Quoting: ssj17vegeta

Quoting: Mountain ManI know Paradox gets a lot of flack for their seemingly endless DLC releases, but you have to admit, they do actively support their games for a very long time.

I wouldn't call it a support out of kindness. Their whole business model is based on selling DLCs for years then selling it all over again when they release the next game, so it makes sense their games get a decade of updates, much like what EA did with The Sims 4.

What they (rightfully) get shit for is not quality but quantity. Some DLCs only consist of adding 3 buttons (Dharma for EU4) or like 100 events (Friends and Foes for CK3) which more or less amounts to adding several assets and filling a JSON file with new text, not the big programming gameplay challenge it seems to be). People wouldn't mind so much if those DLCs sold for one buck. Alas it's not the case.

Worse thing is, since they went public, the content per dollar for their releases have gone a steady downward spiral, again, much like every other AAA publisher out there, so, no surprise about this shrinkflation. When you compare for example CK3's Northern Lords to CK2's Old Gods in terms of music, events, gameplay additions, it's... mind-boggling.

Except every DLC release also comes with a free patch that fixes bugs, and in many cases adds new features and content, so even if you never buy a single bit of DLC, you would still benefit from the continued support. And since the DLC is released a la carte, you can pick and choose only the ones that appeal to you, if any.

Of course there is a lot of "fear of missing out" from some folks who have convinced themselves they are getting a lesser experience even if they have no interest in a particular release, and they seem to be the ones who complain the loudest.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I know Paradox gets a lot of flack for their seemingly endless DLC releases, but you have to admit, they do actively support their games for a very long time.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So it's basically XCOM with superheroes.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Fallout 4 for $5 is awfully tempting.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Theodis

Quoting: Mountain ManThe solution is simple: if a game is sold as a service, or as a code in box, and you don't want to support it with your money, then don't. There's no need for the government to get involved and make things worse, as governments notoriously do.

Quoting: Mountain ManAs is usual in these kinds of debates, idealism is often in direct conflict with reality.

Yeah totally crazy how some people put 100% faith in the free market magically resolving all issues on its own...

The best way to get a company's attention is to hit them where it hurts: their profit margin. The problem here is that I don't think there are enough people who really care about this. When a game goes offline, the majority of folks will just shrug their shoulders and move on to the next one, so companies have no incentive to change. It's why "free to play" continues to be so popular -- and profitable -- despite the games themselves being objectively terrible. Another case where idealism runs face first into reality.

Since the only thing you have any real control over is your own behavior, then the best solution is to not support companies that employ business practices you happen to disagree with.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: finaldest100% behind this.

I want to see legislation put in place to make it illegal to take away access from a game after purchase and also bring in legislation to allow re sale of digital games.

I would also like to see physical releases with a download code banned. If I buy a physical copy then I want a fully offline playable game on the disk.

If the online multiplayer servers of a game is shut down then the games online portion should be open sourced to allow preservation.

If publishers abandon a game by not releasing a game for active purchase on any platform then that game should be considered abandonware and thus be put into public domain.

We need to fight back.

The solution is simple: if a game is sold as a service, or as a code in box, and you don't want to support it with your money, then don't. There's no need for the government to get involved and make things worse, as governments notoriously do.

What's not so simple is asking a company to release code that they may not have the legal right to release as open source. In the case of "abandonware", the game may include licensed art and music that the respective owners haven't abandoned and can not be put into public domain.

As is usual in these kinds of debates, idealism is often in direct conflict with reality.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This is not going to be a popular response, but if it's made clear to the customer up front that a game is being offered as a service with no guarantee of continued support, and the customer buys it with this knowledge, then a company has no moral or legal obligation to make that game playable in the event the servers are taken offline, and I don't believe they should be legally forced to any more than a streaming video service should be forced to make all of their content available in perpetuity.

The correct solution is to try and convince consumers to stop buying those kinds of products (good luck), and market forces will naturally take care of the rest.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Manjaro just pushed out an update.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I suspect disabling family sharing will quickly become the default for most studios.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I guess the "one person is banned, you're all banned" rule is meant to safeguard against a dozen people all sharing the same game library, but I can't imagine developers and publishers are going to be too thrilled about the possibility of this feature cutting into their sales.

View this comment - View article - View full comments