• 14 Posts
  • 188 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle




  • I haven’t played FFXIV (perhaps one day I will), so no comment there; I did play Warframe for quite some time (forgor 💀), and… fair enough (I still feel like HD2 has a higher mass/volume ratio, in a way).

    But… Destiny 2? The two seasons I’ve been through had me considerably less hooked on what was going on, compared to the very first change of pace HD2 had since I enlisted, despite the difference in (production_value / event) if that makes sense.

    A D2 season was basically a small storyline gated by chores; on the other hand, my pre–lvl150unlockedeverythingthegamehastooffer HD2 experience was “hey I’m directly part of this neat event I can participate in right away” rather than “I need to play for 2h every evening to get my level up so that EVENTUALLY I can get to the stuff that was paid for (unless I take too long, in which case lol sucker)”.

    Hell, I grew up on Bungie’s Halo, so if I wasn’t aware of the studios’ full history (which I wasn’t) brand loyalty alone would’ve had me favor my time with D2 over HD2. But it wasn’t enough.






  • No, I got it, but if Helldivers 2 is an existing game today it is also an existing game at the time of potential regulation, dead or alive.

    The Helldivers 2 backend has been planned before the EU mandates end-of-life plans
    -> Arrowhead designed the Helldivers 2 backend before the EU mandates end-of-life plans
    -> the EU can’t (or shouldn’t) mandate Arrowhead or Sony to design the Helldivers 2 backend in a way to accomodate compliant end-of-life plans.

    To emphasize my point: judging by how things have been going, a significant part of the game is spaghetti code, which doesn’t bode well for said EOL plans.


  • https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq

    Isn’t it impractical, if not impossible, to make online-only multiplayer games work without company servers?

    Not at all. […] If a company has designed a game with no thought given towards the possibility of letting users run the game without their support, then yes, this can be a challenging goal to transition to. […] it could be problematic for some games of today, but there is no reason it needs to be for games of the future.

    Isn’t what you’re asking for impossible due to existing license agreements publishers have with other companies?

    For existing video games, it’s possible that some being sold cannot have an “end of life” plan as they were created with necessary software that the publisher doesn’t have permission to redistribute. […] For the European Citizens’ Initiative in particular, even if passed, its effects would not be retroactive. So while it may not be possible to prevent some existing games from being destroyed, if the law were to change, future games could be designed with “end of life” plans and stop this trend.

    … we are talking about the EU initiative in particular, right? I assumed so, mb if that wasn’t the case but given Ross’ “I just want this to happen” attitude I still believe they’re not going for retroactive legislation.




  • The reason it’s not retroactive is that existing games and games already being developed would require significant efforts to restructure in a way that would make them compliant to proposed laws; SKG only seeks to protect games whose development has not begun yet, and games that are generating revenue being preserved is not a primary goal.

    How would you decide the cost of rewriting the innards of a live service anyway? It could go from a coffee and 200$ in cash paid to an intern, to an entire year and tens of millions of dollars spent between dev time, perpetual licenses and royalties.
    While I agree that they should spend that capital in the first place, you’d have to convince lawmakers - people without any technical expertise - that such policy wouldn’t do more harm than good.