Poopfeast420

If it passed in its current form, my fear is that it would effectively be an extra tax and burden just for choosing to make games instead of some other type of media, and I’m concerned investors would see it that way too, and move their financial support to these surer bets, ultimately harming individual game developers and lessening game releases.

But for most games, I don't think it would it be an extra burden? As an armchair developer, most games might do a DRM check online, which would have to get removed or emulated or something.

For multiplayer shooters, I don't know if dev hosted servers are somehow a lot easier to do, compared to dedicated servers of yore, even if they're just internal, and would get a public release when the game is EOL. Depending on how things are defined, a single player, offline mode against bots might also count and "just" the multiplayer aspect gets shut down.

Games that would have a harder time are probably MMOs or Live Service games. I don't know how those would get sold/made, if you can never shut down the game. Maybe those types of games would basically have to be rented or something, so it's explicitly clear you're not getting a perpetual license.

If that counts as a console, every PC counts (everything's an Xbox, according to MS), then a $6000 prebuilt is a more expensive Xbox.

True, didn't think about games like this, but that's the case for every online-only game, even if the changes might not be as drastic as OW1 -> OW2. It's not like you can roll back a patch in FF14, Siege or Destiny and play on that version, if you don't like the direction the game is going.

I don't think a part of SKG is making sure all different patch versions of a game are available and playable, once the devs end support for a game.

BTW I'm not against SKG, I've signed the petition, but when people say this would keep companies from selling the game forever, kill yearly installments of some franchise, or would "force" devs to make old version of their favorite game available, that's not what SKG wants to do.

I mean, SKG is about keeping the game still playable, not buyable forever.

But I want to resell it to the same person for further profit

One of the biggest controversies at the start of all of this was Ubisoft pulling The Crew whilst pushing people to buy The Crew 2.

I know about The Crew, but it's not like Ubisoft had a Special Edition or something lined up that replaced the original game, and you had to buy it again. There was no reselling, the sequel is a different game.

Nothing in the SKG initiative is against Sequels, Remasters, Remakes, whatever. It's not even about keeping a game in stores forever. It isn't against yearly releases of Fifa, Madden, NBA 2k, that get removed after a few years, as long as you can still play your copy of Fifa 26 in twenty years.

No one’s forcing you to buy a remaster… unless they are because they revoke your right to play the original so it’s your only option.

That's the thing though, does this really happen? Usually games that get completely removed, that you can't even play anymore are multiplayer games, live service stuff, that are just so dead that nobody is even remotely interested in a remaster, so the game is just gone.

Not really what this is about.

They could even still keep doing that with Remasters, Remakes, Ports on a new Console, Special Editions, whatever.

Finished the Lies of P: Overture DLC. It was a mixed bag for me. A rough beginning, which got better in the second half, and I got back into the rhythm after not playing this game in a year.

Not sure how to feel about the final boss. The setup was alright, the fight itself not bad, but for me, it was just constantly blocking the 10-20 hit combos of the boss, then maybe get one hit in. This boss in particular, but also other fights, felt like they weren't made for a player like me, who beat the game once and then came back for the DLC.

Performance wise, this week I noticed a lot more frame drops, mainly when you move the camera. I think it's connected to small particles flying around, since in the epilogue, your base is just full of these tiny sparks, and fps just tanks. It would be unplayable, if you did more than just walk around for a minute or two. Otherwise, the drops weren't as bad, and they never caused a death or something, but it's definitely something the devs should look at.

I mean the former leads (or at least one of them) say the game was ready for Early Access, the publisher says it wasn't. This could be the deciding factor if the studio gets the bonus or not.

Although today the publisher said some previously leaked slides were real, that show how the potential EA release fell way behind schedule over the years and would have been pretty bare-bones and that a delay would have made sense.

Capcom comment via MechaHitler.com.

Did a double take, when I read that. I thought maybe a gaming site named itself after the Wolfenstein 3D boss, but it's just Twitter.

Gacha rolls are like breeding right?

Yes. That's why I said nobody really knows at this point, except the people involved.

The leads allegedly also were looking to gain $225 Million dollars (supposedly 90% of a $250 Million bonus), so of course they are saying the game is ready.

Charlie Cleveland did say they were going to split the bonus with the team, but imma be honest, why not put that into writing? Why take that huge cut in the first place, and then trust that the leads are going to do the right thing.

I don't think at this point you can really be sure of anything. Since the former leads have said they've filed a lawsuit (but not for what they're suing), it'll most likely come out at one point.