Search Results
7/1/2025, 10:12:17 PM
>>714193652
I like the idea, but in this landscape I don't think it the result will be positive when you realize how far corporations are willing to go try to squeeze customers at every turn. Let's say that a new law is made. Greedy kikes could still find ways to fuck everything up.
1) Mandatory singleplayer and/or local multiplayer mode for games having online functionality
>Expectation
Good, fully released singleplayer campaign that would not feel lacking without a multiplayer mode.
>Reality
Devs cut corners on the solo mode, feels like a demo with the bare minimum of content (10% if not less compared to the online) to qualify as a full-fledged videogame.
2) Server tools, online connectivity and infrastructure for the game changing hands from developers/publishers to the remaining players of the community after they decide to terminate the online services.
>Expectation
Ability for players to host dedicated servers or play Peer To Peer depending on the game just like it used to be common practice 20 years ago even before games ceased to be supported by devs.
>Reality
Hobbyists and consumers have to pay a massive fee to IP/copyright holders in order to obtain a franchising license and hold their own servers, on the basis that keeping the game alive can potentially hurt the sales and keep players away from buying the future products the company might want to make.
3) Games are actually sold as a service via renewable subscriptions, no grey area left
>Expectation
The consumer knows what he's signing up for. He is purchasing a temporary access to a service which can be terminated. He will never own the game, he is buying a weekly/monthly subscription to access the game servers and content upon which functionality of the game relies on. No additional in-games purchases: you can obtain everything in the game just by playing.
>Reality
Almost nothing changes. Worst case scenario and bad practice, but at least respectful of consumer rights.
I like the idea, but in this landscape I don't think it the result will be positive when you realize how far corporations are willing to go try to squeeze customers at every turn. Let's say that a new law is made. Greedy kikes could still find ways to fuck everything up.
1) Mandatory singleplayer and/or local multiplayer mode for games having online functionality
>Expectation
Good, fully released singleplayer campaign that would not feel lacking without a multiplayer mode.
>Reality
Devs cut corners on the solo mode, feels like a demo with the bare minimum of content (10% if not less compared to the online) to qualify as a full-fledged videogame.
2) Server tools, online connectivity and infrastructure for the game changing hands from developers/publishers to the remaining players of the community after they decide to terminate the online services.
>Expectation
Ability for players to host dedicated servers or play Peer To Peer depending on the game just like it used to be common practice 20 years ago even before games ceased to be supported by devs.
>Reality
Hobbyists and consumers have to pay a massive fee to IP/copyright holders in order to obtain a franchising license and hold their own servers, on the basis that keeping the game alive can potentially hurt the sales and keep players away from buying the future products the company might want to make.
3) Games are actually sold as a service via renewable subscriptions, no grey area left
>Expectation
The consumer knows what he's signing up for. He is purchasing a temporary access to a service which can be terminated. He will never own the game, he is buying a weekly/monthly subscription to access the game servers and content upon which functionality of the game relies on. No additional in-games purchases: you can obtain everything in the game just by playing.
>Reality
Almost nothing changes. Worst case scenario and bad practice, but at least respectful of consumer rights.
Page 1