It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
You do realize that an "open world" game can be in a single player game as wellultimateduck said:From the Conan Exiles website. "Conan Exiles is an open-world survival game set in the brutal universe of Conan the Barbarian." To me, open world does not mean small, private servers with a limit of 30 people.QuarterStack said:If that's so.. if the ad specifically said it was Massively Multiplayer Online (or just MMO), then that could possibly count as false, or at least highly misleading advertising. I don't know what ad you saw, so I can't say either way. But Conan Exiles most definitely is not a MMO.ultimateduck said:That doesn't do me any good after spending the money to buy it.Siris23 said:Conan Exiles is more akin to Ark and Rust, it's never been an MMO.
I saw it advertised as a survival MMO.
It also illustrates (again, assuming there is an ad calling it a MMO) why definitions are important, and why it's bad when people and/or companies apply extremely loose meanings to a term, or believe it can mean whatever they want/need it to mean, at any given time.
32bit XP has the 4gb limit 64bit XP does not.SEANMCAD said:XP has a ram limitation of 4gb, Windows 7+ does not.Mendel said:I'd still be using XP if that was still supported. Win 7, Win 8, and Win 10 have been pretty much a waste as operating systems. The only real advancements have been in Direct X 9, 10, 11, and 12, and they could have been made compatible with XP if Microsoft had really wanted to. They have always preferred that new features come with new Operating systems to keep their revenue flowing. Good for the business, but not so much for the customer.Phry said:If only UWP was any good, for gaming its not really much cop and objectively worse than games that don't use it, its probably one of the main reasons why Windows Store is not a good place to get games from. That Windows 10 is still not the main Windows OS doesn't help either, that the primary OS used by most Windows users is still Windows 7 is particularly damning, the only thing to date that Windows 10 has actually achieved, is that more people use it than use Windows 8, and is probably the main reason why if developers want to create games for the PC, then its usually Direct X 11 based, assuming its using Direct X at all that is, after all why would any developer create a game using only UWP if barely 1/4 of PC's could even run it? and of those a significant proportion are not even gaming devices.maskedweasel said:Not sure why this is "news" today, Microsoft mentioned they were going to do this at least a couple years back with the Windows 10 release. Part of the premise when they released details on the Xbox one S and the announcement of scorpio was that they weren't going to do generational consoles anymore and instead push the software so it's available across different devices.
It's been part of the long game for several years and the main reason why they pushed UWP.
This matters in high end gaming
It's a predatory business practice.CrazKanuk said:laserit said:I don't want to be punished though my taxes because of dumb fucks spending their rent and not being able to feed their children because their addiction to this tripe.
Again, what are we solving here? Are we solving for the 80% or are we solving for the 20%? Actually, it's more like we're probably solving for the 0.005%. We're essentially suggesting to implement something to prevent someone from spending all their money on it, which would be an exceptional case. I would suggest that regardless of the regulations put in place, whatever the game companies counter with, this person would still have a problem and end up spending all their money on it, whether it be a straight-up cash shop or some other gimmick. What you're suggesting is that we create a bubble room for people who can't control themselves, instead of maybe creating a MUCH less expensive support system for these types of people (or the ones who WANT help) in order to actually HELP them.
BC it put the game in a direction that I personally disliked.gervaise1 said:Not that simple I suggest.Xarko said:Things are not that simple. "Fixing things necessary for long term success" are what turned WoW into what it is today.DMKano said:Xarko said:I realize changing talents in significant way might ruin "muh vanilla" for some, but mere number tweaks are not enough to fix the mess that were vanilla talents.
Blizzard has to make a very difficult choice, whether they fix things and piss off purists or keep them "broken" to make it more vanilla, but have half the specs raid non-viable.
There is no difficult choice - broken things will be fixed, even the purists who say they hate this know that it is a necessity for longterm success.
BC only - only - added two new races, level 60-70 spells and the removal of faction specific classes (plus associated changes that resulted). Arguably BC didn't increase the number of classes so - in the grand scheme of things - wasn't that big a deal. Not everyone will agree but big picture view: minor.
WotLK though introduced the Death Knight. And in true mmo expansion fashion it was the fotm class. And in true mmo post-expansion fashion it was then toned down.
And so it went on with further cycles of new fotm classes and nerfs to the others.
Its the expansions that turned WoW into what it is today. And insofar as "expansions" were required for long term success yes then OK.
If you do the "fixes" without the expansions though then, I suggest, it would be different.