Jump to content

Sniperfox47

Gold Contributor
  • Content count

    1,844
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


This user doesn't have any awards

1 Follower

About Sniperfox47

  • Title
    Veteran
  1. Konami charges extra for additional save game

    The only games where I would consider a single save file to be acceptable are on games like Undertale where it's literally a central point of the gameplay. People are using Pokemon as an example, but that was the biggest things that pissed me off about the pokemon games. The inability to go back and play through the story without losing all your progress. Xenoblade Chronicles 2, Splatoon, Breath of the Wild, these three games we're all amazing but lost me once I finished a playthrough since I couldn't go back and play them again without deleting anything. If you're worried about user retention (which you *should* be if you're building a game for MTX) then having one save file is an asinine idea. You have two, and then you charge money to grow out from there... That would also be a jackass move, but at least it would be a jackass move that makes sense for user retention.
  2. No-mic alternative to Steelseries Arctis 7

    Skipping the gamer aesthetic will definitely save you a buck, but there's going to be a mic or mics on pretty much every wireless headset since it adds a lot of marketing value for next to no cost. Even the Senheisser 4.40BTs have an integrated mic.
  3. No-mic alternative to Steelseries Arctis 7

    Just get an Arctis 7 and don't extend the mic?
  4. MADE Runs Into Legal Issues Restoring Offline Game Servers

    All I'm saying is from a corporate perspective that's dumb. The old game makes you no revenue. From a corporate perspective you want to migrate as much of the community as possible, kill the old game, and split up the stragglers to encourage them to move to the new platform that you can more heavily monetize. And you're right. Making "better" games doesn't make financial sense. Selling popular games that you can heavily monetize makes financial sense. If they give you the option to stay with an existing option that's more fun, it cuts down on their ability to monetize the newer option. I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm just saying it makes sense.
  5. MADE Runs Into Legal Issues Restoring Offline Game Servers

    I definitely agree with the rest of your post, but I wanted to reply to this part. With small game studios I definitely see the "embarassment of past success" (for lack of better words) playing a larger role. With large game studios I can see this idea of previous titles pulling audience away from new titles popping up though. Look at the keywords all these leaks from studios are using. Reengagement, engagement, tie-in, reattach, etc. There is a strong correlation between how much time players spend in game and how much money they spend on microtransactions on average. To that end, anything else that players might spend time on is the enemy. You want your players gaming as much as possible. You want them playing your latest monotized game as much as possible. And you want to manipulate/social engineer them into spending as much money as possible. I could definitely see a board of directors upset at loss of monotization because players are playing older games, even if they've bought the new ones.
  6. MADE Runs Into Legal Issues Restoring Offline Game Servers

    Or Guild Wars vs Guild Wars 2. One of my favorite complex strategy MMORPGs reduced to an oversimplified WoW.
  7. MADE Runs Into Legal Issues Restoring Offline Game Servers

    I deeply appreciate how the gaming vendors argument is "Well they have no evidence this is for scholarly work. If it was only for scholarly work then ...maybe... but the public damn well never again get to play the abandoned games we're no longer monotizing!"
  8. MADE Runs Into Legal Issues Restoring Offline Game Servers

    Basically a coalition of museums and preservationists have been trying to push for legislation to permit "dead" online games (those with no longer operating online servers) to be reverse engineered and resurrected. Video game makers say that is is a form of stealing their IP and stealing their money. Somehow...? I really don't understand the argument, but apparently the court does. Previously the courts have implemented an exemption allowing the bypassing of online activation servers (such as those for DRM protected content) at such a point as they go down, to preserve the rights of users who purchased that content. Offline DRM such as the disk-based DRMs SafeDisk and SecuROM aren't covered under this. The court however would not go so far as allowing the reverse engineering of game servers. This is another push to have them allow that. If successful it would allow the restoration of old shut-down online games like Tabula Rasa, PlanetSide 1, the Matrix Online, and others. P.S. might be of note, but the InfiniteRasa project, a reversed engineered Tabula Rasa server, got taken down by DMCA claims three times under different names being developed by different people.
  9. You're right. Which means we need to make an assumption. When conducting inquiry which assumption do you make? The one you want to see or the one you don't want to? At the end of the day, the only rational way to look at security is to assume the worst. That no system is safe, that everyone is a lazy asshole, and that nobody's going to update their systems. That will lead to at least some people being partially safe. The alternative is to base your security principles on this idea that people will do work and update things and keep them secure out of the goodness of their heart, and if years and years of history have taught us anything it's that that is rarely if ever the case. It would result in a lot of people being far more insecure than they already are. Security should be pushed. It should be forced. Because if it's not, the alternative is a lack of any security.
  10. Or just to expand on this, we have 0 evidence that they even allocated resources to it when they were informed. For all we know their work on it could have been entirely in the past few days before hitting the "oh shit, we can't fix this on time!" button. LAwlz is totally right here in that we have no evidence to support the idea that Microsoft wouldn't have dragged this out of the deadline was pushed back.
  11. Intel discrete gpu prototype

    This isn't a gaming card. It will do nothing for consumer card pricing. This is very clearly a workstation graphics card, stripped of many of the things that benefit gaming. They may bring out a gaming card in the future, but all indications are that they're ignoring the gaming sector to focus on massive performance for GPGPU. Example, the built in FPGA.
  12. Yeah, I know. It was mostly rhetoric. They also haven't dealt with dedicated security hardware like TrustZone before. And there's also the fact that their development practices are significantly more "Japanese" than Sony's. (Not to be racist, there's just no other way I could think to phrase that.) In the same vein as "Splatoon Maps rotate because that's the way we made it, and you'll settle for that because it's our product, not yours", I'm sure there are a number of cultural ideosyncracies in their hardware teams too. But some of the stuff, like their coded note in the NES/SNES Classic firmware, makes me wonder if maybe their game of cat and mouse isn't their engineers just having some fun intentionally leaving hidden vulnerabilities in their kernel code to give the homebrew community something to work towards
  13. There is a confirmed exploit for the TrustZone hyperkernel on 4.1 though. Nintendo seems to be having trouble with secure ARM development. The whole point of TrustZone is that this kind of stuff shouldn't be happening. It's entire purpose is to establish a TEE for your secure kernels and then run untrusted code outside that to prevent kernel level exploits. I get that part of this was the result of nVidia debugging code, and I'm really glad we get to see a homebrew scene on the switch, but damn Nintendo why is all your software so vulnerable?
  14. Is this even a legit company making flight sims? I just tried going to their site on mobile and almost immediately got an immediate redirect popup to super shady "you've won a prize!" ad, that wouldn't let me go back to their site.
×