RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS

[Keyrock]

This is the first multiplayer-focused shooter I've been legitimately excited for in probably a decade (this trailer focuses on the single player part of the game, but, to the best of my knowledge, multiplayer is still the meat of the game).

 

 

Of course, the term "shooter" is applied a bit loosely to this game, since it seems completely different from traditional shooters (which is exactly why it appeals to me), but I think it still applies.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Keyrock

[Lexx]

I find this interesting:

 

http://asidcast.com/index.php/2014/11/new-drm-denuvo-might-damaging-ssd/

 

Apparently the Denuvo DRM is bad for your SSD if you got one. It ain't that good for yer old HDD either, though.

[Fighter]

I find this interesting:

 

http://asidcast.com/index.php/2014/11/new-drm-denuvo-might-damaging-ssd/

 

Apparently the Denuvo DRM is bad for your SSD if you got one. It ain't that good for yer old HDD either, though.

 

That's just great...

[Tale]

http://forum.bioware.com/topic/520802-denuvo-is-not-frying-your-hard-drive/

 

Or maybe not.

[HoonDing]

True or not, I wouldn't ever want crap like that on my hard drive.

[Drowsy Emperor]

This seems to be a resurrection of the StarForce controversy. Piracy is a business and StarForce was bad for it, so a successful disinformation campaign (claiming hardware damage, among other things) was launched against it resulting in its abandonment. I expect a similar push now. The idea is to gather a critical mass of people to pressure companies into giving up on it. 

 

On a related note, I don't support DRM schemes, particularly online ones (and especially garbage ones like Origin and that horrendous Uplay) and will not pay full price for any game featuring one, particularly those games that depend on online servers for a fully functional single player experience.  EA games is notorious for taking servers down on games that still have players but are under whatever the EA's acceptable numbers are.

Therefore the most they'll get from me is 5$ and even that will make me wince. 

In general, I support running them into the ground and hope they go bankrupt, sooner rather than later for the good of us all.

 

GOG and CDP however, have my full support and I will pay full price if I'm able.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[Zoraptor]

Starforce did damage hardware (CD/DVD drives), it was actually provable practically as well as theoretically. Some labelled it as FUD due to Starforce's 'competition' to prove it happened (pay your own flights to Moscow where you'd have a day to prove it on their picked hardware) which unsurprisingly got no takers.

 

OTOH the denuvo accusations appear to be pretty much entirely bollocks, like the accusations of Origin spying from a few years back. And as always it's a shame so many 'antiDRM' crusaders appear to be perfectly happy with that well known drm platform, steam.

[Malcador]

Isn't Origin DRM enough?

[Zoraptor]

Would have thought so, though Origin's utility as DRM is limited as is every client that does not require always online.

 

While the claim that denuvo destroys SSDs is distinctly sketchy they've admitted that it degrades performance significantly, which makes it crap anyway.

[Fighter]

While the claim that denuvo destroys SSDs is distinctly sketchy they've admitted that it degrades performance significantly, which makes it crap anyway.

 

I hope it gets cracked, cracked good and cracked hard, so it dies and gets washed down the toilet..

 

It would be hilarious if pirated versions perform better. Way to screw people who are actually willing to pay.

[Malcador]

Big AAA games like it get cracked anyways, more so if there's ever some nifty DRM scheme announced.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Starforce did damage hardware (CD/DVD drives), it was actually provable practically as well as theoretically. Some labelled it as FUD due to Starforce's 'competition' to prove it happened (pay your own flights to Moscow where you'd have a day to prove it on their picked hardware) which unsurprisingly got no takers.

 

OTOH the denuvo accusations appear to be pretty much entirely bollocks, like the accusations of Origin spying from a few years back. And as always it's a shame so many 'antiDRM' crusaders appear to be perfectly happy with that well known drm platform, steam.

 

I always though that the damaged hardware claims were unsubstantiated.

 

As far as Steam is concerned, its a very well working system with a few tangible advantages. That said, I have twenty something games on it and my primary motivation for buying them there was to take advantage of rock bottom sales. I could never get as good deals with Serbian retail prices being what they are. Steam is definitely a step back from the previous status of de facto ownership we had over our games, but if you treat it as a place to get disposable games at ridiculous prices, its not bad.

[Malcador]

[Keyrock]

So, a team deathmatch type shooter?

[Drowsy Emperor]

http://www.pcgamer.com/elite-dangerous-refund-policy-detailed-after-offline-support-dropped/

 

Elite is being refunded for those that want it, but only if they pre-ordered it and have not played the beta. Those that have been playing the beta, regardless of whether they KS the game or whatever, can't get a refund.

[Nonek]

Seems to me that these developers simply don't realise that they're poisoning the well they're drinking from, even as a quite prolific Kickstarter backer i'm becoming worried about the anti consumer practises that are being indulged in now.

[Drowsy Emperor]

I'm more worried about the people that are backing the developer on this one with arguments like "nothing is for certain on Kickstarter, they haven't definitely promised anything etc.". Its the sort of argumentation one would expect from a paid attorney. Neoliberal "business > consumer" dogma seems to have permeated the general public to an incredible degree, that it will in fact, argue against its own interests.

 

Some people paid 100$+ for alpha/beta access to support the game and now they're screwed out of a refund because their participation in the online gameplay is taken as an admission that they, what, don't need the offline mode? Can get by without it? While that is probably true, its still completely unrelated to the fact that a key feature has been removed from the game and that its no longer the same product as originally advertised.

[Keyrock]

Seems to me that these developers simply don't realise that they're poisoning the well they're drinking from, even as a quite prolific Kickstarter backer i'm becoming worried about the anti consumer practises that are being indulged in now.

I take it on a case by case basis.  For example, I backed inXile's Wasteland 2.  They delivered, in my eyes, exactly the game they promised and a game I very much enjoyed.  If Mr. Fargo decides to do another Kickstarter after TToN (which I already backed) and it's a game that appeals to me, I won't hesitate to back it.  On the flip side, while I didn't (thankfully) back Elite Dangerous, given recent events, I would have great reservations about backing another Braben project.  Another negative example is Broken Age (Double Fine Adventure) which I did back.  Given how obscenely overdue the game is, with the second half still nowhere in sight, and the crap Double Fine pulled with Spacebase DF 9, I wouldn't back another Tim Schafer project at gunpoint, even if it was Psychonauts 2.  So, for me personally, any single case of not delivering, whether it's a game entirely failing to materialize, or major promised features being cut, doesn't turn me off crowdfunding as a whole.  I will continue to evaluate projects on a case by case basis.  I do realize that, for the masses as a whole, your assumption is very likely correct and some high profile failings may sour broad public perception and turn people off crowdfunding entirely.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Keyrock

[HoonDing]

Motoko's combat suit never showed cleavage. She was professional when she had to be.

[pmp10]

Some people paid 100$+ for alpha/beta access to support the game and now they're screwed out of a refund because their participation in the online gameplay is taken as an admission that they, what, don't need the offline mode? Can get by without it? While that is probably true, its still completely unrelated to the fact that a key feature has been removed from the game and that its no longer the same product as originally advertised.

Pardon me for being unsympathetic but considering how little the final product has changed the whole thing has been massively overblown.

Crowd sourced products have repeatedly done worse by their supporters and got away without even half the outrage.

[Hurlshort]

I'm more worried about the people that are backing the developer on this one with arguments like "nothing is for certain on Kickstarter, they haven't definitely promised anything etc.". Its the sort of argumentation one would expect from a paid attorney. Neoliberal "business > consumer" dogma seems to have permeated the general public to an incredible degree, that it will in fact, argue against its own interests.

 

Some people paid 100$+ for alpha/beta access to support the game and now they're screwed out of a refund because their participation in the online gameplay is taken as an admission that they, what, don't need the offline mode? Can get by without it? While that is probably true, its still completely unrelated to the fact that a key feature has been removed from the game and that its no longer the same product as originally advertised.

 

You are investing, not buying a product, when you use kickstarter.  The chances of your investment failing are clearly stated.  

[Malcador]

Well, failing and the product changing are slightly different.

[Gorgon]

Not an investment surely, that implies getting a cut of the profits if the venture succeeds. You are just helping in a small way the odds of the game getting made. 

 

I also think that after the first wave of kickstarters devs are very much going to be judged by their last effort. Screw it up in  big way and you might not get another chance. 

[Keyrock]

I also think that after the first wave of kickstarters devs are very much going to be judged by their last effort. Screw it up in  big way and you might not get another chance. 

Nor should you.

[Nonek]

What i'm personally worried about is the devs who have delivered and are trying to deliver niche products to the market are going to be swimming in the waters poisoned by Tim Schafer, Anita Sarkeesian and others who have failed to produce what they promised, despite being massively overfunded. The Expeditions: Conquistador devs for instance produced an amazing game on a pittance with hardly any publicity, I would not wish to see their future crowdfunding efforts endangered by the aboves flagrantly anti consumer practises. It would be harmful to them, and us as the consumer, as we are deprived of a good game.

 

Would Kickstarter benefit from a vetting procedure? Or is that vetting allready performed by the wise customer, and the only precaution should be Caveat Emptor?