You know the people being laid off are not the ones making those kinds of decisions, right?

That sounds like you’re describing someone who is only making a lemmy account because they see potential customers they want to advertise to.

That’s the exact reason I don’t want someone to make a lemmy account.

I was looking to buy a PC version for longevity/future proofing

For the record, physical PC titles are probably the worst way to preserve old games. Unless you’re ok with having to rely on a crack. Modern Windows and drivers often break support for old titles. Also there were a lot of games that relied on a key auth server that is no longer running.

Here’s a video from a couple of years ago on the subject.

Ironically, buying a physical console and copy of the game is the most dependable way of preserving old game libraries. Why do you say your 360 is on borrowed time? It should hold up fine.

I also just recently finished Forbidden West a couple of months ago! Just prior to that I had finished Silksong, and just afterwards I returned to Baldur’s Gate 3 and finally finished that!

I’m now playing Expedition 33 and Fez.

Yeah, it’s definitely not a drop-in replacement. But the Witcher 3 side quests are excellent, made the world feel alive in a way Elder Scrolls never did (to me). I think Skyrim is just so ambitious that the NPCs feel robotic in their inability to act appropriately, and it kills my immersion.

But I agree, idc about Yennifer or most of the main storyline. Basically the same for Skyrim too.

When I played Witcher 3 I remember immediately thinking Skyrim felt extremely dated. I would play any quest in W3 again before any quest in Skyrim.

But yeah, Tainted Grail: The Fall of Avalon is recent and supposed to be for Skyrim fans. Haven’t played it yet.

According to their recent feedback hub, what gamers really want is exclusives.

Why do consumers want so badly to be abused?

At first I was going to say, the 3 2 1 Backup rule won’t stop the planet from being destroyed by a meteor. But then I remembered the data on Voyager1.

Don’t worry, trump controls the fed now. He’ll make sure the dollar becomes worthless, and everyone will be billionaires!

A Low Budget Alan Wake would have been better than one that doesn’t sell

I don’t follow. As a fan, I get to play the game either way. Why would a lower budget version that more people buy be “better” for me? It might be better for the companies involved, it might even make future installments easier to sell to investors which means I get more games. But at the end of the day, as a player I end up with a worse AW2. Why would I want that?

I do wonder how the crowdfunding route would have gone for them. I don’t know that they could have raised the full $50M though. The original had a cult following, and Control did really well, but it would be very risky. If they failed to hit their goal in a crowdfunding round, then they could be guaranteed going forward that no one, not even Epic would have seen it as worth funding. It would have been forever dead.

Yes, it’s an unfortunate reality that EGS was the only option. But still, my hope is that someone can crunch the stats and prove to future publishers that the revenue delta can be attributed to EGS exclusivity.

Everything is like that. You buy a CD, DVD, record album, painting, concert ticket, movie ticket, whatever it is, you don’t own the artwork, the creator retains the rights to the artwork, you just own a limited license to view it. You can’t go put on your own concert or show using that license without consulting the owner. You can’t create derivative works without consulting the owner. You can’t make copies without consulting the owner.

It’s not just video games, that’s just how copyright works.

Edit: did you know that a tattoo artist retains the rights to the artwork on your body? If you’re an actor with a tattoo, anyone who hires you needs to either get permission from the artist to show the tattoos in their work, or cover your tattoos.

Curious what went wrong with your Reolink run. That’s what I’ve got. Doesn’t require an app or account, and works with home assistant.

It’s not a matter of privacy vs UX. I actually think Plex has ruined their UX. But if you have friends and family, some are tech-illiterate, some have their own media servers, and you all want to share with each other quickly and easily, Plex is the only viable option. Same if it’s just you, but you travel a lot, and want to watch something from your home server without lugging around a device that has access to your VPN and a screen/hdmi-out.

Jellyfin is really only viable if it’s just you on your own network.

To add on to the top post: with Plex you only need 1 account and can exchange access to multiple servers. I can browse all the media my account has access to with ease.

Jellyfin needs an account per server. If the client multiplexed between them seamlessly, that would probably be fine enough. But it would be nice if they supported some method of federation.

And Jellyfin has a list of CVEs that they haven’t addressed in years, which makes not want to make it visible outside my network.

I want to ditch Plex, but this is the primary sticking point for me. No criticism to the Jellyfin devs btw, they’re doing the lord’s work, I have nothing but respect for them.

Another minor one is that the Plex app works with a controller on my bazzite HTPC, but the Jellyfin one was hit or miss. I could get it to work once, and then the next day the controller would do nothing and the UI would be acting weird. I will go back and try it periodically to see if it’s ready, but last time I checked it wasn’t.

Yeah, but anti-consumer is soooo IN right now.

As a lifetime owner, the number of features they’ve deprecated is probably the worst part.

• Photo support (luckily Immich came along)
• Tidal integration (no idea if that was Plex or Tidal’s decision)
• Plugins (god forbid anyone add the functionality they keep removing)

It’s close between that and the last app overhaul that removed a bunch of functionality.

Alright, yeah if that was the intention of the headline, then fine enough. I think I’m not the only one in this thread who didn’t read it that way.

Cheers.

They are designed the way they are now largely so they can collect data from you. It is consumer hostile.

You mean with centralized servers? No, it’s so they can be server authoritative to guarantee some level of stability, matchmaking, cross-game state, anti-cheat, etc. Ex. you would not be able to have the Arc Raiders experience with p2p servers. As for your data, they can gather that regardless, this would not be a cost effective way to do it.

No one here is disagreeing with the motives of SKG. The discussion at hand is whether this article you posted refers to a scenario that would be improved by the SKG initiative. And it sounds like you agree it satisfies what SKG wants. So the headline should read more like “2K is doing <blah> which is good. Reminder that SKG is trying to guarantee this.”

That does not mean that they cannot seek or want more, though.

For SKG, all that matters to me is what becomes a government-enforced requirement. We can advocate for more all we want, but we were already doing that, and will continue to. Ross can believe whatever he wants about what a company should do, but if SKG isn’t advocating for it as legislation, then I don’t see it as relevant to the initiative.