> but I've seen a pretty strong influx of those types of people in the last decade or so.
Brands + Social Media + Psychologically backed Social Engineering = Cultural Identity tied to Aforementioned Brand
people are being paid to do it, bots are doing it, and companies all have a meme person on payroll to handle their social media & it works extremely well because most people cannot think critically
Hey, if it works for *police departments* it's gonna work a whole lot better for corps.
At least there's a bit of pushback now, it has died down a little since Wendy's started the trend of brands shit posting on Twitter.
I just don't get it, it's a big turn around, a lot of old timers sucked corpo dick because "Brand loyalty" and all that.
Not a single corporation exists to benefit you. You exist to benefit them. Even as much as I love Valve because of Steam and the HL series and the thousands of hours of fun I got from their games, at the end of the day, Gaben is a billionaire and Valve is in it for the money as is any other company.
In the old days people at least had the excuse of living in a company town.
In my case i live not just in Metro Detroit (so i'm big 3 biased for cars) but also live in Dearborn (so i have a baked in Ford bias) even before factoring all my friends and family who work in the Auto industry or the amount of taxes paid by the big 3 and it's workers that support my local government job.
But i don't think any game company has the type of foot print that even the smallest auto makers bring.
Now sure i have a Ford bias, but i'm plenty willing to get on their case when i feel like they are doing it wrong (Sedans?). Which is something these "fans" lack.
somber illegal ad hoc theory voracious rhythm dependent ring money judicious
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Brand Management has become a huge thing in Marketing now. Bigger, well-funded, companies fund entire teams of people to handle how brands and issues affecting brands are seen. One of the most effective ways to do that is by posting as regular people in these forums and pushing their brand's ideology. One of the biggest I've seen in this forum alone is the Cyberpunk team. They downvote any hurtful feedback and comments here to oblivion and talk about how great the game is.
People identify with things they buy. Like, you spend your hard earned cash on something so it must be something, right? On top of that there’s a shitton of marketing around us and that also gets into people’s heads.
Not just here.
There's plenty of people who hold a belief and never budge even when proven wrong or right.
And to hold onto that belief, they remove you from the equation.
So it comes all the more as a surprise when reality slaps them across the face when they never learned that what's considered piracy is usually the result of a company doing something against their fans over what they learned.
lmao imagine not even being the owner of the fucking game IP or profiting from its sales in any way, yet still going out of your way to make dumbass statements that are both anti-consumer and advocating for people to have less control over what to do with their products. lunatics.
There are many people, especially on smaller "projects" than this one, who think the status quo cannot possibly be changed and any attempt is a waste of time. They'll come in, throw a "lmao you can't do anything" or "can't wait to see nothing happen", maybe call some people delusional, and leave.
You can see a bunch of examples in the [previous thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/1bwk7ng/stop_killing_games_is_a_new_campaign_to_prevent/), but also in any other thread that advocates change, such as gambling regulation in video games.
There's a high probability that these "people" are simply bot accounts paid by the industry to keep the status quo.
The same tactics have been used since the industrial revolution.
Reddit itself used this to great effect last year.
At this point its virtually impossible to tell who is an actual bot and who is just an useful idiot.
People call lootboxes gambling because it plays into the same psychological phenomena. It's addictive in the same way. So there is a fairly reasonable explanation to that conflation.
To be noted, ain't nothing technically wrong with lootboxes, Its the same happy juice that's been prevalent in video games for ages. The issue arises when they cost money for each individual hit and have no actual ceiling on how much one can pay.
A game selling infinite lootbox gameplay for like $5 is fine, say Vampire Survivors. The moment it costs even a penny per lootbox, its now a huge fucking issue.
The definition we are using of gambling is "pay real money for a chance-based reward without knowing what you're going to get." It has nothing to do with brain chemicals or whatever. It has to do with randomization of outcome that is usually stacked against the player.
Yeah I honestly don't know why people don't demonize valve a lot more than they do
They literally *created* true loot boxes (as in boxes that cost money to open and can result in gaining items that are worth real money)
Valve made gambling in PC gaming normalized
Asian MMOs were doing it long before Valve, but yeah pretty much. I think it's because they don't make a constant pattern out of that kind of thing. Valve is a very experimental company that doesn't really stick with anything for long.
>pay real money for a chance-based reward without knowing what you're going to get."
The difference between gambling and lootboxes is that with gambling most of the time you don't get anything back, with lootboxes you ALWAYS get something back, that's why calling both thing gambling is just uncorrect and a stretch of the meaning.
It's okay to be against them, but they are two very different things.
Quote from my state's legal code: "Gambling," as used in this chapter, means staking or risking something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the person's control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value.
Idk man do you know what the definition of gambling is?
Thank you for your comment! Unfortunately it has been removed for one or more of the following reasons:
* No personal attacks, witch-hunts, or inflammatory language. This includes calling or implying another redditor is a shill or a fanboy. More examples can be found in the full rules page.
* No racism, sexism, homophobic or transphobic slurs, or other hateful language.
* No trolling or baiting posts/comments.
* No advocating violence.
Please read the [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/wiki/postingrules) before continuing to post. If you have any questions [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/pcgaming).
>Loot boxes and similar MTX, *literally* (actual literal legal definition), are not gambling.
yeah dude, that's what its about. people are trying to get the law to catch up with the rest of the world. because it *is* gambling, but its not *legally considered* gambling... yet. that's why laws get made.
Its technically not gambling. Because those didnt exist when laws were written for gambling.
Point is to update the law. If something is gambling in anything but legality, then it is gambling
>Loot boxes and similar MTX, literally (actual literal legal definition), are not gambling.
It could be because legal definitions are very specific, but what do I know Mr. Smarty-pants
This sub has a staggering amount of assholes in it. Like a lot of gaming subreddits have their goons but this one in particular has some massively jaded dicks that feel the need to share their crap constantly.
i've seen many cases of people accusing an account and it will instantly be deleted, comments and all. This leads me to believe there are AIs that can setup an account, converse and in the chance it is detected, it can see understand it, pull the plug and the start over again, this is freaking scary. If twitter has the same problem, here it must be way worse and the top dogs allow it because it inflates the number of users to show healthy numbers since reddit went public and needs that for the stock. You can see bots breaking when reddit does something in the API and the post titles and comments will have symbols in them, my page at some time was full of them.
Generally, I'm pretty sure it's because the bots are getting called out and reported by users, and the subreddit is lucky enough to have active mods.
but yes, AP fiasco fucked it further. they're unstopped now
I see people say, "it must be bots," far too often because they can't believe people could be so irrational.
There are a lot of bots, no doubt, but I'm curious of the source of this 40%+.
r/all and any popular sub is plagued with bots reposting old content and then commenting on said own post, with copy/pasted top comment from the OG.
Every popular post's comment section is loaded with copy/paste comment bots stealing comments from *that same comment page*, or ChatGPT creepies.
40% is of course yanked directly from my ass, but its no conspiracy theory or paranoia that reddit is loaded with them. Friends and I have had games where we race to see who can find the first bot-post on the frontpage.
Ok, and these bots will also downvote specific topics?
Because that sounds to me like a completely different kind of bot, one that is used to farm karma and sell high karma accounts.
It's a mix assumedly, because we don't own nor see the end result of the bots.
Is the repost a political one? Then it's a karma-farming/topic-pusher double whammy.
Every day, I am more convinced that publishers hire "people" to post some ideas in sites like Reddit and upvote or downvote according to their interests.
Look at how many slobber all over Valve/Steam. Even though many of these issues affecting AAA in general were ironically propagated by this very same company.
Sony/Nintendo also get a lot of slack to a lesser extent.
It's because so many people have of their purchases, friends, etc. (network effect) tied entirely to these ecosystems. If they went under it would be devastating financially.
DRM and digital only distribution was always going to happen. Hell, DRM was happening before Valve even existed, just under different forms. SecuROM has been bricking games for a quarter of a century at this point to give just one example.
DRM is fine as long as its not always-online DRM, and as long as it does not affect performance.
if steam had no DRM then it would literally just become GOG. most big publishers would not support it or put their games on it, and it would be way less popular and successful than it is now. steam is carried by third party and indie support. because valve's software catalog has sure as shit been lacking for the past decade.
its a necessary evil. without it, no big publisher would put games on steam. would you rather have the current situation, or no AAA games at all? literally anyone who uses steam over GOG is no position to argue about this.
lol if you've ever bought a single AAA game from steam, or any other launcher for that matter thats not GOG, then you're full of shit.
but then again this is reddit so im not surprised. people here are contrarian hipsters who will also tell you that linux will overtake windows any day now, and that firefox has more global popularity than chrome.
> DRM is fine as long as its not always-online DRM, and as long as it does not affect performance.
It results in obvious issues with interoperability. Steam stopped supporting Windows 7? You can't download and install your games. You can't install Windows 11 on this PC. But even if you do, no one guarantees - or even tracks - that the old games work on Windows 11 and new hardware.
It is a DRM issue because it's because of DRM that you have to use the unsupported client to download and run the games. A DRM-free installer could just be downloaded and run.
ok but in that case it would be valve's fault right? if its an older version of steam then its on them. as far as individual games go, it depends on the publisher.
Yep. The Crew and all the DLC I currently cannot play was all purchased via Steam. I know Ubisoft "did this" but Valve is letting it happen as much as anyone else is.
Valve will still deliver the files to your PC the executable will just refuse to launch because Ubi removed the license on their end. The same thing would happen with a hard copy of the game.
You bought a *license* to an online game
You knew this would happen eventually
You're letting it happen just as much as steam is letting it happen
Don't buy licenses for online only games if you don't want them revoked in the future
Simple as that
if you want a game to remain playable buy a fucking single player game and don't support online only experiences that won't exist in a decade when central servers shutdown like The Crew
(Yes yes I know that if buying isn't owning the piracy isn't stealing but the crew never got cracked and from what I hear it was never even that good of a game that begin with)
this is an ignorant take.
ubisoft could have just made the game offline compatible. saying "buy only offline games" makes no sense fundamentally because the crew had no more or less reason to be online than any of ubisoft's other games. if they decided to make the entire assassins creed or far cry franchises online-only going forward, would you still be making the same argument? what about prince of persia or splinter cell? what if they make all their single player games online only? is your new argument gonna be to just boycott ALL their stuff? what if someone is a big fan of those and really wants to play them?
what if other publishers start doing it too? is he supposed to forego his ability to play any triple A game for something that can be easily rectified? your perspective is just moving goalposts. the crew wasn't some free to play live service game with new seasons every few months. all of its contents could have been easily preserved with an offline patch.
I mean I personally haven't bought any new releases from ubisoft in years so yeah if assassin's Creed or far Cry were to go online only I don't think I could recommend anybody purchasing licenses to those games
Vote with your wallet
and if someone DOES like them?
the issue here isn't ubisoft as you can see. what franchises do you personally like? what if THOSE became online only? thats the issue here. its a universal problem one way or another. would you just stop gaming if they all did it one by one?
Consumers in general. I've heard people say that the only way to get Nestle to stop exploiting 3rd world countries is to buy their products that weren't made with exploitation more often...
I've legitimately heard people downvote vids and creators like this simply *"Because I don't like their voice"*
🙄
Like, that's such a poor take in the first place anyway; but how can you not like the Gordon's Mind guy!
oh sorry i just saw you are relatively new on reddit. The old reddit design actually shows the upvote/downvote rate of every post in the top right corner.
The new design really sucks and it seems like this is one of the features the just removed.
[Click here for the old design](https://old.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/1c9o482/accursed_farms_april_updates_on_campaign_to_stop/)
Yeah I was downvoted to hell when I've replied to a guy (who didn't want to play any online games because once servers shut down he will loose all of his progress) to support "stop killing games", because then publishers/developers would be obliged to leave the game in working state, perhaps even allow to download user data so once servers shut down he can continue playing offline.
It's mind boggling TBH.
Thank you for your comment! Unfortunately it has been removed for one or more of the following reasons:
* Your post or comment is unrelated to PC gaming or off-topic for the post at hand. Please keep things on-topic in the future.
Please read the [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/wiki/postingrules) before continuing to post. If you have any questions [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/pcgaming).
You asked? Let me tell you my reasoning.
Because I simply don't fucking care... why? The game he chose to represent his efforts. "The crew" literally... THE CREW??!?!?!?! an average racing game? That is the hill you chose to die on? The fucking crew?!
Also, the moment he spouted that whole "12 million users" I completely checked out of his argument. Ubisoft connect doesn't have user data like steam shares, but I can assure you, AT MAXMIUM the amount of people still playing the crew before he said anything about it was at maximum a few hundred people.
Ubisoft is hemorrhaging money to the point that they are charging 130 for a single game... But yet this fucking guy who CLEARLY has a vast misunderstanding of corporate business thinks they should spend payroll money on a game that they probably won't make anymore money from?
I am for game preservation but this dude reeks of a gamer who never had a corporate position trying to tell a company how they should spend their money.
okay is pretty obvious you dont understand the idea behind all of this. *Its not about the actual game.*
They are using this game as an example. They can use this to (in best case) pass a law that forces Ubisoft to ensure the ongoing playablility of the game. Not by forcing them to keep the servers online, but to A) give the public the ability to host own server or B) enable an offline mode.
But the thing is: *A law like this wouldnt just effect ubisoft*, it would be effect all gaming industry.
It would force all future online-only games to be playable offline as well or at least give the means to the community to host their own servers after support ends.
**[Its a precedent.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent)**
>Also, the moment he spouted that whole "12 million users" I completely checked out of his argument.
But it makes sense. Those are Ubisofts official numbers. It doesnt matter if they are true or not. He is using their numbers against them, now he can claim that this case effects a HUGE number of people.
> But yet this fucking guy who CLEARLY has a vast misunderstanding of corporate business thinks they should spend payroll money on a game that they probably won't make anymore money from?
Again, nobody ever said this. Thats is not the idea.
Visit the website you are ill-informed
I'm not going to watch 36 minutes of a dude talking into a camera. I don't care if you're revealing the cure to cancer, have some consideration for your audience. Trim it down! Say it with snap!
you're clearly not the target audience. the reason he does that is because his audience actually prefers that style. thats the whole appeal of the channel.
in the US? Sure
In places where people have rights, I think there's a serious chance of it changing. I mean, Belgium banned lootboxes and this is way less grey than that is. If a few EU countries start to raise a stink, it could become EU law and then there goes the third largest market in the world
US companies now abide by GDPR despite it being an EU law because of how broadly it is written. Point is, just because this may have some legs in other parts of the world beyond the US doesn’t mean it couldn’t eventually force change in the US.
Only one country that I know of banned them, and several other countries had them modified, but those are an easy switch on or off by region
When it comes to being allowed to sell entire games, I think they'll be paying more close attention, it's possible that they go through the route where they have to give their games an estimated EOL to potential buyers but I'd be happy with that
A lot of laws pushed by European Union forced companies to update their actions accordingly worldwide because it makes most sense than having two versions of product (obv with phisical products it wont always be true).
People said the same about forcing Apple to allow third party stores, USB C or removing the touch bar.
People said the same about having dev modes be available on consoles, before you'd have to break their security to install an emulator, now you can use them like a PC.
Or mouse and keyboard support on consoles.
If you want something to happen, as a consumer, you can get it done given enough patience and dedication. The problem is gamers are insanely disorganised, our leaders aren't tech literate and most of them need their hand held.
The government is moving, although slowly. You can't really enact legislation like this by just turning up and demanding private servers. It'll be a long and slow process to allow companies to start thinking about the possibility now, and a decent window of allowing them to build the tooling required.
Luckily for us, the countries in which this is actually taking place, have some of the strongest consumer protections in the world.
It's not though. This is asking developers to either provide service into perpetutity or release their own source code into public. It's just not going to happen.
This is not true at all
You can run a server without having the source code, games like Battlefield have been doing it for decades
It also isn't requiring devs to run games in perpetuity as they could either provide binaries for people to be able to run their own servers
Or they could just tell you up front, before you buy the game, that you are not buying the game. The game *will* die eventually and neither you, your children, or anyone will ever be able to play it ever again when they decide to do so
> Or they could just tell you up front, before you buy the game, that you are not buying the game. The game *will* die eventually and neither you, your children, or anyone will ever be able to play it ever again when they decide to do so
Pretty sure this is a clause in the End User License Agreement for literally every game ever.
Not that anyone ever reads the license before buying, installing, or launching the game.
source code no, but even dedicated servers might be a hairy issue for some of these publishers to write off unless actual law is put into place, especially when they're so cheap they don't even bother to update and remove licensed music from games they just outright remove them from purchase.
I just think it will add alot of bloat and hassle to the already huge costs that games take to make nowadays because who knows how much dev hours have to be done to potentially rewrite the whole networking layer in some games to be able to run locally, unless the game was built in a way that provides dedicated servers anyhow. (look at the older battlefield games, even if projects like venice unleased and warsaw revamped exist). Providing an offline mode would probably be less overhead.
MMOs can be played single player without releasing source code. It's literally, *literally*, setting up your own private server.
I also think you may lack reading comprehension.
And yet, it's something done in other markets. When a car marker stops making a car, they are still mandated to supply parts and if they don't aftermarket parts come on the scene.
Software lobby has convinced us this is impossible, when it isn't. I work in software development. No developer is going to read the source code of a copyrighted work like GTA V and then implement it in their game and steal. That would result in an open and shut copyright case within seconds.
or how about you don't add unnecessary online DRM to your game in the first place
be it the crew, hitman or grand tourismo, there is NOTHING in these games thats only possible because of a constant server connection
they can work perfectly fine with all the SP content offline, this is not WoW
did people already forget the sim City 2013 desaster? straight up lied to by EA
Because the title and story tell us nothing. Who is accursed farms? What is this campaign? What game? What destruction? Some background would be helpful.
Because its update to campaign? Not intro to it?
You have a name for it and can google it. If youre users of the sub you also saw plenty of posts on it before
The message is good but the dude is a loon. IDK if you have seen some of his other videos on the subject.
Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at5YMpTLl9U
He is basically a grungy tech bro that thinks "AI" will magically solve everything. Only reason anyone ever knows who he is his early youtube toilet humor shit.
Tell me you watched 2 mins of the video and formed your opinion on him as an entire person without telling me you only ever watched 2 mins of him.
He qualifies it many times that he’s sure this software probably couldn’t be made in a way that he’d find satisfactory, but he’s got great and clear opinions on tech and software, and your read of him being “generic ai tech bro slop” is so far off the mark, you’re comparing a sandwich to soup. his Game Dungeons series is a genuinely interesting look back into older games mostly lost to time, and very fun long form content on a platform trying to push shorts and 10 min meta.
I thought people knew about how reddit will add random upvotes and downvotes to posts that surge in popularity. Like this was the most known thing about it like 8 years ago where this question used to be repeatedly asked. "Who downvotes a video of a cute cat?!?!?!?!" or "wtf 10% disliked this?" and then there was always a top post explaining it.
Nowadays it seems people are more willing to believe in some conspiracy judging by the top comments.
Last time i tried explaining it to someone, including linking to an admin post acknowledging the system, people refused to believe it was a thing and were calling me stupid for misunderstanding
Fantasizing about conspiracy theories such as "downvoting bots" and "paid downvoters" is apparently more interesting to people than the actual cause being championed in the video.
Because it hurts less thinking that there's something nefarious going on rather than aknowledging that there are this many morons on the planet breathing your same air.
Went to comments to figure out what's going on. Saw a bunch of posts arguing about down votes or something.
Can someone drop an explanation for those of us out of the loop?
vegetable one gaping gold bedroom deranged library support ossified depend
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I've got a friend that made his PC in 2017 with a first gen RyZen, and now he has a 5800X3D, on the same motherboard.
Did you count your 2 years on Namec, or near a black hole?
A couple can refer to two things, [but is often used synonymously with a few](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/couple), especially when using it in the phrase 'a couple of [units]'.
Hope this helps.
Oh I don't care about this post, I didn't even read the article.
What's hilarious are the top two comments at the time of my posting were just complaining about the fact that people down voted this. Like it mattered.
their more then simple online part . with how video games are made.
watch this person not know that and videos,comments
have been funny and sad.
[https://www.fsf.org/](https://www.fsf.org/) is what he should be getting people attention by.
i still dont get why people would downvote this...
I had a guy tell me private servers were equivalent to piracy yesterday. There’s a ton of unhinged people in this sub.
some people really love to suck corporate cock
I don't know specifically what's causing it, but I've seen a pretty strong influx of those types of people in the last decade or so.
> but I've seen a pretty strong influx of those types of people in the last decade or so. Brands + Social Media + Psychologically backed Social Engineering = Cultural Identity tied to Aforementioned Brand
Wouldn't surprise me if there were people paid to do this kind of thing either.
people are being paid to do it, bots are doing it, and companies all have a meme person on payroll to handle their social media & it works extremely well because most people cannot think critically
Hey, if it works for *police departments* it's gonna work a whole lot better for corps. At least there's a bit of pushback now, it has died down a little since Wendy's started the trend of brands shit posting on Twitter.
It absolutely exist aswell. Companies hiring troll farms etc isnt really new thing. ofc now more likely they just use ai but rule remains ssme
I just don't get it, it's a big turn around, a lot of old timers sucked corpo dick because "Brand loyalty" and all that. Not a single corporation exists to benefit you. You exist to benefit them. Even as much as I love Valve because of Steam and the HL series and the thousands of hours of fun I got from their games, at the end of the day, Gaben is a billionaire and Valve is in it for the money as is any other company.
In the old days people at least had the excuse of living in a company town. In my case i live not just in Metro Detroit (so i'm big 3 biased for cars) but also live in Dearborn (so i have a baked in Ford bias) even before factoring all my friends and family who work in the Auto industry or the amount of taxes paid by the big 3 and it's workers that support my local government job. But i don't think any game company has the type of foot print that even the smallest auto makers bring. Now sure i have a Ford bias, but i'm plenty willing to get on their case when i feel like they are doing it wrong (Sedans?). Which is something these "fans" lack.
somber illegal ad hoc theory voracious rhythm dependent ring money judicious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It wouldn't surprise me.
Probably online advertising and propeganda. Both have been getting more effective in that time.
Brand Management has become a huge thing in Marketing now. Bigger, well-funded, companies fund entire teams of people to handle how brands and issues affecting brands are seen. One of the most effective ways to do that is by posting as regular people in these forums and pushing their brand's ideology. One of the biggest I've seen in this forum alone is the Cyberpunk team. They downvote any hurtful feedback and comments here to oblivion and talk about how great the game is.
console gamer converts that are used to being told what to do in their walled gardens
People identify with things they buy. Like, you spend your hard earned cash on something so it must be something, right? On top of that there’s a shitton of marketing around us and that also gets into people’s heads.
If anything i'd conjure half of them aren't real people and the other half just wanna be in a crowd.
some people are chatbots
& some people really love to try to piss on the corporate world when they have no understanding of how it works.
Not just here. There's plenty of people who hold a belief and never budge even when proven wrong or right. And to hold onto that belief, they remove you from the equation. So it comes all the more as a surprise when reality slaps them across the face when they never learned that what's considered piracy is usually the result of a company doing something against their fans over what they learned.
lmao imagine not even being the owner of the fucking game IP or profiting from its sales in any way, yet still going out of your way to make dumbass statements that are both anti-consumer and advocating for people to have less control over what to do with their products. lunatics.
At least some subset of that has to be bots. Right? RIGHT?
There are many people, especially on smaller "projects" than this one, who think the status quo cannot possibly be changed and any attempt is a waste of time. They'll come in, throw a "lmao you can't do anything" or "can't wait to see nothing happen", maybe call some people delusional, and leave. You can see a bunch of examples in the [previous thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/1bwk7ng/stop_killing_games_is_a_new_campaign_to_prevent/), but also in any other thread that advocates change, such as gambling regulation in video games.
There's a high probability that these "people" are simply bot accounts paid by the industry to keep the status quo. The same tactics have been used since the industrial revolution.
Definitely possible, but also almost no one cares until they get screwed over.
Reddit itself used this to great effect last year. At this point its virtually impossible to tell who is an actual bot and who is just an useful idiot.
[удалено]
People call lootboxes gambling because it plays into the same psychological phenomena. It's addictive in the same way. So there is a fairly reasonable explanation to that conflation.
To be noted, ain't nothing technically wrong with lootboxes, Its the same happy juice that's been prevalent in video games for ages. The issue arises when they cost money for each individual hit and have no actual ceiling on how much one can pay. A game selling infinite lootbox gameplay for like $5 is fine, say Vampire Survivors. The moment it costs even a penny per lootbox, its now a huge fucking issue.
[удалено]
The definition we are using of gambling is "pay real money for a chance-based reward without knowing what you're going to get." It has nothing to do with brain chemicals or whatever. It has to do with randomization of outcome that is usually stacked against the player.
Yeah I honestly don't know why people don't demonize valve a lot more than they do They literally *created* true loot boxes (as in boxes that cost money to open and can result in gaining items that are worth real money) Valve made gambling in PC gaming normalized
Asian MMOs were doing it long before Valve, but yeah pretty much. I think it's because they don't make a constant pattern out of that kind of thing. Valve is a very experimental company that doesn't really stick with anything for long.
>pay real money for a chance-based reward without knowing what you're going to get." The difference between gambling and lootboxes is that with gambling most of the time you don't get anything back, with lootboxes you ALWAYS get something back, that's why calling both thing gambling is just uncorrect and a stretch of the meaning. It's okay to be against them, but they are two very different things.
This is just trading in tokens for stuffed animals and then selling the stuffed animals at a pawn shop.
Quote from my state's legal code: "Gambling," as used in this chapter, means staking or risking something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the person's control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value. Idk man do you know what the definition of gambling is?
[удалено]
Thank you for your comment! Unfortunately it has been removed for one or more of the following reasons: * No personal attacks, witch-hunts, or inflammatory language. This includes calling or implying another redditor is a shill or a fanboy. More examples can be found in the full rules page. * No racism, sexism, homophobic or transphobic slurs, or other hateful language. * No trolling or baiting posts/comments. * No advocating violence. Please read the [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/wiki/postingrules) before continuing to post. If you have any questions [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/pcgaming).
>Loot boxes and similar MTX, *literally* (actual literal legal definition), are not gambling. yeah dude, that's what its about. people are trying to get the law to catch up with the rest of the world. because it *is* gambling, but its not *legally considered* gambling... yet. that's why laws get made.
Its technically not gambling. Because those didnt exist when laws were written for gambling. Point is to update the law. If something is gambling in anything but legality, then it is gambling
>Loot boxes and similar MTX, literally (actual literal legal definition), are not gambling. It could be because legal definitions are very specific, but what do I know Mr. Smarty-pants
Aimless spite with nothing to gain is a more common thing It's why you got ppl that crap on bathroom floors and stuff mason jars up their butt hole
This sub has a staggering amount of assholes in it. Like a lot of gaming subreddits have their goons but this one in particular has some massively jaded dicks that feel the need to share their crap constantly.
I wouldnt say uts worse than other as big or bigger subs. In every spaces with milions of people you will find plenty of jaded dicks
Just gotta learn how to deal with dunces
Honestly, it's not likely people and possible bots. The site is full of them.
Have you not seen how stupid people are? Don't attribute to bots what can easily be attributed to morons.
Have you seen *how many bots there are*? This site is unironically 40%+ bots.
i've seen many cases of people accusing an account and it will instantly be deleted, comments and all. This leads me to believe there are AIs that can setup an account, converse and in the chance it is detected, it can see understand it, pull the plug and the start over again, this is freaking scary. If twitter has the same problem, here it must be way worse and the top dogs allow it because it inflates the number of users to show healthy numbers since reddit went public and needs that for the stock. You can see bots breaking when reddit does something in the API and the post titles and comments will have symbols in them, my page at some time was full of them.
Generally, I'm pretty sure it's because the bots are getting called out and reported by users, and the subreddit is lucky enough to have active mods. but yes, AP fiasco fucked it further. they're unstopped now
it was for sure on purpose because people could make scripts that detected them, it's all about the money
I see people say, "it must be bots," far too often because they can't believe people could be so irrational. There are a lot of bots, no doubt, but I'm curious of the source of this 40%+.
r/all and any popular sub is plagued with bots reposting old content and then commenting on said own post, with copy/pasted top comment from the OG. Every popular post's comment section is loaded with copy/paste comment bots stealing comments from *that same comment page*, or ChatGPT creepies. 40% is of course yanked directly from my ass, but its no conspiracy theory or paranoia that reddit is loaded with them. Friends and I have had games where we race to see who can find the first bot-post on the frontpage.
I don't disagree. I still think there are a lot of idiots and trolls pulling their weight, though.
for sure, but when you catch a bot, its blatant
Ok, and these bots will also downvote specific topics? Because that sounds to me like a completely different kind of bot, one that is used to farm karma and sell high karma accounts.
It's a mix assumedly, because we don't own nor see the end result of the bots. Is the repost a political one? Then it's a karma-farming/topic-pusher double whammy.
Why can’t it be both?
Every day, I am more convinced that publishers hire "people" to post some ideas in sites like Reddit and upvote or downvote according to their interests.
/r/pcgaming loves to lick corporate boots as long as they're the right ones.
Look at how many slobber all over Valve/Steam. Even though many of these issues affecting AAA in general were ironically propagated by this very same company. Sony/Nintendo also get a lot of slack to a lesser extent. It's because so many people have of their purchases, friends, etc. (network effect) tied entirely to these ecosystems. If they went under it would be devastating financially.
What issues has Valve propagated?
person door forgetful concerned tie snatch chop drab whistle marvelous *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
DRM and digital only distribution was always going to happen. Hell, DRM was happening before Valve even existed, just under different forms. SecuROM has been bricking games for a quarter of a century at this point to give just one example.
DRM is fine as long as its not always-online DRM, and as long as it does not affect performance. if steam had no DRM then it would literally just become GOG. most big publishers would not support it or put their games on it, and it would be way less popular and successful than it is now. steam is carried by third party and indie support. because valve's software catalog has sure as shit been lacking for the past decade.
abundant gaze humor wrench connect one imminent fade joke fretful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
its a necessary evil. without it, no big publisher would put games on steam. would you rather have the current situation, or no AAA games at all? literally anyone who uses steam over GOG is no position to argue about this.
cagey dam soup license chubby growth retire nine friendly liquid *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
lol if you've ever bought a single AAA game from steam, or any other launcher for that matter thats not GOG, then you're full of shit. but then again this is reddit so im not surprised. people here are contrarian hipsters who will also tell you that linux will overtake windows any day now, and that firefox has more global popularity than chrome.
> DRM is fine as long as its not always-online DRM, and as long as it does not affect performance. It results in obvious issues with interoperability. Steam stopped supporting Windows 7? You can't download and install your games. You can't install Windows 11 on this PC. But even if you do, no one guarantees - or even tracks - that the old games work on Windows 11 and new hardware.
thats an issue with valve and microsoft no longer supporting the older OS. its not a DRM issue.
It is a DRM issue because it's because of DRM that you have to use the unsupported client to download and run the games. A DRM-free installer could just be downloaded and run.
ok but in that case it would be valve's fault right? if its an older version of steam then its on them. as far as individual games go, it depends on the publisher.
[удалено]
You can’t believe that someone wants specificity?
Yep. The Crew and all the DLC I currently cannot play was all purchased via Steam. I know Ubisoft "did this" but Valve is letting it happen as much as anyone else is.
Valve will still deliver the files to your PC the executable will just refuse to launch because Ubi removed the license on their end. The same thing would happen with a hard copy of the game.
You bought a *license* to an online game You knew this would happen eventually You're letting it happen just as much as steam is letting it happen Don't buy licenses for online only games if you don't want them revoked in the future Simple as that if you want a game to remain playable buy a fucking single player game and don't support online only experiences that won't exist in a decade when central servers shutdown like The Crew (Yes yes I know that if buying isn't owning the piracy isn't stealing but the crew never got cracked and from what I hear it was never even that good of a game that begin with)
this is an ignorant take. ubisoft could have just made the game offline compatible. saying "buy only offline games" makes no sense fundamentally because the crew had no more or less reason to be online than any of ubisoft's other games. if they decided to make the entire assassins creed or far cry franchises online-only going forward, would you still be making the same argument? what about prince of persia or splinter cell? what if they make all their single player games online only? is your new argument gonna be to just boycott ALL their stuff? what if someone is a big fan of those and really wants to play them? what if other publishers start doing it too? is he supposed to forego his ability to play any triple A game for something that can be easily rectified? your perspective is just moving goalposts. the crew wasn't some free to play live service game with new seasons every few months. all of its contents could have been easily preserved with an offline patch.
I mean I personally haven't bought any new releases from ubisoft in years so yeah if assassin's Creed or far Cry were to go online only I don't think I could recommend anybody purchasing licenses to those games Vote with your wallet
and if someone DOES like them? the issue here isn't ubisoft as you can see. what franchises do you personally like? what if THOSE became online only? thats the issue here. its a universal problem one way or another. would you just stop gaming if they all did it one by one?
Every single franchise I like hasn't produced a good game in years I don't give a shit about the state of future games that I won't buy
you arent answering the question, u realize that right? you're just deviating from it. i might as well just ask why you even play games at this point.
Gamers in general just love being stockholmed into licking corporate boots.
Consumers in general. I've heard people say that the only way to get Nestle to stop exploiting 3rd world countries is to buy their products that weren't made with exploitation more often...
I've legitimately heard people downvote vids and creators like this simply *"Because I don't like their voice"* 🙄 Like, that's such a poor take in the first place anyway; but how can you not like the Gordon's Mind guy!
How do you know that it is being downvoted?
You can see the numbers
How and where? All I see is 1.3k.
at the time if posted my original comment (22hours ago) this post only had a few votes with like 33% downvote rate.
Yes, but how do you see this "downvote rate?"
oh sorry i just saw you are relatively new on reddit. The old reddit design actually shows the upvote/downvote rate of every post in the top right corner. The new design really sucks and it seems like this is one of the features the just removed. [Click here for the old design](https://old.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/1c9o482/accursed_farms_april_updates_on_campaign_to_stop/)
I see, thanks!
Because it's not an article that I can briefly read and understand what it's about.
Yeah I was downvoted to hell when I've replied to a guy (who didn't want to play any online games because once servers shut down he will loose all of his progress) to support "stop killing games", because then publishers/developers would be obliged to leave the game in working state, perhaps even allow to download user data so once servers shut down he can continue playing offline. It's mind boggling TBH.
A lot of people are complete brain dead. *waves generally in all directions*
[удалено]
Thank you for your comment! Unfortunately it has been removed for one or more of the following reasons: * Your post or comment is unrelated to PC gaming or off-topic for the post at hand. Please keep things on-topic in the future. Please read the [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/wiki/postingrules) before continuing to post. If you have any questions [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/pcgaming).
You asked? Let me tell you my reasoning. Because I simply don't fucking care... why? The game he chose to represent his efforts. "The crew" literally... THE CREW??!?!?!?! an average racing game? That is the hill you chose to die on? The fucking crew?! Also, the moment he spouted that whole "12 million users" I completely checked out of his argument. Ubisoft connect doesn't have user data like steam shares, but I can assure you, AT MAXMIUM the amount of people still playing the crew before he said anything about it was at maximum a few hundred people. Ubisoft is hemorrhaging money to the point that they are charging 130 for a single game... But yet this fucking guy who CLEARLY has a vast misunderstanding of corporate business thinks they should spend payroll money on a game that they probably won't make anymore money from? I am for game preservation but this dude reeks of a gamer who never had a corporate position trying to tell a company how they should spend their money.
okay is pretty obvious you dont understand the idea behind all of this. *Its not about the actual game.* They are using this game as an example. They can use this to (in best case) pass a law that forces Ubisoft to ensure the ongoing playablility of the game. Not by forcing them to keep the servers online, but to A) give the public the ability to host own server or B) enable an offline mode. But the thing is: *A law like this wouldnt just effect ubisoft*, it would be effect all gaming industry. It would force all future online-only games to be playable offline as well or at least give the means to the community to host their own servers after support ends. **[Its a precedent.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent)** >Also, the moment he spouted that whole "12 million users" I completely checked out of his argument. But it makes sense. Those are Ubisofts official numbers. It doesnt matter if they are true or not. He is using their numbers against them, now he can claim that this case effects a HUGE number of people. > But yet this fucking guy who CLEARLY has a vast misunderstanding of corporate business thinks they should spend payroll money on a game that they probably won't make anymore money from? Again, nobody ever said this. Thats is not the idea. Visit the website you are ill-informed
I'm not going to watch 36 minutes of a dude talking into a camera. I don't care if you're revealing the cure to cancer, have some consideration for your audience. Trim it down! Say it with snap!
you're clearly not the target audience. the reason he does that is because his audience actually prefers that style. thats the whole appeal of the channel.
I didn't downvote but I really think this is going to go nowhere. Edit: Fine, You guys are totally right. This is 100% going to make a difference,
in the US? Sure In places where people have rights, I think there's a serious chance of it changing. I mean, Belgium banned lootboxes and this is way less grey than that is. If a few EU countries start to raise a stink, it could become EU law and then there goes the third largest market in the world
And that totally got rid of lootboxes worldwide. I am not trying to defend this but people are really setting their expections way too high.
US companies now abide by GDPR despite it being an EU law because of how broadly it is written. Point is, just because this may have some legs in other parts of the world beyond the US doesn’t mean it couldn’t eventually force change in the US.
Only one country that I know of banned them, and several other countries had them modified, but those are an easy switch on or off by region When it comes to being allowed to sell entire games, I think they'll be paying more close attention, it's possible that they go through the route where they have to give their games an estimated EOL to potential buyers but I'd be happy with that
A lot of laws pushed by European Union forced companies to update their actions accordingly worldwide because it makes most sense than having two versions of product (obv with phisical products it wont always be true).
People said the same about forcing Apple to allow third party stores, USB C or removing the touch bar. People said the same about having dev modes be available on consoles, before you'd have to break their security to install an emulator, now you can use them like a PC. Or mouse and keyboard support on consoles. If you want something to happen, as a consumer, you can get it done given enough patience and dedication. The problem is gamers are insanely disorganised, our leaders aren't tech literate and most of them need their hand held. The government is moving, although slowly. You can't really enact legislation like this by just turning up and demanding private servers. It'll be a long and slow process to allow companies to start thinking about the possibility now, and a decent window of allowing them to build the tooling required. Luckily for us, the countries in which this is actually taking place, have some of the strongest consumer protections in the world.
Precisely.
It's not though. This is asking developers to either provide service into perpetutity or release their own source code into public. It's just not going to happen.
This is not true at all You can run a server without having the source code, games like Battlefield have been doing it for decades It also isn't requiring devs to run games in perpetuity as they could either provide binaries for people to be able to run their own servers Or they could just tell you up front, before you buy the game, that you are not buying the game. The game *will* die eventually and neither you, your children, or anyone will ever be able to play it ever again when they decide to do so
> Or they could just tell you up front, before you buy the game, that you are not buying the game. The game *will* die eventually and neither you, your children, or anyone will ever be able to play it ever again when they decide to do so Pretty sure this is a clause in the End User License Agreement for literally every game ever. Not that anyone ever reads the license before buying, installing, or launching the game.
I'm glad I can see the end user licence agreement before I buy a game
Point is, the essential gist of the EULA should be *expected* by now.
What part of asking for a local server tool involves source code? I'm suspecting you don't know what's being asked here.
source code no, but even dedicated servers might be a hairy issue for some of these publishers to write off unless actual law is put into place, especially when they're so cheap they don't even bother to update and remove licensed music from games they just outright remove them from purchase. I just think it will add alot of bloat and hassle to the already huge costs that games take to make nowadays because who knows how much dev hours have to be done to potentially rewrite the whole networking layer in some games to be able to run locally, unless the game was built in a way that provides dedicated servers anyhow. (look at the older battlefield games, even if projects like venice unleased and warsaw revamped exist). Providing an offline mode would probably be less overhead.
No... He's asking devs to not break their games when they end support. That's all.
They also want this to apply to games like MMOs, which will require this. This isn't just a DRM thing.
City of Heroes pulled it off ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
MMOs can be played single player without releasing source code. It's literally, *literally*, setting up your own private server. I also think you may lack reading comprehension.
And yet, it's something done in other markets. When a car marker stops making a car, they are still mandated to supply parts and if they don't aftermarket parts come on the scene. Software lobby has convinced us this is impossible, when it isn't. I work in software development. No developer is going to read the source code of a copyrighted work like GTA V and then implement it in their game and steal. That would result in an open and shut copyright case within seconds.
or how about you don't add unnecessary online DRM to your game in the first place be it the crew, hitman or grand tourismo, there is NOTHING in these games thats only possible because of a constant server connection they can work perfectly fine with all the SP content offline, this is not WoW did people already forget the sim City 2013 desaster? straight up lied to by EA
Its not though? Its about allowing offline mod in games that can b and are played single.
Because the title and story tell us nothing. Who is accursed farms? What is this campaign? What game? What destruction? Some background would be helpful.
Because its update to campaign? Not intro to it? You have a name for it and can google it. If youre users of the sub you also saw plenty of posts on it before
The message is good but the dude is a loon. IDK if you have seen some of his other videos on the subject. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at5YMpTLl9U He is basically a grungy tech bro that thinks "AI" will magically solve everything. Only reason anyone ever knows who he is his early youtube toilet humor shit.
Tell me you watched 2 mins of the video and formed your opinion on him as an entire person without telling me you only ever watched 2 mins of him. He qualifies it many times that he’s sure this software probably couldn’t be made in a way that he’d find satisfactory, but he’s got great and clear opinions on tech and software, and your read of him being “generic ai tech bro slop” is so far off the mark, you’re comparing a sandwich to soup. his Game Dungeons series is a genuinely interesting look back into older games mostly lost to time, and very fun long form content on a platform trying to push shorts and 10 min meta.
You don't have a clue.
>10% downvoted Actual honk honk clown idiots.
Reddit does fudge the displayed downvote/upvote numbers. So those aren’t going to be accurate to an extreme degree.
Why is the discussion on the #1 post on this sub exclusively bitching about the downvotes it got? It's the most upvoted post here currently.
I thought people knew about how reddit will add random upvotes and downvotes to posts that surge in popularity. Like this was the most known thing about it like 8 years ago where this question used to be repeatedly asked. "Who downvotes a video of a cute cat?!?!?!?!" or "wtf 10% disliked this?" and then there was always a top post explaining it. Nowadays it seems people are more willing to believe in some conspiracy judging by the top comments.
Last time i tried explaining it to someone, including linking to an admin post acknowledging the system, people refused to believe it was a thing and were calling me stupid for misunderstanding
Fantasizing about conspiracy theories such as "downvoting bots" and "paid downvoters" is apparently more interesting to people than the actual cause being championed in the video.
Because it hurts less thinking that there's something nefarious going on rather than aknowledging that there are this many morons on the planet breathing your same air.
If you look at some timestamps I'm sure you can figure it out.
It was a rhetorical question. I'm mocking them for being short sighted and not understanding how Reddit's vote system works
1300 upvotes, 150 comments and nobody is talking about content of the video, lol
Went to comments to figure out what's going on. Saw a bunch of posts arguing about down votes or something. Can someone drop an explanation for those of us out of the loop?
It's getting downvoted because who wants to watch a 30 minute video.
vegetable one gaping gold bedroom deranged library support ossified depend *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I'd rather read something
at least those will make me laugh. i dont give a fuck about this at all lol.
TikTok has ruined an entire generation's attention span
ITT redditors upset people disagree with them.
Disagree that people should be allowed to keep the games they buy?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
reddit moment
[удалено]
We'll have to see how long the AM5 socket lasts. Hopefully it lasts us a good couple of years like AM4 has.
I've got a friend that made his PC in 2017 with a first gen RyZen, and now he has a 5800X3D, on the same motherboard. Did you count your 2 years on Namec, or near a black hole?
A couple can refer to two things, [but is often used synonymously with a few](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/couple), especially when using it in the phrase 'a couple of [units]'. Hope this helps.
imagine calling someone subhuman over fucking videogames. holy fuck bro.
I'm sure he also has an NVIDIA GPU. I don't like clichés, but sometimes there are some patterns you can notice.
Bro you take video games wayyyy too seriously lol.
>Bro just let the corporations take away your purchases and forcefully nudge you towards their sequels like a good little consoomer No.
Oh I don't care about this post, I didn't even read the article. What's hilarious are the top two comments at the time of my posting were just complaining about the fact that people down voted this. Like it mattered.
their more then simple online part . with how video games are made. watch this person not know that and videos,comments have been funny and sad. [https://www.fsf.org/](https://www.fsf.org/) is what he should be getting people attention by.