Pika

The game while fun suffered the same exact issue that Wild Gate did, where any new player trying to join in gets smothered.

There just was way too much power difference between items that you have at the beginning of the game and items that you gain at the end of the game. Combined with a relatively low player count, meaning that you can’t really have skill-based or level based matchmaking, just cold cuts your new players

you’ve already given your money you can’t do much more than that. might as well play it

Jokes on you, even if we didn’t delete it, we laid off our customer service departments - Microsoft

I think in this case they are actually using eminent domain for it.

Basically they are reaching out to families, asking for permission, and then when denied that permission going through the state/town and getting permission that way.

The easement taking up half their land was the “compromise” that the utility company gave them, because they already had a notice/permission from the town/state on the entire property. They were going to have the line no matter what, it was whether the current owners wanting to have part of the property, or none of the property. its pretty sickening.

members of the CrackWatch community declared “the year of the Linux desktop”

It’s this year guys, I swear! rattling cow bells

In all seriousness though, I wish the article gave a little more info then it did. I’m curious on how analyzing how games operate through the layer could somehow bypass the anticheat. I’m all for it if it means less rely on it and more games are supported on linux but, I have my doubts.

my 4tb SSD i bought 4 years ago for about 150 is now over 2k. It’s insane some of the pricing is now.

ah sorry, yea I reread it when I got on my pc and I can see where I misunderstood your position,

as for where I got the concept from:

This would only work if the game participates in regional pricing, otherwise you’re fucking over most people who don’t deal in USD. $15 to you is not just $15 to everyone else.

and then

I don’t think I am. The issue is not that your system won’t work with regional pricing, it’s that it will not work without it.

since my post was about having it be based off a policy on pricing based off the current price, I took that as a message stating that it requires regional pricing to work. So I jumped the gun a little and thought you meant that you were advocating that for it to work, they would need regional pricing on everything as such would require regional based refunds for those areas, but I can see where I got overzealous on that so I apologize.

My opinion is still the same on it though, I think it would be better to implement that system than to not, even if the dev doesn’t participate in regional pricing at all, worst case scenario is it’s a static price with a static return based off the only price available and the buyer would know that going into it. I could see how it could negativly impact the buyer like you said but, if the seller is already not participating with regional pricing, there isn’t much else that can be done to fix that. Maybe keep the current system if the game is is bought in a region and not with regional pricing? but I don’t think that would really work either as it could just enable the abuse in those regions still. It can definitely work without regional pricing but, preferably if the dev wants to have sales, they really should enable it.

Also as an addition because I didn’t mention it, I used USD as an example because it’s what is generally used for an example, obviously said framework could be any region as long as it’s consistant across every game so it’s not confusing. Honestly steam could likely even supply a exchange tool to auto do the exchange across all denominations. They do that already for payouts/purchases

At this point, I’m not sure where our disconnect is so I’m not really sure how else to clarify, im not sure how you read what I sent and somehow got that it has any attachment to regional pricing. The framework I’m talking about would not require regional pricing at all because the only price it cares about is what the price is in the chosen region.

The system I’m advocating would work with or without regional pricing because the region’s price doesn’t matter.

As an example, say their chosen region is the US and they decide that $5 means it’s a 30 minute return.

But then they have another region that is two dollars.

It doesn’t matter that it’s $2 in that region because the region that is used for the metric is $5.

So the $2 game that is regional pricing would have the return policy of the $5 game because the region that they use for the calculations has it at $5. As a further example, the inverse would be true as well. If it was $10 in the associated region, since the framework region is $5, the $10 game would have the $5 policy

I’m not sure why it needs to be so complicated to have specific return policies for every single region. At the end of the day the value in the framework region is isolated from the framework and no changes to its price would change its return policy as it doesn’t matter

you are misunderstanding. I’m saying pick a region for the guideline, if its $5 on that region the game has that refund period. Then apply regional pricing. There’s zero reason to apply a framework for every region that’s more work then needed. the lower regional price would have the same refund period as the standard pricing as its following the same framework. The fact its lower price does not matter, as regions do not matter.

Then the only time it would need to be region based, is if they sold a region specific SKU such as some Japanese or Australian releases instead of having to go in and select refund periods for every period in every region. That’s way more work than is needed.

edit: i misread a core part of this chain, oops

you are forgetting though that a 5$ USD game isn’t going to magically becomes < 5$ USD though. if its using the same framework even if the game is only worth 2$ native, its still 5$ USD and therefore would be the same. Regional pricing doesn’t matter in the scenario.

That would be too easy to game or abuse by the devs

I don’t see how this would be too much of an issue. If it’s that way in one region, then it would be unilateral all across all regions. Price wouldn’t really matter at that point as long as you’re using the same guideline

The people who legitimately do this are the ones who make the rest of the gamers look bad.

If you bought a game, especially for $3, played it from start to finish over the course of an hour and a half, and then bragged about it when you refunded it. You fully deserve to have your refund capability disabled.

The thing is, though, I don’t really know a way that this can be implemented without allowing publishers to game the system. I do personally think that Two Hours is a little generous for the overall story because I will generally know whether or not I’m going to like a game within 35 minutes of playing.

I think a good alternative to it is have your refund window be based off of the current sale price of the game.

So for a game that’s less than five bucks, you would only have somewhere between 30 minutes to an hour of a refund window.

Then for your typical indie window, which would be like fifteen to thirty dollars, you have an hour to hour and a half then your AAA title pricing of ~60, you have two or three hours.

I can understand refunding a game if it’s broken on your system or just trash, but it feels real sleazy to me to spend money on a game, play it to completion, and then refund it anyway.

I don’t have netflix but, I sometimes will use my parents or grandparents account if i’m visiting their house.

I never got into netflix series mostly due to what has been said here already. There’s no point of investment into a series with a company that has an ongoing reputation of cancelling shows even if they go well, and the ones that do get another season can have multi-year delays between it.

It’s the same issue that a lot of the lesser known Anime’s have, They get greenlit for 1 or 2 seasons, and by the time they get greenlit for s3 all momentum for people wanting to watch it is dead.

To me I would rather just wait and invest my time into something that is actually going to go somewhere, not get pitfalled into a cliffhanger and then never know what happens.

it’s actually the recommended way if you use jellyfin, theres a few security/privacy vulnerabilities with publicly exposing the jellyfin server anyway, they are being worked on but, the safest way to do it is just use a vpn regardless.

part of it was yes

they made the statement with apple but then decided the exact opposite with google. I think Sony will run into similar issues as google, but we will see

I do have a strong suspicion that the end of the road of this type of move is going to end with an anti-trust case. Like, I don’t see any way to avoid that.

You can’t have a platform dictate everything about how it sells merchant wise without having an antitrust involved.

It may not be the US doing it, but I do think that some country is going to antitrust them.

I’ve always experienced a, if it has a Linux distributable, and it launches, I have no issue, but it actually launching is maybe a 60% chance. It’s also super rare that it either gives an error log at all or gives an error code that is able to be deciphered/any value to the consumer

They actually just integrated the initial framework for this with the last major PS5 update.

They threw it in under the guise that it was a check to make sure that your downloaded games were legitimate, but they added but they added in a required 30-day timer that after 30 days it checks the license on a downloaded piece of software. And if your account doesn’t have the license, or the system isn’t online. It fails to work. This was originally expected to be a constant every 30 days thing, but at last minute they clarified that it was a one-time check to make sure that you didn’t return the device under their return policy.

I have no doubt in my mind that they were originally intending on having this be in every 30 days requiring the PS5 to have to be online every 30 days in order for it to function, but decided to change it last minute when major media companies started reporting that the PS5 was going to officially require online