I didn't even bother to read the comments under this one, but I'm sure there are still idiots down there even now trying to defend the patently indefensible.

[1] - Remember the days when testers actually got paid to test games and didn't have to pay to test them? We're living in bizarro world now.
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
So, okay, I was looking at Twitter and saw that, for some odd reason, "Jack Thompson" was trending. Interested to see what nutty new thing good ol' Jackhole was up to nowadays, I clicked his name in the Twitter trending thing.

And... I'm honestly not sure what the hell exactly is going on here, but it apparently has something to do with GamerGate and/or Anita Sarkeesian. Either someone compared Jack Thompson/Anita Sarkeesian to Anita Sarkeesian/Jack Thompson, or Jack Thompson himself came out for/against Sarkeesian, or Jack Thompson said he supports/hates GamerGate, or some GamerGate supporter/anti-GamerGate supporter claimed that Jack Thompson was right all along, and now one or both sides are trying to embrace/distance themselves from Jack Thompson or some such thing. I have no fucking clue, because it's Twitter and Twitter is often confusing. So I'm just going to link to a couple of "jack thompson gamergate" and "jack thompson sarkeesian" searches on Twitter and see if anyone else can make some sense of all the conflicting bullshit. Google isn't helping much either, at least at the moment. If this stabilizes somewhat over the next few days, though, maybe it'll make more sense, overall? Hell if I know. Anything involving GamerGate is just a huge clusterfuck, in general.

(EDIT) Ah, so apparently all of this current shit stems from this asinine thing, I guess? So, Jack Thompson called Anita Sarkeesian a hypocrite. How astonishingly hilarious that is, coming from Jack Thompson of all people. Jack Thompson claims he's not for censorship and that he supports the First Amendment. You know, the same Jack Thompson who tried to get Halo 3 declared a public nuisance. You know, the same Jack Thompson who sent a Cease and Desist to Midway because some kid made a "Jack Thompson" custom character in a Mortal Kombat game. Among many, many other equally idiotic things. Yeah, that Jack Thompson. So, yeah, GamerGate, though this moronic "Sarkeesian Effect" thing, has reached out to Jack Thompson to support their cause. #GamerGate? More like #GameOver.

(EDIT 2) Oh, and about this "Sarkeesian Effect" shit. They're currently making a little over $9,000 "per each monthly update video on the making of our film." To repeat, they're making $9,000 per month. Yet, they apparently won't even start working on the film until they're getting $15,000 per month. That's their first and lowest milestone goal.

"Start Filming!
$15,000 per Each monthly update video on the making of our film
Filming begins when we reach $15,000 per monthly video. This will allow us to finance the project comfortably. This covers crew/production pay, travel, and expenses."

So, they're releasing update videos for a supposed film that, oh wait, they're not actually actively working on yet, and won't actually actively work on until they can convince people to give them more money, despite the fact that they're already getting $9,000 per fucking update they release each month. These motherfuckers are making a six-figure income currently, just for releasing a single goddamn video a month. And GamerGate has the gall to call Anita Sarkeesian herself a scam artist and a fraud. Wow. Just wow. (/EDIT 2)

For the record, I think that the death threats that Jack Thompson received and might very well still be receiving to this day are just as reprehensible as the ones that Anita Sarkeesian and other women are receiving from GamerGate assholes. I doubt seriously that very many people are threatening to rape Jack Thompson, though. (/EDIT)


kane_magus: (Default)

September 2017

34567 89
10 11 1213 14 1516
17 181920 212223


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 04:30 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios