Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


This user doesn't have any awards

About Delicieuxz

  • Title

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling


  • CPU
    i7 2600k @ 4.6 Ghz
  • Motherboard
    Asus P8P67 Pro Rev 3.1
  • RAM
    Patriot Viper Xtreme 16GB @ 1866 Mhz
  • GPU
    EVGA GTX 1070 SC @ 2101 core / 4663 memory
  • Case
    Corsair 600T
  • PSU
    OCZ 1250 watt
  • Display(s)
    HP Omen 32
  • Cooling
    Noctua NH-D15
  • Mouse
    Logitech G402
  • Sound
    Auzentech X-Fi Prelude
  • Operating System
    Windows 7 / Windows 10

Recent Profile Visitors

7,383 profile views
  1. Relying on the developers who made a big sloppy mess of AoE DE (and didn't fix it in patches) to do a good job with AoE2 DE is not good bet, IMO.
  2. I don't have the game, but I'm a fan of the classic series and I find this news interesting since private servers were historically something Battlefield had and they never should have been taken away. Private servers or none, the server browser in Bf5 was awful at launch (I haven't played it since then so I don't know if it has changed) and if there were any private servers available I couldn't tell because all servers looked the same with no fine details, making no server feel special,, different, or tailored. I found that really sucked the life and interest out of looking at the server browser, and I hope DICE have since revamped the server browser. https://gamingbolt.com/battlefield-5-will-get-private-servers-with-upcoming-update I wonder why DICE / EA choose to re-implement private servers only when their DICE ship is heavily sinking. If they did this to draw back players and curry community favour (and that's just a guess of mine), then shouldn't it have been done all along and doesn't that mean there was never any benefit to taking the option away? I guess they wanted to make money on server rentals - but if that was a big goal of theirs, then they would have make renting a server attractive and spotting custom servers in the browser along with their unique details easy, but they didn't do that. Here's the list of what can be configured on private servers: Core Functionality Create private game from main menu Set custom name for the server Set description for the server Password protect the server Control what maps are used within the map rotation Control what game modes are available Control the number of players needed to break pre-round Kick players from the current game Control what classes are available Control what weapons are allowed Control if vehicles are allowed Control if the kill cam will be displayed Turn friendly fire on or off Turn regenerative health on or off Change soldier tags as visible or not Enable or disable third-person camera view Enable squad leader spawn only Enable or disable aim assist auto rotation Enable or disable aim assist cooldown Control bullet damage scaling Control game mode ticket scaling Control soldier and vehicle respawn timers Turn the mini map on or off Enable or disable the compass Organization Options Apply a pre-set config to a private game Vanilla, Infantry only, DICE-authored etc. Save your server settings as a custom preset so you can reapply at will Have your name highlighted in chat if you’re the owner of the server Administrate and manage server settings in the main menu or via our Private Games web portal Have the description of your Private Game presented on the loading screen Manually switch specific players between teams Report private games in the advanced search screen Looking over what settings private server hosts will be able to set, it looks like an OK list, but it could use some more options. I'd especially like to see an option for limited sprint, so Battlefield 2 style gameplay can be had. And I also like there to be an option to set the walk and run speed. And I'd like there to be an option to disable spawning in vehicles. But, if Bf5 only spawns vehicles when players spawn in them (one of the most stupid and terrible designs in the history of gaming), then that would break vehicle spawning.
  3. The ownership is still over the games. The license is to use the IP via a copy of it, and a non-revokable (as is the case with all perpetual licenses) license to use the IP means exclusive ownership [2] [3] [4] over an instance of the IP. Property is holding the comprehensive set of rights over a thing. In the case of a perpetual software license, the rights that are held are the comprehensive rights to use the software IP via a non-reproduceable instance of it. The instance cannot be revoked, and the purchaser exclusively has all entitlements over that instance, and so they own that instance. A license to make personal use a software IP in its entirety is one-and-the-same thing as owning a non-reproduceable copy of the IP, and a perpetual license to make personal use the IP is equal to owning an instance. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=124564&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5213884 EU CoJ ruling: "Moreover, as stated in paragraph 46 above, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the copyright holder transfers the right of ownership of the copy of the computer program to his customer."
  4. The i5 2500K is almost 9 years old. It's a statement on how little CPUs and also games have progressed in the previous many years that a 2500K can still be listed as the "recommended" requirement for a AAA game. In the 90s and 2000s, a top-end CPU would already be outdated and often barely able to run new games once it was maybe 2.5 years old. Now, a premium CPU seems like it's relevant almost indefinitely. Consoles becoming the primary development target after Xbox and PS2 came out gradually brought the rapid pace of visual and PC hardware progress to nearly a standstill.
  5. For anyone who hasn't play Red Dead Redemption but wants to, it's on Sony's PlayStation Now streaming game service. I just took the trial week offer to play GoW and Uncharted 4 on my PC, and it has lots of good games I've never had the chance to play because I don't own a console. Red Dead Redemption is among the available games. https://www.playstation.com/en-gb/explore/playstation-now/
  6. Many of the people who bought a console for RDR2 surely knew it would come to PC. All Rockstar games have come to PC, except Red Dead Redemption 1, and that was apparently because the code is a total mess with there being no documentation for it, and the team was barely able to get it to run stable on consoles. Since 2001's GTA III, Rockstar have always delayed the PC release of their games behind the console release by around 6 months to 2 years. That is a strategy RS use to double-dip on sales, to minimize piracy (as piracy is, or has been, more prevalent on PC), and also to have more time to work on the PC versions of their games. So, RS are well-known for the tactic of delaying the PC release and not saying anything about the PC release until it happens. Rockstar are greedy and want money, and they aren't owned by a console platform. They're going to release their AAA games on PC every time. They just do it in a manner that capitalizes on the release schedule to make the most profit they possibly can.
  7. If they didn't make them cheaper, they wouldn't make many sales in those regions, and people in those regions wouldn't get to play the game or would get used to pirating games software that's too expensive for them. There would be resentment against the publisher from the people who are being overcharged and they would likely feel justified in just pirating everything. Why should a poorer region be charged relatively, say, 4x what people in the US are? That situation is unfair. It's better to understand the reason why games are cheaper in those regions and not flaunt exploitation of the situation in the publisher's face, incensing the publisher and provoking them to create additional restrictions like ActiVision have with region-locked games. Being able to flip cheap keys is a loophole that exists as a result of publishers doing what's reasonable for people in poorer regions - and if that loophole is closed, some non-exploitative benefits for people would be lost. It isn't something to wave in the faces of publishers.
  8. Great video. And I hope that RS will have tweaked some of the areas where the gameplay is lacking for the PC release.
  9. I don't think buying things from the "grey market" is piracy. It's people's right to resell their stuff. But I think exploiting the situation to undercut the publisher by reselling cheap keys from other regions risks restrictions from publishers.
  10. I don't see any inherent problems with being able to resell your digitally-purchased games. The concerns I see expressed about the threat to developers, especially indie and small-title developers, seem to me like they're FUD, and are dependent upon a view where it's assumed that being able to resell games means that the platforms, publishers, and developers are not making profit off of the 2nd-hand sales market. Well, that's an impossible scenario. First, every transaction that involves selling a game that's currently registered on a platform necessarily has to use that platform's services in order to be transferred, and likely also for the listing and the payment processing. And that's just for the sale of the game. Then, if the sold game key is specifically for that same platform (as is the case with purchased new games), then whoever purchases that game has to use the platform's services in order to activate the game with that platform to be able to download and play it. This means that platforms can charge listing, payment processing, transfer, and 2nd-hand license activation fees. And then platforms can split the revenue from those fees with games publishers along the same lines that new game sales are split with publishers. A 2nd-hand market can be done in a way that it's a guaranteed revenue stream for platforms and publishers, and can also be done in a way that pretty much maintains their current revenue streams. The possible points to charge for fees that I've thought of are: - listing fee - payment processing fee - game account de-activation fee - 2nd-hand license activation fee on a different account - a fee to cover maintenance of a registry to keep track of who owns and is entitled to have on their account which game Things like listing and payment processing fees are just standard for marketplace services (eBay, Amazon, Paypal). The other listing fees are specific to a 2nd-hand games market, and as they're services that require development and maintenance costs, a provider of those services is entitled to recoup their expenses and likely to charge extra for providing the service - just like with every other service.  A 2nd-hand license activation fee to play a game on a different account is not a new concept. It has been considered by companies before: https://www.ea.com/news/online-pass-for-ea-sports-simulation-games https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/thq-to-charge-second-hand-users-for-online-play And some companies have implemented the idea: https://www.cinemablend.com/games/Xbox-One-Used-Game-Activation-Fee-52-56040.html https://www.engadget.com/2013/06/06/xbox-one-used-games-always-online/ Ross' video questions whether platform fees for 2nd-hand game transactions would run afoul of anti-trust laws in the wake of the Paris High Court's ruling. That concern misses an important detail. But first, let me say that a company is entitled to charge fees for the development and usage of its services. A company cannot be forced to be a charity, and doing that would be paramount to state seizure of the company or an aspect of the company and turning it into a public resource, which only the corporation pays for. It would be like slavery of corporations. Now, the important detail which that concern of platform fees running afoul of the Paris court's ruling misses is that not all of the prospective fees are related to selling a game. A 2nd-hand activation fee is entirely unrelated to the ability to sell a game, and comes after a game has already been sold. That technical difference is what law is about. It is necessary for a person to activate their 2nd-hand license with a platform before they can possibly use it with that platform. And if 2nd-hand games are like new game purchases are, then a purchased 2nd-hand game could be activated only with the specific platform its key is for - which means that the platform a 2nd-hand game is purchased from will necessarily also be the same platform that it gets re-activated with. That means the platform which sold the game and likely made profit on the selling of that 2nd-hand game also gets to make profit on the account activation of that 2nd-hand game. In the case of a 2nd-hand digital games market, it is literally unavoidable that a platform's services be used. Therefore, it is also unavoidable that platforms will be a part of any 2nd-hand digital games market. And they could charge fees for their involvement in the market. Setting minimum fees, whether it's just for 2nd-hand game activation with a platform, or for all of listing, payment processing, transferring, and 2nd-hand game activation, will protect indies and small-title developers, and can easily make it so that it's cheaper to buy those games today brand new from "grey market" game license resellers than it would be to buy them through a 2nd-hand digital games market. Fees could be hard-set, or they could scale as a % or a tier bracket according to the listing price or the current non-sale retail price for a game. There could be minimum fees. And additional fees could be justified by platforms having to maintain a registry of who sells what, who is lawfully entitled to activate which license, and that registry might need to be one that is shared by all digital games platform hosts, to prevent fraud, theft, duplicate activations (though, they already can't happen when a key can only be activated on a specific platform), and to settle disputes. So, platforms, publishers, and indie developers can all be protected in the face of a 2nd-hand games market, and can make a 2nd-hand games market lucrative for themselves. I don't see the Paris High Court's ruling as reckless, clumsy, or not thought-out by the court. I instead view a lot of the responses to the ruling as being knee-jerk reactionary alarmism which is hyping up fears ahead of examining what the realistic changes to the market are likely to actually be. There are some arguments I've seen people bring up that makes digital goods seem like they're a whole new concept and are different than physical goods because they don't degrade, but they're actually neither new concepts or different in terms of degradation to property that has existed for centuries. And so here are refutations for some common misconceptions about digital goods and ownership concerns: 1. The concept of non-degrading property is not new: The first patent for an industrial invention was handed out in 1421 in Italy (1790 in the US). Since then, individuals and businesses have been benefiting massively from possessing property that doesn't degrade. IPs, copyrights, patents, are non-degrading property. Record labels have non-degrading digital masters. Book publishers have non-degrading manuscripts. Non-degrading property never was a complaint or cause to claim that the law has been thrown for a loop so long as it was businesses and copyright-holders who were gaining more and more benefits over the decades from having non-degrading property. The idea that non-degrading property changes everything suddenly in 2019, only when consumers have suddenly realized that it can mean something for them, too, suggests to me there is unfair play at hand and that we are witnessing the expression of a conditioning of the masses by big businesses who have long acted as though the law is their private tool to be used only to set themselves up as evermore-domineering masters over consumers, who they see as their subjects. It's like the "consumer" people are imposing it upon themselves at this point after having been conditioned that they are just corporations' resources. Regardless, non-degrading property isn't new. Businesses and copyright-holders have been benefiting themselves by it for centuries. So, the concept when applied to consumers shouldn't cause any hysteria or confusion. It's old-hat. Regarding degradation, though, computing standards mean that an older program degrades in functionality as hardware and software standards evolve. Also, the appreciability of older software products changes for the market at-large due to new developments that make the older products seem more archaic, limited, unappealing graphics-wise... not to everybody, but to a huge chunk of the mainstream market. So, there is degradation with software products, but it is manifested in unique ways - unique ways that physical products often escape. So, it's like there the degradation merely expresses itself through different avenues. 2. Regarding the US legal wording which says that the first-sale doctrine (which stipulates that people are entitled to resell their copies of copyrighted works) applies to "instances", and the idea that there is something about a digital copy being non-degrading that makes it not an instance or a "particular" copy: So... when George Lucas sold Star Wars to Disney, he didn't actually lose his right to distribute Star Wars and can right now sell Star Wars again, and again, to other companies who can then make their own Star Wars movies? Of course not. There is nothing about a property being hard-physical or intangible that decides whether the first-sale doctrine applies to it. And there has never been a qualifier that each copy has some unique flaw or condition to make a copy a "particular" copy. Each copy that exists is a particular copy, and each copy that a person owns is a particular copy. Does the significance of having access to one copy versus another diminish when each copy is a perfect replication of the others? Yes, in a good way. But that's neither here nor there to the law's reason for stating that the first-sale doctrine applies to particular copies, and I think that detail actually has nothing to do with the identification of particular copies and doesn't factor into the first-sale doctrine. The particular copies are the definitive instances that belong to specific people. 3. Regarding the idea that software might be different because it is not materialized, or is intangible: A thing's physical or non-physical state doesn't determine whether it can be owned, sold, and purchased. What does everybody think Intellectual Property is? IPs are not really or necessarily materialized but they are still transferable property and goods when they are sold in transactions. What do people think a patent is? A copyright? Just like with non-degrading property, intangible property has existed for centuries, and even millennia. Further, data has even more presence than something like a patent or copyright. Any defined data, such as a software program or any particular function of a software program, has a defined form to it. And when it's stored on any storage medium, it takes up real space and technological capacity. It has size, it has a specific form, it takes up presence, and it has specific identifiable capabilities and features. When it is being transferred between end-points in a network, it exists as particles, and particles have physical properties. A computer program is a defined form of data, and data has quantifiable presence. And if data suddenly is different than hard-physical property and so it can't really be said there's ownership of it, then how does the publisher own it? And then how can people be arrested and charged for hacking of a state's computers and possession of their data and secrets? Obviously, in pre-existing law, data property is treated no different than a hard-physical property where it's the state, or big corporations, or somebody with a lot of money, who is the victim and is seeking action against whoever infringed upon their data property. The idea that it's different exclusively for the lowly peasant consumers is Stockholm Syndrome, and it means that our societies are not ones of justice and equality, but which are made up of different rules for different castes.
  11. Region-locked games and regional pricing are separate matters from platforms being required to facilitate people's right to resell their games. And the EU has recently been dealing with those things outside of court rulings. If a game is region-locked and you're enabled to resell it, the game you're able to resell will also be region-locked. If you're poor and you buy in another region because you can't afford a game from your own region, then that's one thing, in my view. But buying and flipping cheap other-region games is taking advantage of the situation. When you buy cheaper games from another region just for the purpose of selling them in a more expensive region to make profit, that's exploiting the system and depriving publishers and developers of full-cost sales, and it makes them feel like they need to put into place restrictions that will stop inter-region sales. People are entitled to have copies of a publisher's software at pennies on the dollar to undercut the publisher's own sales. Those cheaper-region games were only there in the first place because the publisher made them available, and did so not because that price covers their development costs and is profitable, but because people in that region earn a lot less and wouldn't or couldn't buy their game if the prices were much higher.
  12. I'm still playing Apogee sidescrollers, NES and SNES games, and stuff like Test Drive III around 30 years later. I bet I'll still play them in another 10 and 20 years. Though, I don't know why I might want to play a particular game like RDR 2 in 30 years, but acting with posterity of access to my games in mind is a prudent philosophy, and I've lost a lot of stuff over the years I wish I hadn't by just treating it as just to be used for the current moment. Experience has ingrained in me the mindset of choosing where to drop my money based on the long-term perspective. RS is an unproven platform, and the company is selfish, greedy, and bullying. And similar to my view of Microsoft, I don't trust it to practice any policies that are particularly concerned with user experience, complaints, and long-term access beyond what is convenient to the company.
  13. I would love a GTA SA remaster, as that's my favourite of the series and one of my favourite games. However, the GTA SA offered through the RS launcher is the normal old SA, and I haven't heard any news of remaster plans for it. It's also free to grab from the RS launcher whether or not RDR 2 is pre-ordered from RS. On Steam, I already have the games offered as RDR 2 pre-order bonuses. But for people who don't have them yet, there are some great games there that would make the RS launcher attractive.
  14. I look at it from a 30 - 50 years from now perspective, where I ask which platform is likely to still be around so I can play my games that are on them. And I think that Steam is more likely to be around that Rockstar launcher. And if Rockstar end their launcher at some point, I expect they would detach games on other platforms from their own DRM. They also might give keys for their games for other platforms, but why take that extra risk? Also, Steam's game time-logging and community features are used by me.
  15. Neat. It releases on Steam in December. I guess that's the real release date to a lot of people (myself included). "Red Dead Redemption 2 will first be available through the Rockstar Games Launcher, and also available for pre-order on the Epic Games Store and Humble Store. The Steam version will be available for purchase in December." Unless Rockstar take a heavy hand against modding. Take Two Shuts Down Red Dead Redemption Total Conversion For GTA V I've seen it hypothesized that might indicate RS are planning RDR as DLC for RDR 2. That would be great, though RS comments have also suggested they aren't focusing on SP content for RDR 2 DLC.