MudMan
- 0 Posts
- 642 Comments
It’s come and gone a couple times. There was a period where a bunch of big games did simultaneous launches, then a big period of drought where a few large publishers withdrew entirely from new releases and recently a few isolated AA and AAA releases started popping back up. I wonder if it’s driven by how much effort they can put into outreach or something like that.
Yeah, it sucks for Silent Hill especially because a) it’s super expensive, at 80 bucks on PC, and b) I was on the fence about getting it at launch and only jumped in a few days ago. I’m just out of the refund window and… hey, I like it so far, but I don’t like it 160 bucks’ worth.
Whoever is screwing with GOG screwed them out of my purchase and I’m starting to think that not buying anything on Steam at all if I can help it may be the way to go.
Alright, this is great, but also people need to start confirming GOG drops before the Steam launch. I check for GOG launches whenever I buy a game, but just this month there’s been a couple of big games that got stealth GOG launches just after their Steam release and it’s been extremely frustrating. I don’t know if it’s a publisher thing to work around pirates waiting for DRM free versions or Steam being dicks about it, but it’s infuriating.
The hell does “piracy against big companies” even mean?
Man, pirate what you can’t afford if you must, just… you know, be honest about it. I’m always annoyed by people doing the thing they wanted to do anyway and presenting it as activism. That’s not how that works.
For the record, while I think there’s plenty to be critical about in modern gaming, “DLC”, “game has a launcher” and “game is ported from other platforms” are not that. “A game I played on the PS3 was too expensive when I wanted to rebuy it” is somebody giving you bad value up front, not some ideological stance you’re taking.
For the record, I also didn’t buy it because I also didn’t think their launch price was right. In fairness, it has since been on sale for 30 bucks multiple times, which is a lot more reasonable.
And again, I’m not saying don’t pirate it. Do what you want. Just don’t be weird about it.
I mean, all due respect, to the guy, but this doesn’t go down until 2027. At least give them a minute to get in the position where they could feasibly fuck up before you berate them for it.
If you look at the Internet they are apparently definitely dismantling the company to sell the pieces but also definitely continuing to make what they make but with MAGA politics but also as a muslim theocracy and trimming down and speeding up but also doubling down on live service at the same time somehow.
And man, one or multiple of those may happen, but almost certainly not all of them and none have happened yet. Given how much of a public-ass public company chasing short term gains they’ve been historically I can’t help but think there’s a fair amount of projection going on.
Here’s my stance: I have no idea what this means and I have no idea what they’re going to do. This is all weird and I have zero frame of reference for how the new owners are going to gel with that organization or what their new objectives are going to be when compared to the old “make more money this quarter than last quarter” thing.
“New” is a bit of a stretch, I already owned all of those on GoG. But hey, if them cherry picking which games they’ll vow to patch themselves helps them get a marketing hit I’m all for it.
Also, Expedition 33 launched in there, along with the newer Tomb Raider games. Am I a bit mad that they didn’t go for it at launch and made me get it on Steam instead? I am. Still glad there’s a DRM-free option, though.
But you’re not describing a loot box. That’s not how loot boxes work.
I mean, for one thing, 1 in 4 doesn’t mean you should get a payout in the fourth try. You could buy a hundred things with a 1 in 4 chances and never win. Random means random.
But precisely for that reason loot boxes sometimes implement “mercy rules” that increase the odds on repeated tries to prevent people being frustrated because squishy human brains are bad at understanding probability intuitively.
But the way look boxes work is by having a loot table, which associates a list of possible outcomes to a weight and runs a random check against that table each time. It’s how it worked on pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons in the 70s and it’s how it works in monetized loot boxes today. Different implementations can have different odds, each game can offer different box types with different probabilities, but if we’re talking about loot boxes we’re talking about that.
I don’t know what game you were playing. I suppose a loot table with 75% of nothing and 25% of a single hardcoded item is still a valid loot table, but it’s overly simplistic and now how it’d typically be implemented. If you’re playing some game that gives you an on-screen representation of a paid item under those rules and you can show that they are misrepresenting the odds you can and should go flag them in front of whatever body regulates advertising in your country, as well as to whatever platform is offering the game. It’s very likely that it’d be breaking multiple regulations entirely unrelated to gambling, both public and private. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen (mobile games in particular are full of really gross design people aren’t following up on enough), but that isn’t a typical implementation and not the base complaint people have.
And again, can’t stress this enough, it’s probably already illegal regardless of whether loot boxes run on gambling rules or not.
Sure, but this isn’t a digital version of a casino game. It’s a digital version of a blind box. And there is no rule to say that trading cards or collectible card games need to have equal possibilities of yielding a specific card. That is very much the opposite of how that works. Physical blind box offerings absolutely use different probabilities and different content rarities.
So yeah, if you make up the categorizations, the rules and the mechanics we can be talking about whatever you want, but in the real world that’s not even close to how this works in either physical or digital form, which I guess explains the confusion.
For the record, multiple games offer a readout of the possibilities of getting a particular type of thing. I, you may be surprised to know, haven’t checked the probabilities being accurate in all of them, but I’m gonna need some specific proof of someone fudging them, because that’s a problem of false advertising at that point, forget gambling rules that don’t even apply.
Also, 1% is a HUGE drop rate for rare items in loot boxes, both physical and digital. 1% is, as it turns out, 1 in 100. Lots of games, collectibles and other types of blind boxes feature way more than 100 tries at opening a loot box, even for fully unmonetized ones. If anything there’s a bit of a cognitive bias there, where people are very bad at instinctively understanding how percentages work, which makes disclosing loot box percentages a bit of a challenge.
Look, I’m not sure what games you play or your understanding of how any of this works but, respectfully, you’re misunderstanding it pretty deeply.
“Want” isn’t my concern. Presumably no developers want to give Google a piece of anything they generate, open source or not.
My concern was not understanding how this interferes with F-Droid and that has been explained above: F-Droid builds their own APKs for verification and this process potentially makes that a lot harder while not providing a replacement for their verification from Google.
That makes sense and it is indeed a dealbreaker. The other thing much less so.
Oooh, gotcha. That makes sense.
I guess it’d make sense to take that first option as far as it will go, at which point the issue becomes litigating this the first time Google has their own weird censorship issue in the Apple mold. I’d expect if they ban all of F-Droid explicitly that would at least make more ripples than going after a single torrent client app or whatever. It may play out different from a regulatory perspective, too, if the practical effect is they ban third party stores.
Side note, I’m really mad at the very deliberate choice Google made of categorizing all potential apps as either “apps meant for Google Play” or “student or hobbyist apps”. You know they know why that’s wrong, but it still makes you want to explain it to them.
I’m confused by this:
The F-Droid project cannot require that developers register their apps through Google, but at the same time, we cannot “take over” the application identifiers for the open-source apps we distribute, as that would effectively seize exclusive distribution rights to those applications.
If it were to be put into effect, the developer registration decree will end the F-Droid project and other free/open-source app distribution sources as we know them today, and the world will be deprived of the safety and security of the catalog of thousands of apps that can be trusted and verified by any and all. F-Droid’s myriad users5 will be left adrift, with no means to install — or even update their existing installed — applications.
My understanding is that developers need to sign up with Google and once they have an account they can sign their own apks.
How would this impact F-Droid in any way? Presumably by the time F-Droid enters the picture the developers of the apps they distribute would have already gone through that entire process, right? The apks will be tied to that new Google certificate, but after that they can still be distributed anywhere.
I mean, don’t get me wrong, this has genuine, very serious, dealbreaking issues, in that Google can just cancel the account of a developer making apps they don’t like, the same way Apple has done in the past. That’s not great. But from F-Droid’s perspective all of that has happened upstream, they are not anywhere in that loop, unless I’ve misunderstood the changes.
Hah. I like the witch trial logic there. “If you like this thing it proves the thing is evil brainwashing because nobody would like it otherwise”. May as well dunk them in water and see if they drown.
The thing is, this sort of online panic has absolutely had an influence. The industry has moved away from lootboxes, even in cases where they make sense (see the Marvel Snap example) because they’ve become terrible PR, and the panic has led to multiple countries exploring new regulations or applying existing gambling regulations, whether that makes sense or not.
So you don’t have a lot of influence, but you definitely have some, and the unintended consequences of that influence lead to things like Brazil being on track to roll out invasive age checking procedures in gaming spaces without getting much pushback from the wider international gaming public because they’re all too excited about the anti-loot box lip service they’ve added on the side.
So maybe don’t let yourself too off the hook. There was a slippery slope here and you are one of many gleefully going “weeee!” on the way down. Your aggressive stance here sure had more of an impact than all the “told you sos” I’m about to send if and when Steam starts requiring people provide some type of personal ID to log in.
All loot boxes are chance based, but first of all, I don’t know which laws you’re talking about. Brazil’s? Guessing the US because when somebody has a case of the default human it’s typically an American, but who knows.
But also, I’m not a US lawyer, but I seriously doubt US gambling laws requires all games to have a flat probability, mostly because… that’s not how games of chance work anywhere, and definitely not how blind boxes work anywhere and blind box products are not gambling anyway, which is the entire point.
It’s still a non sequitur and I still have no idea what you’re trying to say.
I did not say “less predatory”. I don’t agree that current trends on monetization are any more or less predatory than loot boxes. Hell, you don’t seem to think they’re any more or less predatory, either, given your assessment of grind.
I think you may have misread the point I was making. You should give that quote block another look.
But to reiterate, no, it’s not “wildly preferable” to grind through a battlepass than to have loot boxes. I prefer loot boxes, honestly. I know I’m not gonna grind to the end of a pass each season, even in the games I do pay regularly, so I would much rather have a randomized pull and get something fun every now and then.
And of course that’s all for incidental engagement reward nonsense, which is pointless anyway, paid loot boxes are fundamental to certain games. I liked CCGs when they were made with paper and I still do now. If you ask me I’d much rather have the randomized mishmash of decks you get from loot box-driven Hearthstone than the rigid meta you get in Marvel Snap because they are bending over backwards to still monetize just as hard while not having randomization because people keep whining about it.
And hey, you don’t have to play Hearthstone if you don’t want to, and if people are concerned about the effect on kids that’s what age ratings are for, doesn’t affect me. But I don’t think it should be banned and I sure as hell don’t think the alternative is “wildly preferable” at all. You don’t have to agree, but that cuts both ways, and I don’t appreciate people trying to make their preference a matter of law.
Yeah, but I actually like multiple games built around blind boxes, and I sure don’t like you telling me what I can like.
You’re just passing your own tastes as morality and I don’t care for that any more when it’s gamers pushing their preferences than when it was pearl-clutching moms and politicians trying to score cheap points.
I mean, there is plenty of justification for it in that blind boxes allow for a random distribution of items while still controlling rarity and allowing for balance, which is why every single videogame in existence that does any sort of randomized or widespread lootable equipment does loot tables. It’s not just a very useful technique, it’s a fundamental one you engage with constantly. If you want to make a case for monetization of randomized loot being beyond some line we can have that argument, but the method is useful and it won’t be “figured out”, it predates videogames altogether.
Frankly, it’s not even the worst option out there. The sad irony of the entire moral panic is that the part that got figured out is an alternative monetization-to-engagement pathway. Several, in fact. Overbearing regulation of loot boxes is no longer a dealbreaker because everybody knows how to do seasonal cosmetics and battlepasses now, so all the features of paid loot boxes can be done without the randomized elements people latch on to.
The part you can’t quite get is the outright advantage that loot boxes will sometimes give people decent stuff without having to grind, which all the current alternatives don’t do. I’d take randomized tables over mandatory grind any day, but I certainly don’t want to ban either.
It’s not easy to avoid unless you live in Vegas. I live right above a gambling establishment. Nobody bats an eye and it’s fully government-sanctioned.
Not every country is the US, friend. Including, you know… Brazil.
But hey, at least you have the intellectual honesty to include all the IRL blind boxes people actually like in your assessment. You still have this pretty much backwards, but at least it’s consistently backwards.
That’s not sarcasm, I do think that’s better than the baseline of “make the game mechanic I don’t like illegal, but keep all this 100% analogous stuff I do like” vibes-based approach to demanding regulation.
I still disagree super hard that “bad for our psyche” is the bar for banning stuff. Age ratings, sure. But I would very much prefer to keep tobacco, pot, alcohol, porn and yes, Magic the Gathering and Hearthstone available for anybody mature enough to make that choice by themselves.
Yeah, I’m kinda with you. I played a lot of it, in the tens of hours, but I didn’t finish it. It may be at the peak of self-indulgent simulation for simulation’s sake in open world games.
I think I’m glad it exists. Somebody had to do this, like somebody had to do CJ getting fat when he eats and slim when he runs, right? That’s a fun thing for someone to have done in a successful mainstream game release.
But there’s a reason that didn’t show up elsewhere, and that’s also a good thing.
I mean, it’s a very nice looking game, which may have something to do with it having about ten times the budget of your average game from a major publisher (the term AAA is now entirely meaningless and I refuse to use it without clarification). Guessing that helps.
I’m not sure “clean and sharp” is a positive value, though. This becomes a problem because I don’t know what people mean, and people often don’t know what they mean, either. Good picture quality doesn’t need to be “sharp”. Things that are in focus realistically aren’t impossibly pin-sharp, that’s a videogamey thing. Shadows definitely aren’t ever sharp. And of course the picture you presented is anything but sharp, since it’s… well, a pretty low-quality 1080p image, so the trees are blobs, the hair is a grainy mess and distant models are blobby.
OK, here’s a true fact I would think is common knowledge but it may not be: A slightly older game on higher settings often looks better than a newer game on lower settings. Remedial performance options are often very compromised and not really meant to be used. Expensive features can look bad on minimum settings and newer games can be built around more expensive stuff and look off when those settings are toggled off. Lower resolution rendering of a better looking image can produce worse results than higher res output for a worse looking image for a number of reasons.
That doesn’t mean newer games look worse, though. It’s just the nature of the beast in PC gaming and it has been for forty years. That’s why it’s always been cool to go back to old games when you update your hardware.
Yeeeah, I’ve encountered this argument a few times, particularly when this issue was more salient and, I’m not gonna lie, it’s absolutely baffling.
As in, it seems to imply that gambling is better because there’s a chance of winning something of genuine monetary value.
Which, let me be clear, is the exact opposite of how this works. The possibility of recouping losses or winning money is the actual problem with gambling. The potential monetary reward is a major component of gambling and one of the meaningful reasons why loot boxes are… nowhere near as bad?
Digital loot boxes are typically not allowed to be translated into actual money by design, both as a security measure and because that’s how actual gambling works. Betting for real money is way worse than buying some digital thing that only has value inside a game. Because, you know, in that scenario you know you’re spending that money and it’s not coming back, it’s just a matter of spending it on what. You’re not getting enticed with the fiction that you’re investing money or not actually spending it because you could potentially get it back. That’s why kids aren’t typically allowed to bet in a casino but they still get to buy Magic the Gathering packs (and let’s be clear, the fact that Magic has a thriving gray market around it makes it worse than digital loot boxes as well).
I try to keep this conversation respectful but, honestly, hearing this argument is one of the surefire ways to know the person talking about this has no idea what they’re talking about.
Even if you took the hardcore view that loot boxes are outright gambling, gambling isn’t illegal for adults. Why would loot boxes be treated more stringently than online casinos, even in your scenario?
Also, it doesn’t incentivize age verification systems, age verification systems are now mandatory. They are needed to be able to sell any games marketed at adults, including porn games, games with loot boxes and presumably any other game with an 18 and up rating by their official ratings board.
The loot box panic has mostly been another variant of the “will someone thing of the children” violence panic of the 90s. Just like then, age ratings and parental controls should have been the solution, but because gamers were too busy being angry and self righteous online they went with it to this point.
I don’t know Silver Lake, but in the thread Schreirer made when breaking this someone suggested they are not specifically in that business. Which makes sense, that’d be an absolute waste of 50 billion, they’re definitely not getting that money back by breaking EA up. They have very, very little marketable IP or assets, considering their major moneymakers are all licensed games, at least outside the Battlefield franchise.
Silver Lake owned GoDaddy for a while. They owned Dell for a while. They seem to have a history of buying companies in big deals, taking them private for a while, then having them go public again later.
I have no idea what that process looks like, but this a) seems to fit their pattern, and b) seems to match other big tech companies that they’ve bought and continued to be a going concern indefinitely.
I don’t know that “good news” is how I’d describe it, but it doesn’t mean EA is done, at least up front.
Also porn.
And it’s written in pretty much the same way as the UK anti-porn thing, where age ratings alone won’t cut it, so if you want to make smut games in Brazil you need to have some sort of “effective” age gating on top of parental controls to allow parents to close it off to their kids.
Art. 12. Os provedores de lojas de aplicações de internet e de sistemas operacionais de terminais deverão:
I – tomar medidas proporcionais, auditáveis e tecnicamente seguras para aferir a idade ou a faixa etária dos usuários, observados os princípios previstos no art. 6º da Lei nº 13.709, de 14 de agosto de 2018 (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais);
II – permitir que os pais ou responsáveis legais configurem mecanismos de supervisão parental voluntários e supervisionem, de forma ativa, o acesso de crianças e de adolescentes a aplicativos e conteúdos; e
III – possibilitar, por meio de Interface de Programação de Aplicações (Application Programming Interface – API) segura e pautada pela proteção da privacidade desde o padrão, o fornecimento de sinal de idade aos provedores de aplicações de internet, exclusivamente para o cumprimento das finalidades desta Lei e com salvaguardas técnicas adequadas.
So where are we on this one? We gonna be the “fuck free speech, I hate loot boxes” or “fuck thinking of the children, we like our smutty stuff”?
And you know, if wouldn’t hurt my ability to play more games if more of them were shorter.
From the article:
In 2024, a staggering 18,626 games were released on Steam, according to SteamDB, a website that tracks data on the popular PC platform. That’s an increase of around 93% from 2020, when 9,656 games were released.
By my count, if you don’t sleep or eat and only play videogames you need every game to be about 30 minutes long on average.
I mean, it wouldn’t hurt, but I’m gonna say it’s not enough.
In all seriousness, I’m more concerned by the competition from social media and on demand video. I’m typing this, which isn’t that interesting of an activity. Idling online is a huge time sink, and it’s getting bigger.
Hey, say what you will, but I do think the solution is technological. MS at least has an approach. About time, too. I don’t want to overplay it, because a lot of these arguments is very… terminally online, but it’s nuts that the DX12/UE5 combo of tech that has now been a thing for ages is still so poorly understood and unadressed on a wider scale.
Also crazy that dev teams don’t have enough systems engineers bitchy enough to insist on figuring this out.
I think for BL4 specifically the problem is the game is just… heavy. Not chuggy or stuttery on good enough hardware, but good enough starts kinda high here.
And yeah, it looks better than previous games, but it’s a stylized look and it’s taking shortcuts meant for photorealism into a space where a lot of stylization is going to cut into the extra bits of indirect lighting or vegetation or environmental detail you’re getting out of it.
Blend the confusing shader issues with the disproportionately high frame budget even when things are working fine and you get this stuff. But I’ll say that I was shocked at how playable the game is on higher end hardware given what the Internet was saying.
Supposedly that’s why it does things this way, right? Instead of the very long compile up front they do a smaller one up front and then run it in the background.
They seem to imply that because the game is heavy by default this is what’s causing people’s performance issues. I don’t know that I agree, but there’s probably part of it.
My experience with it has been solid, but I do run high end hardware that is muscling past a lot of stuff.
I think as usual there is some confusion between compilation stutters and the game just being very heavy for the way it looks (which it is). People online seem to be scattershot about it.
And then there’s the people talking about it who don’t care but like to be mad online, which is also a thing.
And then there’s the weird dev that keeps mouthing off for no reason in ways that can’t possibly help.
Lots of things on this one.
Still I don’t think you’re expected to idle for fifteen minutes. That’s the point of the background compilation. You can still play more or less fine. Particularly on first boot the first fifteen of this should be a bunch of cutscenes anyway, and those lock at 30 (which I don’t like at all and so many games do now for some reason).
No.
Hell no.
That’s so bad.
For one thing this was clearly written by a human and fairly decently so, as these things go. Assuming you want humans to do journalism instead of shitty corpos outsourcing it all to chatbots, it may help to engage with it as intended every now and then.
For another thing, never assume anything you see on social media exists at all. It probably doesn’t. At best it’s a slice of it selected to get a rise out of you in one way or another. Yes, including here. Algorithms didn’t come up with the notion that people react more to stuff that makes them angry. I’m not saying to touch grass, but… like, touch some astroturf at least. Find a human who has touched grass once and ask them about it. Don’t live your life mediated by social media posts, what the hell.
And if you’re going to inhabit a semiotic ecosystem that exists primarily in the dregs of cyberdystopia at the very least put the work in of either understanding what’s being thrown at you via the firehose of constant worldwide anger or… you know, not reacting to it. You really have no obligation to add to this crap.
To be clear, I was going “we suck as a species” before I realized you’re saying if someone doesn’t plagiarize or summarize the content for you then you’re not gonna read it but will still react to the version of it that pops into your head. I wasn’t even considering that level of suck to be on purpose, let alone self-righteous.
I’m gonna go not be on the Internet for a second.
I feel the desire to grade sucking in a curve is part of the sucking.
FWIW, I don’t want people to copy/paste the body of the article when they share it, but I do want people to read the article before responding instead of reacting to an out of context headline. Which in turn would remove the need to use a crappy out of context quote in the headline to try to make people mad enough to click through.
I don’t know, I get the impression that we have plenty of suck to go around.
I swear I have no idea why they let him talk. He doesn’t even own the company, surely someone at 2K could just go… you know… shush.
I don’t even think the BL4 thing is that bad, on the face of it. There is really no need to make it worse.
“We have been made aware of some performance issues in certain systems in our new release, we’ll be looking into performance improvements in future patches”. It’s not that hard. At this point just copy/paste whatever the other thousand UE5 games said, go fix the wonky precompilation boot step and stop digging a hole.
Hell, it’s even easier than that, because they have actually pretty much put that out. All he really needed to do was shut up about it.
I mean, convenience is a factor.
And while Steam doesn’t typically sign exclusive stuff they are known to use store positioning as a bargaining chip for preferential treatment. You’d think Konami would be above needing that, but who knows.
Anyway, good game, whatever the reason for the delay. Someone who is on the fence about getting it on Steam go get it on GOG instead to make up for them tricking me.