Z

There are also video games in libraries, and there are books in libraries with components that are unusable these days. Nobody is required by law to support these components in perpetuity. Nor is any publishing company required by law to maintain support for a book in perpetuity in any way.

Nor is anybody required by law to help you fix your classic car. People with classic cars spend tons of money to find spare parts or even get them manufactured. This is despite the fact that cars are much more of a necessity than video games.

Likewise, if you paid a video game to keep their servers open, or paid them for their source code, they’d give it to you. If you paid a smart person to reverse engineer the network protocol and write an equivalent server, you’d have your part.

Yes, and if you don’t like it you don’t have to buy them. It’s why I prefer not to use Steam.

If games have to be playable in perpetuity, then you can’t buy a game that isn’t playable in perpetuity.

But what is also unreasonable is needless, always online DRM that shuts down one day.

There are lots of video games without forced online DRM, and video games aren’t a necessity. You can simply stop buying games from these services and let people who don’t care about such things continue to buy them.

So you want to legally require game companies to “preserve history” in perpetuity, unlike every other kind of company in existence?

’

The second sentence isn’t true.

What SKG does is mandate that your purchased product be technically possible to be usable in perpetuity, or refund the cost of it.

That’s a ridiculous requirement. If you want to buy games that are playable in perpetuity, buy games that are playable in perpetuity.

But the whole market isn’t shitty rip offs.

You don’t need to be protected from video game sales, you need to be protected from fraudulent game sales, that’s it.

If you want to buy a game that runs on proprietary servers that will shutdown one day, you should be allowed to do that.

Let’s just give up on “roguelike” and start calling traditional roguelikes “rogues”.

Sunless Sea is a roguelike, Nethack is a rogue.

That’s all we need for games.

Gamers don’t need to be protected from bad games because gamers don’t need good games. Anything that’s a real good or service should obviously be more regulated.

Why? You aren’t buying the servers. You can simply not buy games that don’t have third-party servers.

If you buy a copy of a game, that copy should be your in perpetuity. Beyond that. there’s no need for regulation.

With 15 filler episodes.

Was this written by an ai? Yeah xwing was good but so was wingcommander for the same reasons. Every good space combat game done since then has basically duplicated the experience.

Play it multiplayer. It’s the bullet stormy mindless shooter you wanted, and its a blast.

I played Civ 1 the other day and the AI was so bad it was un-fun. Civ 2 might be better.

Ancient Art of War (1984), an RTS release long before the RTS boom of the '90s kicked off by Dune 2.

AAoW demanded that you feed your troops or they’d desert, and they would tire as they marched, making them less effective in combat.

You don’t see that except in the most forbidding turn-based war games, but AAoW had a great interface. You’d think it’d be micromanagement hell but it wasn’t.

The game also included zoom-in battles (optional, but fun), and critical terrain effects.