Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!




Last Active
Favorite Role
  • PixARK Ready for Steam Early Access Starting March 27th - General News

    irongamer said:

    Strong Cubeworld vibes, but from a studio that is much less likely to walk away from the project. Added to my game watch list. A list has, sadly, been small the last few years.

    they scammed a lot of people with Cubeworld
  • A Vermintide MMO, Thoughts?

    An open world Warhammer fantasy based game could be great.  A traditional, big budget WOW-like MMO is fool hearty though.
  • Activision-Blizzard: More Remastered Versions in 2018 - Diablo 2 or Warcraft 3? - MMORPG.com News

    sayuu said:
    I love how everyone overlooks that Blizzard might not be remastering anything at all because it could be Activision just remastering more CoD titles. . .
    they've already remastered SC and as others have said job hiring has shown it's being done on other properties.  The main reason is so that they can get them onto their launcher.  and yes, people that play only the new games may very well be interested in trying them out.
  • What does PUBG's popularity say about the foreseeable future of games?

    my understanding is that PUBG was a better version of H1Z1 and that fortnite is now a better version of PUBG.  Sometimes being first or second to market with something people want is enough.
  • U.S. Copyright Office considering exemption for abandoned online games

    OG_Zorvan said:
    OG_Zorvan said:
    OG_Zorvan said:
    Vrika said:
    OG_Zorvan said:
    I'm sorry, but just because I stop developing something, doesn't mean I abandon my claim to it. So when GM stops making a certain model of car, other car manufacturers should have the right to make it themselves? Trademarks exist for a reason, get over the entitlement.
    When GM stops manufacturing a car, people who've bought it don't have 3 months time before their car stops running.

    I think it's the copyright and IP owners who should get over their entitlement of being able to both sell something and then prevent its use.

    Personally I don't think this kind of DMCA exception is a good idea, but the current laws aren't good either. They were good enough laws when we bought physical copies of copyrighted works and the buyer always got one copy to do as he wishes, but digital copies would need a different set of laws.
    I'm thinking that's one of the reasons there's been this mention of "games as a service."  Classifying a game product as a service implies an end date.  Products don't, because a product is sold and then (usually, and appropriately, unless it's merely being leased) owned from that point forward until that owner decides to sell, forfeit, or discard it.

    The idea that we shouldn't be able to use a product (the game) just because the primary service provider behind its server support (the devs) no longer provide that is completely asinine and isn't even reflected elsewhere in the realm of digital content.

    that's not really true.  You aren't going to see other companies try to sell Disney's Song of the South or the Star Wars XMas special on DVD in the US.

    And what if someone alters the skins in an obsolete game?  I'm going to guess that can land them in trouble as well.
    OG_Zorvan said:
    All this will do is make sure anyone outside of fringe indies thinking of making mmos, won't. 
    this is about more than just MMO's and I don't buy your premise anyway.  It may keep a couple of them running longer
    Right now people say "I'll just wait until you go free-to-play.".

    After this passes, those same people will say "I'll just wait for the private server after you go bankrupt.".
    you are trivializing what it takes to reverse engineer a games server architecture. Most multiplayer games requiring dedicated server architecture would not get people to dedicate the time to make them from scratch.

    Games that get private servers almost always get them before the game goes under.  Legalizing private servers for abandoned server based games just makes it more worthwhile for volunteers as they'll know they won't get sued as long as they don't make any money.

    The minute a company abandons the game the clock should start ticking imo.  But I don't see this getting passed.  Disney, Activision-Blizzard and many otherswon't let it happen.
    Why would there be reverse engineering when you have the full "archive" ready to go? 
    Show me in the proposal where the companies have to give up source code.  The archive of single player games don't require source code so it's apples and oranges.

    As far as I can tell, people will just get the right to emulate servers.  But the legwork is on them.
    As you say, a singleplayer game wouldn't need source code to be run. An online game requires not only a client but a server backend as well. If you think they're not going to include the server code as being a necessity for complete "archiving", you're being very optimistic.
    Yeah good luck getting that passed.  Just because a game is shut down, that doesn't mean the source code isn't reused on other games.   So if they are trying to pass something that takes a company's source code, this will never pass