If space sims can make as crazy of a comeback as they have, then RTSes will have their day as well.
Mirado's forum posts
@mirado: I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. In my opinion any service that decides to be an aggregator of digital goods needs to be held somewhat responsible for the goods that they are selling. Otherwise the situation could end up being like the GFWL garbage where Microsoft essentially said, "we don't give a fuck about this service and we're closing it down," and left all the work for patching the games into functional states with the developers of the original games. For all we know, the developers will find no value in patching their old games, leaving tons of games that used GFWL dead in the water.
If Steam as the middle man is not ensuring anything for me, then I'd rather just go the direct to developer route and download games straight from them. Like I said CDPR does it best. Their disc based releases have no DRM and don't need to launch through any third party service.
I guess we will, but one more thing:
If Steam were to shut down, I would hope they'd release the content to users, or at least shut down in some graceful way that wouldn't blow everything up like the GFWL debacle. On that, we both agree. The issue I have is when a game is going to be rendered inoperable by something other than Steam's hand. I don't feel Steam should handle that, and I am not a lawyer but I'm somewhat sure they don't even have a legal basis to do that if they wanted to, as the IP isn't theirs.
(In other words, GFWL shutting down and taking the games with it is shitty and should never happen, but if a game were to shut down on GFWL's service while they were still up, I wouldn't make it their duty to save it.)
The problem with the direct developer route is twofold. First, unity: in purely single player games, it doesn't matter, but for multiplayer, I've gotten used to the idea of keeping everyone within one service for the sake of convenience. Battlefield going to Origin only was a giant pain in my ass, and as such I played a lot less of that game then I would have otherwise. That may not be a problem for you.
The second is connivence; I just cannot get back to the idea of having to dig out a CD if I want to reinstall a game, or put it on a 2nd PC, or whatever. In five seconds I can have any game in my library downloading to my PC. Five seconds! And I can do it from my phone, on the go. See a game on sale, buy it on my phone, hit download, and it'll be on my machine at home before I am.
That's crazy! I've exchanged monetary value for a product through the air, to my home, all while I'm reading a book or getting coffee or taking a shit. That's the future! You are fighting the future!
Embrace the "buying things and remotely installing them while pooping" future!
Comparing digital services to something like the retail experience at Best Buy as you did isn't a good comparison because it isn't 1:1. A potential benefit of going digital, as others have stated in this thread, is that your games are stored elsewhere, and even if your stuff is destroyed in a fire or a robbing, you can always access it via another computer. This is an inherently different thing then when you buy, say a TV, from Best Buy. You buy a physical thing expecting that it can eventually break, because it is a physical thing and susceptible to wear. The benefit of digital is that it isn't susceptible to wear, and should theoretically last you forever. If digital distribution platforms such as Steam cannot even guarantee that aspect, then why should I ever fully want to go digital?
But I think it is a good comparison, because we operate on the assumption that if a title has a gameplay breaking bug in it, the developers that made it will fix it. Not Steam or Origin or Desura, but the developer. The same goes for keeping multiplayer servers and services running without a hitch; the developer said "this game has online multiplayer," so they are responsible for ensuring that it does. I cannot see how that is Valve's obligation, just like I cannot expect Best Buy to fix my television.
Now, I agree fully that when I buy something on Steam, I have the expectation that by storing my games (or at least my ownership of a game) offsite, I'm safer and better off than a physical copy. I expect to have access to my titles from wherever and whenever. That's not a disagreeable notion. But you somehow turned this into "Steam must ensure the functionality of all games" which I cannot agree with. You never had that guarantee even with disk based distribution.
So, why go digital?
- Simplicity. I never have to worry about rotating disks in my drive (hell, I don't even have a CD drive anymore) or fishing for CD keys. I don't have game boxes taking up my (limited) space, I don't have to worry about scratching anything, and so on. All my games stay up to date as long as I have them installed with no hassle. If I want to play a title, I hit download, it installs, and I play.
- Connectivity. By unifiying my games collection under one service, I don't have to juggle multiple friends lists. Anyone that I want to play with is listed in one place, I can easily hop into a game and join them, and you have all that other social bullshit that I don't engage in that much, but some people love. Obviously, it isn't a 100% perfect system; some games still have third party DRM that sort of ruins the whole perfect world, but they are getting there.
- Modification. The Steam Workshop system allows easy mod installation; no more trawling through forums to find the right version of whatever, just one click and the content is in. This really extends the life of certain titles; Jeff just looked at Audiosurf 2 and even in a pre-release form, there are many conversions of that game which I imagine would keep fans interested for longer. As more and more titles hook into Steam Workshop, the variety of content will increase.
I never once thought "Steam will keep the muliplayer servers of all my games up" or "Steam will ensure that the downfall of a company will not render the title inoperable." That happens with disks anyways. It isn't an additional negative.
Just so you know, this is all hypothetical, since I do own quite a few games on Steam, and Steam does have some other benefits like its sales and what not. I just find it shitty from customers point of view that nothing your buying digitally is really ever secure. And it's not secure because we as customers don't pressure the other companies to make it more secure, and we are just complacent. I'm mean don't you think it's ridiculous that only just a few digital distribution services have recently allowed no hassle returns if their game doesn't work as advertised? I mean even on Steam, if a game is messed up right now, the return process is a huge hassle. It really shouldn't be. We should expect more.
Not really? I mean, you'd have a hard time returning a boxed PC game to a store anyway. The potential for abuse is massive, and I totally understand why it's taken as long as it has for a company to figure out a way to not get screwed. GoG's policy is wonderful and I would hope that Valve eventually implements something similar in Steam, but I totally understand why it's taken as long as it has and may take even longer. It's a goal to aim for.
There's nothing wrong with pushing for goals like "no 3rd party DRM on Steam" or "a no (or at least less) hassle return policy on Steam." That's fine and cool and I'm right there with you. But "Steam has to make sure Floppy Bunny Adventure XVI's multiplayer servers keep going forrrrreeeeveeerrrrr" is batshit insane. Club the developer over the head with that demand, not Steam.
4-2 was always my go to spot for farming. You can pop the mantas, run past the merchant, stay on the ledge and kill the reaper in under 45 seconds with a good bow, and doing that will net you over half a million per hour (on NG, you get way more on NG+) if you are quick enough and can stand the tedium.
On NG+ you may need to pepper that Reaper a few more times than on NG, but I assume something like a lava bow would still kill him in a few shots.
@slag: Hold on a minute, did you actually read the article you linked? It clearly said it was pulled because the developer included always-on DRM and they shut down their servers, rendering the game literally unplayable. Steam and Valve had absolutely no part in that fiasco and are in no way responsible for what happened
If Steam is hosting the game for sale through their service, then it is a %100 their duty to ensure that the item sold will be playable even in weird scenarios like that.
It absolutely isn't. Why would it be? That's like saying it's a retailer's duty to honor warranties if the producing company goes out of business. How the hell is it not the developer who fucked up there? You could argue that they should ban always-on DRM from their service, but I don't know if they could really force the big publishers hands on that and anyway what about online-multiplayer-only games, then? Do you think it's also their duty to say, host multiplayer servers for games whose publishers discontinue service?
It absolutely is. If Steam wants to be the all in one place to get your digital games, then it should have checks in place to protect its customers. Any game that goes on Steam should have to agree to have some way of accessing that game should the company flop and go under. I realize that the reality of the matter is multiplayer servers for any said game will eventually have to go down, but if you're paying full price, you should be protected as a customer in some way, shape or form. Maybe a safeguard like, should any multiplayer only games server go down, have an easy way for customers to be able to setup their own servers for the game. Peer to peer or something.
If you go to Best Buy and purchase a television, what do you get? You get the TV itself, the accessories, and a manufacture's warranty. As long as that TV doesn't blow up during the limited return window (15 days), Best Buy isn't liable for any problems. TV stops working six months in? Send it to the company that makes it. If it blows up out of warranty? Fuck you, buy a new TV. Those warranties they sell you? All third party. They simply move TVs from the makers to the consumers.
That's just how it is, man. Expecting Valve to be some kinda digital distribution guardian angel is silly. They are selling you products. As long as that product works on launch (or as long as the developer intends to fix it on launch), they are in the clear. It's the same risk as with boxed copies. Selling it digitally isn't an automatic "you are responsible for this" button that the consumer presses, which binds Valve to make the game work forevermore. If you buy a boxed version of a game and the company dies and takes their DRM servers with them, are you going to cry to Wal-Mart to make the disk work again?
I thought this was about Valve going under, not the companies that sell games. The risk of a game not working because of that has been around on the PC for years. Sometimes, a game still has massive bugs when the developers go under, and the fucking fans had to make patches to get it working again.
I think you are hilariously overestimating Valve's responsibilities.
@liquidprince: That's insane. That's like saying Valve has to keep the servers running for every company that ever shuts down and takes a multiplayer title with them. The single player still works and is still on Steam. What more do you want out of them?
Steam is a distribution/social platform, nothing more. In the same way you do not run to Valve when there's a bug in a Capcom game, you wouldn't run to Valve to make them keep someone else's servers up. Would you go to Wal-Mart and demand they make Order of War work if you bought it from there? At best, if the game was never fit for purpose, I can see you getting a refund. But having a game for X years, and it stops working? Those are the breaks.
I don't think there's a single developer that guarantees their games forever. Is that right? Should a multiplayer game still work 20 years from now, like old games could? I don't know, but it certainly isn't practical. Companies rise and fall, and we're moving into an age of impermanence. Hell, even the old games have dead battery backups and corroded contacts, with few and fewer ways to replace or fix them. But I don't see how any of that falls on Valve's shoulders. Once a game is proven to work on launch, that they have sold you a product in good faith of it working, I don't see how you can shift any blame to them for what happens after.
As always, Caveat Emptor.
I usually play a game once or twice, and never touch it again. The rare games that I go back to are usually hooked into some online component, so if that were to go down, the game would be useless to me anyway, boxed copy or not.
I tried to bust out some old Intellivision games only to realize the console had more or less gone on me. So, fat lot of good those carts are doing me now. :/
It doesn't seem like a big deal to me. If Steam were to die tomorrow, I could still find the games around. Hell, out of that library of 300 or more, I really only care about five or so. The rest I'd probably use once every 10 years or so.
@aegon: Yes and no. Some films are masterpieces of cinematography, striking works of color and framing that I feel are timeless. On the other hand, some films are notable for pioneering certain (now common) genre conventions that, while impressive in a historical context, don't stand out the way they would back when they were released.
Seven Samurai, for instance, was one of the earliest films to show the recruitment and gathering of protagonists before the actual conflict in the story, and Ebert thought that this might be the first movie to introduce the hero by showing an unrelated side story to help establish his character before moving into the main arc. The problem is that a bunch of movies have done that since then, (the Ocean's series among many others) and while it remains a well-directed samurai action flick, it doesn't do anything spectacular outside of that narrow historical window.
Others though, like Ran (I'll let some of my own personal bias leak into this) are just so visually appealing and framed so well that I fell they hold up regardless of their age. Ironically, I think the less innovative and groundbreaking, the better they hold up.
I think the popular response will be Seven Samurai, but I really liked Ran and its Eastern take on a Shakespeare story.
Plus, it had some really beautiful shots and usage of color, such as the castle fire scene. Really haunting stuff.
Well then...Kill la Kill got stupid.
The final reveal as to what the Life Fibers are and where they came from...what the fuck? Who thought that was a good idea?
EDIT: In fact it has end up becoming a stupider version of Mass Effect.
More stupid? It Came From Outer Space is a poor plot point, sure, but dude rode a fucking tank covered in kobe beef like two episodes ago. This show hit peak stupid right out of the gate.
Whether or not you see that as a negative is personal, I guess. :/