Stop Killing Games | Cold Take
Added 2024-04-22 15:07:51 +0000 UTCThis week's episode of Cold Take is now available!
Comments
Describing our system of crony corporatism as capitalism is completely absurd at this point. Don't blame the collapse of an empire on the economic foundation and philosophy it abandoned a century ago, look at the actual corruption of a globe spanning empire after a few generations of world domination. If you let the government incroach on controlling videogames in any way whatsoever, I guarantee that over time the rules will be written to favor the big corporate players and it will only get worse. Seriously stop buying ubisoft games, or any other company that thinks it can get away with this. Just saying "I'm still gonna give them my money either way, but I want the government to make them be nice if they try to do it again." isn't how this is going to be solved.
Reilly O'Brien
2024-05-06 17:35:13 +0000 UTCThe worst take? Really. Because it doesn't agree with the video? You want publishers to maintain every online only game ever into perpetuity? And therefore lose money on them forever. How do you think those companies would make up for those losses? Higher game prices? More micro transactions for more skins at outrageous prices? Lower wages? Do these sound like good ideas? Do they sound worth it for a museum of empty servers? I don't think so.
Rich Francis
2024-04-25 12:47:53 +0000 UTCthis is the worst take. you just don't understand. it's ok.
Matthew Sasso
2024-04-24 07:47:56 +0000 UTCI really don't care if they turn off old games. They won't turn them off if they can see people are playing, so they are only turning off things that lose them money. Use it or lose it. I treat games like a beer, I buy it for the here and now, and once I'm done that's it.
Rich Francis
2024-04-23 12:52:09 +0000 UTCHi, English Lawyer here. I absolutely agree with the premise of the video and the signal boosting, but I do feel compelled to provide a bit of correction to common law v civil jurisdictions. Both legal systems actually create, pass and enforce laws in very much the same way, through the legislature (Parliament, the Senate etc.), the difference comes in how the Courts interpret those laws. In common law jurisdictions, there is a greater weight given to ‘precedent’, which is prior decisions on the same issue. In theory, this provides consistency, because if a higher court has decided on your specific issue before, then you know that it will be decided the same way unless you appeal to the same, or higher court again. However, the law itself (in the UK at least, the US is weird about this due to your Supreme Court relying on the constitution as a higher power than your legislature) is still decided by the most recent statute passed. If there’s a gap or something that wasn’t considered, then the courts can essentially use caselaw to fill that gap, but can’t use an old case to directly contradict a more recent statute. Civil Jurisdictions instead have a much greater reliance on the actual statute passed (there’s a whole historical reason for the change relating to revolutions and Napoleon that I won’t get into), which basically means that the judges have more freedom to decide in individual cases but less consistency overall. However, the actual national culture and values, with the government of the day will be far more important to what laws get passed than how the courts view them. Technically, in my opinion at least, common law is better suited to adapt older laws to newer situations and technology, but it happens that the Netherlands and Holland etc. hate lootboxes more than the rest of the world and so legislated against it (I believe they’re also Civil, but this wasn’t a factor in their willingness or ability to legislative). Hope that was of interest to the 4 people who bothered reading this far!
Tim Wilson
2024-04-23 12:23:56 +0000 UTCMy current "comfort" game is an Ubisoft game that is no longer in development. The thing is it is perfectly playable offline, because sometimes Ubisoft Connect is buggy and can't connect online, so I click "go offline" and play away. There are online multiplayer features, but I don't like them. But I am still worried that Ubisoft will one day kill the online and offline at some point cutting me off from my comfort game. Makes me wary about any Ubisoft titles with this outcome.
Ariane Barnes
2024-04-22 22:09:58 +0000 UTCI own FAR CRY 1-5, AC games except VALHALLA Dead Space 1-3 etc. I have stopped buying online only games, UBIsoft and EA games, to me they are just are not worth it anymore. EA and UbiSoft have punishing anti piracy software that does not work and makes the game run worse. I no longer trust that the games I purchased from EA or UbiSoft will be available to play in the not-too-distant future, so why buy anything new from them?
LokiCoyote
2024-04-22 21:00:36 +0000 UTCHonestly? I've stopped buying any game that is purely online. If there isn't a single player option and doesn't have the option of playing without an internet connection I won't buy it. Admittedly that has dramatically dropped the number of games I can get, but it also has let me save a butt ton of money over the last few years. I'm getting to the age where I don't need or want to deal with the toxic BS of online play. Even the best, healthy games that are multi player seem to have a crap ton of bad players. But then again this is noting new. But it does seem to have gotten worse over the last 10 years. It's to the point that I realized there are so many single player or 1on1 games on Steam that I could ignore current games and just buy older ones and never run out of options. Same with emulation: Sony, Sega, Nintendo, SNK, etc.....I could spend a decade playing their catalog without ever running out of stuff to play. Edit: That said this is very much a worth while campaign.
Kellic
2024-04-22 16:28:28 +0000 UTCStudios that want to 'retire' online-only games should be required to give buyers the tools to host private servers
ergotpoisoning
2024-04-22 16:15:15 +0000 UTC
