I get my gaming news from YouTube podcasts, mostly; at least those two do employ people actually doing some of that same type of work. It doesn't really matter how good Schreier is at his job when I'm not going pay for a Bloomberg subscription and someone else can more cheaply copy the same content and tell me what it said. The video format gives me more of a dialogue with the person who did the work. Plus ads are much more easily defeated on a web page than on YouTube, though they are still partially defeated.
Without consumers willing (and able) to make sacrifices (like paying higher prices) to reward good corporate behavior, and to avoid companies with purely short-term profit motivated behavior, this is what we can and should expect.
I think consumers have spoken, at least in part. What money can be made doing this job is more easily made on YouTube.
What part of that petition says that it's to support games indefinitely? It explicitly requests action to protect customers after support ends. That inherently means it won't be supported indefinitely.
The one from Accursed Farms that set off this entire campaign. It's not about supporting a game forever. It's about not killing them intentionally when support ends.
Now those online services are supported by digital sales, like on PC storefronts. Digital makes up the majority of console purchases now too, but they still continue to charge for online, so it's no wonder PC market share grew in the interim.
Gotcha. As I said in the original blurb, I'd prefer some way to play the game LAN that it seems like they're not doing. V Rising and most survival games, for all that I can tell, preserve all of those elements of MMOs or MMO lites, and it exposes how unnecessary it is to take away the ability for the player to host their own servers. Even in a best-case scenario where the game is super successful, you can run into things like login queues or server maintenance, so having the ability to play the game no matter what is a must for me. Survival games tend to lean into the use case of people who want to PVP and grief other players, which isn't for me, and I'd much rather co-op with some friends, but since I control the server, I absolutely have the ability to tune it that way. And since these games account for dozens of players on the same instance (Factorio goes up to 255), you're capable of replicating all of those random interactions, for as rare as they actually are in a game like Destiny or Warframe, which are my frame of reference for MMO lite games, because they have you spend most of your time in instances for only a few players.
Have you played Wayfinder before to say how much of the game up to this point was built on those larger scale random interactions as opposed to small instances with a few players?
No, I meant things that people would miss. I guess matchmaking fits that bill, but we'll have to see what it looks like outside of direct invites once this new version exists. Each platform provides free matchmaking services, so I'd be surprised if it didn't exist at all.
You are asking if it could be same experience as an MMO-lite without being online. Think about it.
No, I'm asking if it could be the same experience without running it on someone else's machine. V Rising does not have an online requirement, but you can play it online on a server you control, perhaps even the same machine you use to play yourself, with up to like 60 players. Destiny is an MMO lite, is it not? For the most part, you're only playing that game 3 players at a time too, just like this one. Is there something that this game was already doing that it won't be able to do now that it's peer to peer?
