Starfield? Try Fallout 76.
Hell, Fallout 4 was still not a great game, but at least it was functional and had a story. As soon as they announced that there was zero NPCs in Fallout 76, I knew that they COMPLETELY lost the plot, and the point of any of their previous RPGs.
Wtf happened to bethesda
Todd
That’s exactly my point. Reddit is still shit, and you can’t exactly fork the data, because they’ve locked down the API.
Bluesky could do the exact same thing.
Imagine getting sued by Nintendo because you said the word “Nintendon’t”.
Those pussies couldn’t even put out their tag line without having some legal blurb at the bottom.
Oh noes… my registered trademark!
Bluesky is centralized but it seems like its design is committed enough to open technology that it would take them a long time to walk it back
Let’s not forget that Reddit’s code is open source. Just because their technology is open doesn’t mean that the data, usage, and network are protected.
Wow, this “journalist” had no idea what games programming was like back then. Yars Revenge even used its own code to display the neutral zone. There were a lot of creative tricks like that to save on memory and CPU.
Tanks!
Had a ton of fun with that one when I was a kid.
Imagine going back to exclusivity with gaming consoles. PCs, and by extension, Steam won the console wars, and Nintendo is just trying its damnest to hold on to the last gasp of gaming exclusivity.
I’m not trying to frame this in the context of the lawsuit, even though that’s the point of the original article. The Crew’s nonfunctionality is just a consequence of our lack of ownership.
Perhaps this article would explain things better than I could.
Ultimately I think what consumers are looking for is less like ownership and more like a warranty
No. That’s not true. Otherwise people wouldn’t be reciting this phrase over and over again.
Consumers want to fucking own shit again! Renting everything is the entire fucking problem.
How are the two related?
A user obtains the game through legitimate means by “buying” the game. However, they do not own the game, and are in fact, just renting something. This is despite decades and decades of game buying, especially pre-Internet, equating to owning the game and being able to play the game forever, even 100 years from now.
By pirating the game, a user has clawed back the implied social construct that existed for decades past: Acquiring a game through piracy means that you own the game. You have it in a static form that cannot be taken away from you. There’s still the case of server shutdowns, like this legal case is arguing. But, unlike the “buyer”, the game cannot suddenly disappear from a game’s store or be forcefully uninstalled from your PC. You own it. You have the files. They cannot take that away from you.
The phrase essentially means: You have removed my means of owning software, therefore piracy is the only choice I have to own this game. It’s not stealing because it’s the only way to hold on to it forever. You know, because that’s what fucking “buying” was supposed to mean.
I would relish a lawsuit against EULAs where the defendant somehow sends the prosecutor a EULA in a software package that declares that they automatically lose the lawsuit by clicking Agree.
It would really hammer in the point that fucking NOBODY reads this shit.
Goddammit… get the quote right:
If buying ain’t owning, piracy ain’t stealing.
Because it’s a hack-and-slash Diablo clone. The whole point is quantity of enemies.
If you want Dark Souls, go make another game and call it something else. You can’t just make Starcraft, and then say that Starcraft 2 is going to be an FPS.
Yes, because getting so lost in the skill tree that you can easily gimp your character by clicking on the wrong node is exactly the direction they need to push more towards.
Doesn’t seem like a very “open source” price to me.
Good job, reporter! You’ve done your work to signal boost an AAA game for corporate profits without managing to actually add any new information!
Games “Journalism” 2025!