Yup. If it’s important enough that devs now have to add a disclaimer on the store page, surely devs shouldn’t be allowed to circumvent that by adding it later. Since SteamDeck customers are affected by this the most, it’s weird that this isn’t already a rule, particularly for games that are SteamDeck verified.
Or the opposite: We only need one of those randomizers that shuffles the unlocks between multiple games. Just imagine one that incorporates Factorio, Satisfactory, shapez 2 and maybe Dyson Sphere Program. You’d be set for life.
The factory must grow (into other games).
Striking YT channels, expanding their Palworld lawsuit and now this? There’s no denying that they wasn’t always pretty litigious, but they’re picking up speed at an absurd pace. Did recently they hire some of Oracles lawyers or what?
Good thing there’s now enough competition in the handheld market, so I’m no longer reliant on their under-powered devices.
Kind of.
The big thing that actually defines FSR2 is that it has access to a bunch more data, particularly the depth buffer, motion vectors, and also, as you said, uses data from previous frames.
The camera jiggle is mostly just to avoid shimmering when the camera is stationary.
That’s always been their plan, but it’s getting hit with Valve Time. My guess is that they won’t do it until all issues the major with NVIDIA GPUs have been fixed, as a public build that doesn’t run properly on a majority of machines wouldn’t go well. The latest driver is pretty good, but the Big Picture mode is still pretty much unusable.
At the very least they’re currently trying to bring official support over to other handhelds, as they’ve already confirmed that they want to official support for the ROG Ally and pushed out a update to SteamOS for the controller support.
That, and monitor/TV size increased a lot at the time when flat panels became a thing, so you need a higher resolution just to achieve the same pixel density you already had on a smaller screen.
That’s assuming people actually use a parser and don’t build their own “parser” to read values manually.
And before anyone asks: Yes, I’ve known people who did exactly that and to this day I’m still traumatized by that discovery.
But yes, comments would’ve been nice.
On one hand I agree, on the other hand I just know that some people would immediately abuse it and put relevant data into comments.
As much as I’d like to see this game preserved, I don’t think the dev can be held responsible when they’re refunding everyone who purchased the game.
Yes, you’re just explaining regular piracy here. I do not care. It’s a thing that’s already been possible for almost every single-player game in existence, and yet, there’s a constant stream of new single-player games releasing every day. Weird, right?
At least try to make an effort to understand what I write.
I said it’s their job to figure out how to do DRM -if- they want DRM. If they can’t figure out how to do that then the answer shouldn’t need to be spelled out explicitly: No DRM. Simple as that.
If you’d rather see games you spent money on being taken away from you based on the whims of corporations, just to make sure others who might not have payed for it also can’t play it, then I don’t know what to tell you.
If they want to keep some form of DRM then that’s not my job to figure out. This wasn’t a problem back in the day when server software being distributed was the norm, so it shouldn’t be a problem now.
Though personally I’d be in favor of abolishing online DRM entirely, but that’s another story.
If they can play against bots, which already exist in the game, or band enough people together with access to the game to play on a server one player is able to host, then yes. That’s what I’d expect at a minimum.
nobody paid
That’s just blatantly false. People bought the founders pack were never refunded for example. Those people being entitled to the server software or a refund is anything but greedy, even if that only applies to a single person.
The other answer from @ampseandrew@lemmy.world already covers most points, so I’ll just a few things:
If a game asks for money in any kind of way: Yes. That should be the cost of (trying to do) business.
Alternatively, a full refund for everyone involved, even Kickstarter backers, would also be acceptable.
Hello, sole arbiter of a game’s worth.
Of course not every game is a certified banger, but there’s more than enough notable games on that list that made an impact on the industry and should’ve been preserved for that fact alone.
Taking away a game you bought because the game was intentionally made to rely on a server is always scummy behavior. That’s the whole point.
https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Category:Unplayable_games
And that’s only PC games.
Aside from better server side detection, which is I agree is severely underdeveloped, I’d say that the next big step should be a much bigger reliance on reputation-based matchmaking, ideally across games. It would need to be built in a way that’s not abusable by devs or trolls and should be as privacy-respecting as much as possible (as in, not having to validate with your ID South-Korean style), which isn’t an easy task. Working properly however, it would keep honest players from seeing any cheaters at all with no client-side anticheat required at all, which would be nice.