The industry gets a lot wrong but I really love the focus on multiplayer. I hope they add multiplayer coop to this game as Cyberpunk is an inherently COOP RPG experience.
The industry gets a lot wrong but I really love the focus on multiplayer. I hope they add multiplayer coop to this game as Cyberpunk is an inherently COOP RPG experience.
Got a very interesting video for you guys I saw not too long ago, looks like these bad business practices are coming to an end sooner than we think. In my opinion this can only be a good thing.
I felt the data-specific details documenting scripts, and other code that appears to go out of its way to collect user data
So on purpose they go full on out with simply selling their vision of what they would like a "perfect" game to be, because it sells better than if they did what you suggested. Even though they most likely know that they wont be able to pull it off...
And as they get aware that it probably wont be possible, they start cutting content and features as they have to release it at some point and the top management gets frustrated that the project keeps breaking deadlines. This is obviously highly speculative, but it could be interesting to know, how exactly these different IPs or visions get turned into games, and how they end up nothing like that in the end.
Can we really say that publishing DLC content for free is a policy that means not taking advantage? I think it's a form of taking advantage, but in a different way than selling DLCs for money. Previously I've written that giving bonus content to players is a good marketing strategy. It improves the image of a company and can even convince new players to buy the game. When someone sees that a game has a ridiculous amount of DLCs which require him to spend a lot of money, he can be even discouraged to buy it. When this kind of content is released for free, some players will think that it's good the game has full support without the necesity to pay for it. What more, if the DLCs modify the game mechanics in some way, it can be even more encouraging to buy it by players who didn't like the original concept.
So you're talking about "games as a service" model. It has pros with no doubts. It allows the players to select the content they're interested in without the need to buy the whole product. But this is where the pricing problem comes in. As Star Citizen shows, it's very tempting to charge a large amount of money for product that lacks functionalities of a full game. I'm afraid this may result in a situation in which we'll be charged for a full game and receive only a part of it. Of course if the modules of the game will have the same size as a full product, the situation will be different.
The problem with Star Citizen in general is that they gathered more than $200 million and the product is not even near completion. They don't even have secured funds for the rest of the development process! This can be the most expensive video game ever made and I doubt it'll meet the expectations. If this is the example of how the game development should look in the future, I'm all against it.
That's the ideal situation you're referring to. I'm afraid the reality is a little more complicated as it often differs from the idealistic model a lot.
This type of stuff is certainly annoying, I don't support how it's being handled (on principle). But I could honestly care less. There are so many companies that do this, and there are arguably as many benefits as there are negatives with its existence. As far as I'm concerned, free-flow of information needs to work both ways, or it's simply a facade. I'd rather have a transparent system than the manipulative one we have right now, so I'm willing to be the first one to give without complaint. My insistance would be that any business that collect such data makes it known that they'll be doing so openly, instead of this sneaking about. They should take the initial hit and try to prove it's worthwhile. But that requires both integrity and honor. Might limit profits, too.
I don't think people should ever be to careful with how and where they share their user information. Unfortunately a lot of people seems to not care to much and flood the internet with everything from their personal life. It have been shown time after time, that these information are being exploited by companies. The whole facebook thing and if I recall correctly I think there were a case some years ago with a company in US who used data to single out people that had lost children in car accident or something, so they could contact them and sell their crap to them, its some time ago, so might not remember exactly what they did.
Even when companies seems "transparent" such as facebook and people trust them, information is getting misused. And people have no clue where or how they are used, and once they are on the internet or in some data storage facility somewhere, its basically impossible to get rid off again. A small amount of the data collected is so companies can give you a service, the rest is so they can categorize you and marketing stuff for you. This is business and valuable information about potential customers, habits and so forth. They don't do it to be nice or deliver a service
The last election in US there were rumors (might even have been confirmed) that data from Facebook I think it was? were used to try to manipulate voters. If they didn't think this would work, why would they bother? So if you can bombard people in doubt with stuff about this and that, it can eventually make them change their views. I my self, is one of the few that is not on facebook, not so much due to the data thing, but I just don't bother with it. But all my friends are, and remember asking one of them about this. That since this wouldn't make him drop Facebook, How much personally data it would require for him to do so? And he thought about it and he honestly didn't know, to me that is pretty scary as Im pretty sure, most people feel like him, they simply don't care. That something so fundamental for any democracy as the right to vote, is being manipulated one way or another, still doesn't make people care. Which I think is fairly dangerous, because its not done in a way so you change your mind from one moment to the next, but over a long period of time, by feeding you stuff, potentially based on personal data, that you might not even know you are sharing.
...she had accepted the terms, had also agreed to sign up for a service or something, without any noticeable warning. Im pretty sure that is illegal in the EU at least.
So companies should never be trusted in my opinion and should definitely not demand or have access to any information about people than absolutely minimum, they exist to make money, regardless of how they may appear. Obviously some more trust worthy than others, so to support a solution where we need a mutual transparent system, where information flows both way, i find a bit worrying, i think
You need to play divinity 2 with friends, it's super fun and the journey feel so much more incredible when you make to the end and one of you has to ascend. It becomes a debate of who's worthy and If words dont work, it becomes a battle to prove who is worthy.I have it the exact opposite I really think that this change towards multiplayer games is bad, especially when talking rpgs. So many games seems to be ruined by it and turned into action rpgs with very dumbed down fetching quests. Which is fine if that is what you are after, but I haven't seen any good "real" RPG multiplayer game yet. Maybe divinity would be, but haven't tried that in multiplayer.
It would be sad, if Cyberpunk simply turns into yet another GTA or Farcry type of game, would much rather see it turn more into something like Mass effect. Despite it being a cyberpunk universe and all, im personally a bit tired of games where you just go around and shoot everything that moves. Even though I think the first trailer of Cyberpunk looked a bit much like a GTA game, especially the "random" car chase encounter, which seems to occur out of the blue, without any responds from police or anything or how these people knew who you were to begin with as V killed everyone in the apartment, that got me a bit worried. But I have hope from what they said in the trailer and from future trailers, that they actually focus on the RPG elements and story more than action and that we hopefully get to see more of that soon.
Therefore, I'd turn the weakness into a strength. Forget trying to prevent it. Force the businesses to throw the doors open and reveal what they've taken. If everyone has access to all of it, no one has any unfair advantage.
You need to play divinity 2 with friends, it's super fun and the journey feel so much more incredible when you make to the end and one of you has to ascend. It becomes a debate of who's worthy and If words dont work, it becomes a battle to prove who is worthy.
Also space station 13 is a super fun multiplayer rpg but its really dated.
Best of luck, and make sure to save the cat.My point was not that its about one company getting an advantages over another. I personally couldn't care less its about private information willing or unwillingly being gathered by companies and used to "manipulate" or take advances of people. For a lot, if not most, this is not a huge problem, but you constantly hear about people being stressed, depressed and suffers from all sorts of issues, which might be tricked into varies things by companies, knowing how to get a hold of them, I don't mean it like a conspiracy thing. But its basically the same when EA tries to push loot boxes and gambling elements into their games. For a lot of people gambling is sort of like being an alcoholic, the rush of gambling, the chance of getting that special items you want and so forth. Young kids not being able to really understand, the effect of this and what it means. The reason EA and so many others does it, is because they know that they can exploit a certain amount of people, that are willing to buy into this, probably also why they have no issues when it comes to trying to defend their reason for doing it and even going through courts and so forth to make it legal for them to do it.
Its bad enough in the gaming industry, I don't want to suddenly have random companies contacting me based on some medical or psychology data they have access to, its bad enough with commercials already being targeted at you. Even though most of the time they are so way off that it doesn't matter.
So all these information is taken from your computer, mobile phone and so forth and no one have any clue what a certain company might find of interest and what information they gather.
I would assume that for instant health information for health insurance companies would be pretty interesting, imagine if these information were on the internet for all companies to use as they see fit. That would be fairly scary
Post automatically merged:
Im actually in the process of going through it on hardest difficulty, since it been some time I played it, I actually managed to get killed in the tutorial
Best of luck, and make sure to save the cat.
My point was not that its about one company getting an advantages over another. I personally couldn't care less its about private information willing or unwillingly being gathered by companies and used to "manipulate" or take advances of people. For a lot, if not most, this is not a huge problem, but you constantly hear about people being stressed, depressed and suffers from all sorts of issues, which might be tricked into varies things by companies, knowing how to get a hold of them, I don't mean it like a conspiracy thing. But its basically the same when EA tries to push loot boxes and gambling elements into their games. For a lot of people gambling is sort of like being an alcoholic, the rush of gambling, the chance of getting that special items you want and so forth. Young kids not being able to really understand, the effect of this and what it means. The reason EA and so many others does it, is because they know that they can exploit a certain amount of people, that are willing to buy into this, probably also why they have no issues when it comes to trying to defend their reason for doing it and even going through courts and so forth to make it legal for them to do it.
Its bad enough in the gaming industry, I don't want to suddenly have random companies contacting me based on some medical or psychology data they have access to, its bad enough with commercials already being targeted at you. Even though most of the time they are so way off that it doesn't matter.
So all these information is taken from your computer, mobile phone and so forth and no one have any clue what a certain company might find of interest and what information they gather.
I would assume that for instant health information for health insurance companies would be pretty interesting, imagine if these information were on the internet for all companies to use as they see fit. That would be fairly scary
I simply argue that it's not possible. If a security system could be created that prevented anyone from breaching it at any level...then the individuals controlling the security system would hold total power over all information everywhere. That would be disastrous. If we leave things as they are, information can be stolen on the sly, and there's no check or balance concerning what's done with it. That's already the problem. If we simply make it so that all information online is available to anyone who asks, it balances the scales. Now, anyone trying to take advantage will need to do it in broad daylight.
Im not sure, I fully understand you. Its sounds to me that your point is, that since all these things are happening now, we need to "accept" it and handle it by being more transparent? So since people can hack varies informations now, it would be better if for example every persons personal health data were available, so companies and institutes could request them as they saw fit, but the different would be that everyone would be able to see that a certain company had requested your data? or did I misunderstand you?
I don't share you view on the security system example, some data is sensitive and should be protected. So were it possible to make a system that couldn't be hacked, there would be lots of ways to insure that such information could not be controlled by single individuals or companies. Simply by allowing certain government departments, law enforcement (even though they have been caught doing it as well) access to such data should it be needed or that data couldn't be accessed without some sort of approval from someone else, so there are lots of ways to make sure data could be used in a responsible way with a highly secure system. It sounds a bit like throwing in the towel, and just give up all personal data, because people could hack, obtain or get access to it anyway?
Most companies will respect laws, if they risk getting huge fines and lawsuits. So doing what they are already doing now is a good start. I don't think Facebook or all the other companies that have been caught misusing personal data like having to go to court, so keep adjusting and applying laws against it, will help against most companies I think.
End result is: the internet is out now. It can't really be taken back. It could be destroyed...but I'm very sure that would cause far more problems than it could ever hope to fix. All we can do is try to make the best of the way things are. Fighting that reality will simply mean those who choose to embrace it get huge lead. Governments can't stop the data from flowing, but they can direct the free-flow to constructive ends. (And come down hard on people that try to abuse it.)
Wow, this sounds pretty wicked, are they talking about something like this to happen? Like shutdown the internet.
I think you're understanding me, by the sound of it. Where I think my thoughts differ are on the concept of "sensitive information". What I call into massive question is: what's really "sensitive"? Account numbers, passwords, private correspondence between people, etc. -- of course, no one should be able to get at these things, and they should be protected. Trouble is, they're simply not. I've had my own identity stolen twice, even with all the "security features" that existed. And what was the response both times? Big shrug from pretty much everyone. Lots of "terribly sorry" and "that's very unfortunate to hear"...and absolutely nothing was actually done. I changed my passwords, chopped up my credit cards and ordered new ones, and the thieves got away scot-free. There was no practical investigation nor consequence (only inconvenience for myself and a few others that helped me change everything that needed to change). No massive damage either.
So...what did all of those "security features" actually do? Nada. They're barely a deterrent. Whether or not someone is victimized has more to do with completely random chance than anything else. Any security system can be bypassed. Doesn't hurt to have it, but I don't rely on them much anymore.
I'd argue that other information many people want to call "sensitive" really isn't. Websites I visit, purchase history, amount of money or time spent on this or that, even stuff like where I live, my phone number, or what sort of car I drive...isn't exactly top secret info. So I'd say the official stance should be: if you do something online, it's public info. Period. It is anyway. Whether we like it or not, that's exactly the data that's "stolen" by any program built to retrieve analytics, and virtually every website does it to some extent.
The major flaws with the present system are:
1.) Companies (or individuals) are using the data for the wrong reasons, and there is no consequence for such actions. Like certain gaming companies using such analysis to target specific psychologies and intentionally create irresponsible spending habits. Can't prevent them from getting the data, but where are the laws?
2.) All of the money being wasted trying to build up taller, thicker walls. The thieves will just come in with helicopters. Dome off the zone, and they'll dig a tunnel. Put a moat around it, and they'll walk right through the main gate while you're not looking. Lock everything up, and they'll come back with scuba gear and shovels. I mean, look at the number of big-name companies that have been successfully hacked. It's a waste of time and resources. And again, where's the response?
3.) Co-opting. (Certainly not pointing fingers at anyone, but just to make the point: ) there are a lot of people who want to claim "sensitive info / privacy violation" so that they can get away with something. In many cases, it's the major corporations and businesses, and they're very, very successful at it.
So my philosophy is: unlock every door. Once everyone's fridge is wide open, anyone trying to take something out of it is going to be in plain sight. If someone tries to take advantage, have the authorities on the spot. Stop trying to prevent issues and worry about resolving them. Especially when there's no anonymity, people behave surprisingly well.
Interesting thoughts, don't think I have ever met anyone with such a view before
But still you like to see account numbers and so forth protected, but as you also say, we know that these once in a while gets stolen as well, so I can only assume that it would be just as meaningless trying to protect such information as well? In the end It doesn't really matter what is considered sensitive information or not, if they exist in the first place. Because security used to prevent passwords and account numbers being stolen, could be used to protect whatever information you would like.
If we cut to the bone, there is basically only two solutions, either things are as they are now, where certain informations are protected as best as we can or its the view as you say, that nothing is, meaning everything from credit card informations to emails should be accessable to everyone as these are public information if used on the internet. I fail to follow that view.
Obviously tracking down people that are stealing and using others identities are not that easy, as it could be anyone anywhere on earth and there are lots of tools available to hide ones true identity. So even for the police, its a time consuming and costly process, and with the amount of information being shared on the internet constantly, there is probably more new cases being generated than they can solve.
I do agree, that its a healthy view to see anything you are about to put on the internet as potential public information and that you are the best at preventing anything you wouldn't like to share with others, by simply not putting it there in the first place.
Where I fail to see your logic, is that you seem to look at online crime differently than non online. Because wouldn't it be just as logic to view it the same way. Meaning, since people break into each other houses, despite there being locked doors, alarm systems etc. It still happens. So why not keep your door unlocked when you go on holiday and leave all valuables in a bowl next to the entrance, so those breaking in could simply grab it from there not having to mess up your place searching for them?
I haven't read through most of this thread, since posts are mostly chock full of texts, but just wanted to drop in and say that I almost start to cry out of joy when I find out passionate game developers like the ones that made Kenshi game (which was put out in December I think). Just by seeing that game you can tell that this was a dream of one guy to make, and he sure did it in a couple of years and with a really rough start.
Anyway, I encourage Everyone who really values single-player RPG-strategy-something game that goes down in the deepest of the details just to bring you more fun stuff to do around to watch a review of Kenshi. You won't regret it.
Games are not "services". Games are products. (Online marketplaces are services.) Movies are not "services". (The movie theatres are.) TV shows are not "services". (The network provider is.) Books are not "services". (The book store is.) In my opinion, the entire approach is completely fraudulent, trying to directly find an excuse to charge people for nothing.
My model is based on keeping both investors and cash-flow in check, ensuring devs have the time they need to focus on manageable chunks of huge projects in stages, and that each stage provides ongoing revenue to continue funding...
...as opposed to heavyweight investors pouring huge sums of money into a venture, expecting even bigger returns fast, then pressuring devs to overreach in an attempt to get it done by wholly unrealistic deadlines, all of which harms the player in the end as the product will often fail to deliver or suffer from numerous issues.
The present system invites disaster. It lures in investors that are there only to cash the @#$% in -- they don't care for the product, the consumer, or the future of any individual company. (Not all of them -- the ones that are there for the wrong reasons.) So, there needs to be a system that makes it far less appealing for them to get involved, as they know that payouts will be more modest. A staggered development cycle like that will also keep the studio's ambitions in check.
And those chunks are not 50+ hour-long, mega-blockbusters. They're smaller, more compact experiences that, when all combined, create a solid system that may offer hundreds of hours of gameplay utilizing depth and mechanics that could never have been built "all at once".
I used Star Citizen because it's the perfect example of what happens when a vision tries to include everything-and-the-kitchen-sink upfront. Things like that become giant, unmanageable, stressful money-sinks with too many moving parts that just...never seem to come together correctly.
It's not an ideal. It's a matter of management. If I set a reasonable goal, I'll be far more likely to reach it. If I overreach, I tend not to get what I wanted. If I only deal with people that share my vision, things stay on track. If I invite contention, I get problems. If I ask the people working for me what they need, I can provide them with it. If I simply make demands, there's no guarantee they will be met. If I build for sustainability, that's what will be built. If I build to make a ton of money up-front, that's all I'll wind up with. I take a risk either way, and I reap what I sow.
It is not idealistic in any way. It's simply cause and effect.
Every game is a product, but some games are also services. This includes especially online titles...
I think that you're proposing a financial model that to this point was used mostly in online games. It's not a good solution because it fragments games to parts in a more drastic way than DLCs do it. As Star Citizen shows it favors promises rather than actual development of the title...I like crowdfunding because it gave us many projects that wouldn't have the opportunity to be released other way. I see a problem however when someone gathers $200 million, makes promises on releasing certain features and doesn't secure the funds to make them happen. This is the risk of module based games.
Are you so sure about that? Constant cash flow encourages to develop plans that may not be fulfilled due to certain reasons. This happens especially if you lose the view of general development plan and forget about the point you want to reach with your development process...
And all of this only if the project gets finished some day. Quite a tricky situation. Besides I doubt it will be financially wise for the players.
It's still a good example of what can happen if module based games become popular. There's a huge risk for the players in this situation and that's why I'm not enthusiastic about it.
To many "ifs" for my liking. That's why I call it idealistic.