Homeworld 3.... Crowdfunding?

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
Likewise I am sure there are lots of fine print details. If you release a game that is extremely broken and unplayable like Batman Arkham Knight or Just Cause 4 it will probably void any minimum sales guarantee they have. Otherwise we'd be seeing millions of asset flip games on EGS with claims of 15 million sales within 6 months and people collecting the money.
It has nothing to do with quality. They pick and choose games that already have a loyal following, so basically hyped games or niche products. And they try to exploit that to build up their user base.
 

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,250
noun
  1. 1.
    the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

Sure seems to me like it fits the definition. Sure, it's a small commodity (a handful of games), but they still have exclusive access to them that no other platform is able to have.

Actually no. Just because a specific game is exclusive to a specific distribution method does not make it a monopoly. Or there would be no such thing as platform exclusive games on xbox and Playstation and so on...

It's troublesome to those that don't want to do business with these entities but they feel like they are being denied something.

So while it is inconvenient it is not a monopoly.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,512
It has nothing to do with quality. They pick and choose games that already have a loyal following, so basically hyped games or niche products. And they try to exploit that to build up their user base.

The point went over your head. Likewise, you'd be proving one of my points.

We already know that Epic won't allow low quality asset flips to be sold on EGS period, so quality certainly is a factor. It is safe to assume in their contracts they have a clause regarding quality of a game regarding the sales safety net. You release something like the games mentioned above (JC4 and Arkham Knight) which were absolutely sub par at release with technical issues that prevent the game from being played on most setups and you probably void your sales guarantee. In the case of Arkham Knight it was pulled from sale for months. I can easily see that voiding any potential payout by Epic. Contracts typically have all kinds of gotchas, fine print and exemptions. They probably use metrics to figure out the supposed sales rate of a sequel or similar game, then offer a guarantee of sales slightly below that. EX) You expect move 2 million copies of game X, you guarantee at least 1.75 million copies sell if the quality is similar to previous titles or an industry standard.

It is also going to be dynamic on a per game genre / developer / marketing level. Borderlands 3 and something like Homeworld 3 won't have the same number or profits guaranteed. The chances of putting up a low quality/unfinished game like Just Cause 4 and having that void any minimum sales agreement is going to be fairly high. This is a company that has been dealing with developers for two decades who obviously track game sales for royalty collection. If you think they haven't planned around these types of scenarios you're mistaken.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
The point went over your head. Likewise, you'd be proving one of my points.

We already know that Epic won't allow low quality asset flips to be sold on EGS period, so quality certainly is a factor. It is safe to assume in their contracts they have a clause regarding quality of a game regarding the sales safety net. You release something like the games mentioned above (JC4 and Arkham Knight) which were absolutely sub par at release with technical issues that prevent the game from being played on most setups and you probably void your sales guarantee. In the case of Arkham Knight it was pulled from sale for months. I can easily see that voiding any potential payout by Epic. Contracts typically have all kinds of gotchas, fine print and exemptions. They probably use metrics to figure out the supposed sales rate of a sequel or similar game, then offer a guarantee of sales slightly below that. EX) You expect move 2 million copies of game X, you guarantee at least 1.75 million copies sell if the quality is similar to previous titles or an industry standard.

It is also going to be dynamic on a per game genre / developer / marketing level. Borderlands 3 and something like Homeworld 3 won't have the same number or profits guaranteed. The chances of putting up a low quality/unfinished game like Just Cause 4 and having that void any minimum sales agreement is going to be fairly high. This is a company that has been dealing with developers for two decades who obviously track game sales for royalty collection. If you think they haven't planned around these types of scenarios you're mistaken.
Apparently the point went over your head.
I was trying to point out that you're just making assumptions. Not allowing asset flips is not their end goal, it is the byproduct of their selection process. You are dead wrong if you think they wouldn't make a deal with a popular title like just cause 4 because it was buggy. They have no interest in customer care, their goal is increasing the number of active registered users on EGS. I don't know why are you trying to prove that EGS is some force for good in the gaming world, when clearly they're just grilling their own stake, and are prepared to go to any length to do it.

Metro Exodus was sub par at release with numerous campaign breaking bugs, and an AI which could only be described as a bug containing some ai. Did EGS back out of the deal?

Of course you're right that there are no asset flips on EGS, but that is irrelevant to me. Asset flips on steam never bothered me the slightest directly. Of course it is a shitty business practice and on par with indian tech support scammers. But a jail is still a jail even if there are no cockroaches.
 
Last edited:

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,512
Apparently the point went over your head.

Read the post you quoted, your comment demonstrates you didn't comprehend what you read.

I was trying to point out that you're just making assumptions.

Of course but they are grounded in logic. If Epic has no procedure when it comes to any type of sales number guarantees why not slap together an asset flip, claim you should sell 100 million copies sold in a year and enjoy life as a multi millionaire when you can't move that many copies forcing Epic to pay you for each copy not sold? Clearly you're smarter than Epic so why not dupe them and enjoy your practically free money?

Not allowing asset flips is not their end goal, it is the byproduct of their selection process.

Irrelevant. They have a quality standard for what they allow on their store and the reasons for it are irrelevant.

You are dead wrong if you think they wouldn't make a deal with a popular title like just cause 4 because it was buggy. They have no interest in customer care, their goal is increasing the number of active registered users on EGS. I don't know why are you trying to prove that EGS is some force for good in the gaming world, when clearly they're just grilling their own stake, and are prepared to go to any length to do it.

Again you're demonstrating you have little idea with what you're reading or putting into text. Did you even read what you wrote? I'm saying there are more than likely many clauses that void minimum sales guaranteed. If a title voids one of those clauses then they get no payout for under performing. Meaning Epic still gets gets a popular title without having to pay for it substantially under-performing. In this case they would get Just Cause 4 (a flop) and not have to cover millions in sales it wouldn't have achieved regardless of platform. If you think any contract is as simple as "tell us how much you'll sell and we'll pay it for you!" you're naive. Because that is what you're implying by disagreeing if you didn't realize it.

The underlined part is so random and nuttier that squirrel shit that I don't even know how to respond.

Metro Exodus was sub par at release with numerous campaign breaking bugs, and an AI which could only be described as a bug containing some ai. Did EGS back out of the deal?

Strawman, no game will be 100% bug free. Yes it had some bugs but it was easily able to be finished by the vast majority of customers. It has high reviews from critics and gamers alike and I've never heard of anyone not being able to complete the game. If you're suggesting Metro Exodus was as incomplete as Batman Arkham Knight (it was removed from sale for months because it was so broken!) or Just Cause 4 you're absolutely insane. Metro was a very average release with some bugs which is expected. Minor bugs like that probably wouldn't void any type of guaranteed sales number; a developer who lied about the condition of a product and tried to ship something incomplete probably would. Are you telling me Epic is too stupid to put in place basic protections for themselves when it comes to giving money to under performing titles due to being incomplete products? Doubtful; every company will protect themselves and cover the basics.


Of course you're right that there are no asset flips on EGS, but that is irrelevant to me. Asset flips on steam never bothered me the slightest directly. Of course it is a shitty business practice and on par with indian tech support scammers. But a jail is still a jail even if there are no cockroaches.

Which contradicts your earlier comment quality being not being a factor at all. Underlined bit I wouldn't have the faintest clue of what you're getting at.

To summarize, you're arguing that Epic has no protections or procedures in place to protect itself from a party that intends to scam money via Epics minimum sales guarantee.

Likewise, I doubt Epic will be tossing millions to fund Homeworld 3 for reasons already mentioned. Which is the original reason Epic was brought up in the first place had you been following the conversation. They'd have to purchase the IP from Gearbox and buy out Black Bird and honestly Homeworld isn't going to pull in the kind of profits to warrant that despite what people in this thread may believe. I'm sure it will do fine, but it is a niche game that will only thrive on PC so it is DOA as a multi platform title. As such, I doubt Epic has any interest in tossing millions to buy out the IP and studio to get this game made. We all want to see Homeworld do well but it just isn't a genre in popular demand and it certainly can't be marketed well on multi platform so it would be a poor bang for your buck. Unless Tim Sweeney likes Homeworld as much as Randy Pitchford to throw money at it as a passion project, you can forget it. Which is honestly a good thing anyways because it means it may end up on Steam or GOG.
 

The Mad Atheist

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
1,219
Would like to see a story involving the Progenitors, or even seeing the origin of the Junkyard dog! lol
Personally looking for the return of Marine frigates myself.
Never used them, got spoiled taking them in like in HW1, so I just destroyed the enemy.
In the first game salvage corvettes broke the game real quick. Have some fighters distract enemy ships and then steal them over to your side with salvage corvettes.
How else were you going to increase your fleet when you hit the unit cap? :p
I wonder how many people collected all the ion frigates from the hyper space jammer?
loved getting the multi-beam frigates and seeing the rake moving to kill fighters, worked well in the original, but not so in the remaster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Draax
like this

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
4,327
I miss the mechanics of the first game where fighters required support frigates. I'd love to see a move back to something more 'realistic' like that again in Homeworld 3 where fighters can only be launched by carriers / support frigates. This gives corvettes a bit more usefulness as they are the first tier of ship that can move around the map on their own.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,512
I miss the mechanics of the first game where fighters required support frigates. I'd love to see a move back to something more 'realistic' like that again in Homeworld 3 where fighters can only be launched by carriers / support frigates. This gives corvettes a bit more usefulness as they are the first tier of ship that can move around the map on their own.

Don't recall much from Homeworld (I only played Remastered) but in HW2 the fighters could launch from carriers, the mothership and shipyards. What exactly is unrealistic about that?
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
To summarize, you're arguing that Epic has no protections or procedures in place to protect itself from a party that intends to scam money via Epics minimum sales guarantee.
.

No that's not what I said at all. They do not need that kind of protection when they are not an open platform, but pick and choose on a case by case basis who they approach to be on their exclusivity list. and that is the end of it. You are either unable to understand my point or deliberately trying to put words in my mouth. Either way I'm done trying. If you refuse to see the point, I'm not going to put any more effort in this so you can just ignore anything you can't twist the meaning of. I put it in words in black and white, go back and read it and try to understand, or don't. I'm not going to converse about this until you shows signs of understanding, or at least a will to understand the difference between what you say and what I said.

For anyone else who don't have blinders on:
The point was that Epic is not the goodguy suddenly because their selection process prevents asset flips to enter their marketplace. Mentioning a non-problem does not make the problems go away.
 
Last edited:

mvmiller12

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
1,072
No that's not what I said at all. They do not need that kind of protection when they are not an open platform, but pick and choose on a case by case basis who they approach to be on their exclusivity list. and that is the end of it. You are either unable to understand my point or deliberately trying to put words in my mouth. Either way I'm done trying. If you refuse to see the point, I'm not going to put any more effort in this so you can just ignore anything you can't twist the meaning of. I put it in words in black and white, go back and read it and try to understand, or don't. I'm not going to converse about this until you shows signs of understanding, or at least a will to understand the difference between what you say and what I said.

For anyone else who don't have blinders on:
The point was that Epic is not the goodguy suddenly because their selection process prevents asset flips to enter their marketplace. Mentioning a non-problem does not make the problems go away.

Neither are they a bad guy for getting developers to sign up with them for exclusives. If there was actual competition in PC game stores, this would be such a non-issue. But there isn't, and people's panties are all in a twist. Consoles sign exclusivity deals with third-party developers all the time and you don't hear all this whining about it. There have even been cases of announced supported consoles being dropped from or switched in console games. It is a business tactic, that is all, and there really is no "ethical" or "moral" argument to be had here. If you don't like Epic store, don't buy your product from them. I'm certainly not (in my case, if it isn't on GOG I'm unlikely to buy it). If enough people feel the same and don't buy these games on Epic, then the practice will not be profitable enough for Epic to continue as-is and they will switch business tactics. That is all. Let this stupid whining die already, please.
 

mvmiller12

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
1,072
Don't recall much from Homeworld (I only played Remastered) but in HW2 the fighters could launch from carriers, the mothership and shipyards. What exactly is unrealistic about that?


Yes, you can launch fighters from all of those things. That really isn't what he was referring to (he could have phrased the statement better). What he is actually saying is that in HW1 fighters had to be escorted by an escort ship such as the Mothership, a carrier, a support frigate, or a shipyard because they did not have unlimited fuel and ammo. They had to periodically dock and refuel/rearm, and so the support ship was necessary nearby to facilitate that. In Homeworld 2, fighters have unlimited fuel and ammo and can operate off by themselves indefinitely. In HW 1, Corvettes were required for this.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
Neither are they a bad guy for getting developers to sign up with them for exclusives. If there was actual competition in PC game stores, this would be such a non-issue. But there isn't, and people's panties are all in a twist. Consoles sign exclusivity deals with third-party developers all the time and you don't hear all this whining about it. There have even been cases of announced supported consoles being dropped from or switched in console games. It is a business tactic, that is all, and there really is no "ethical" or "moral" argument to be had here. If you don't like Epic store, don't buy your product from them. I'm certainly not (in my case, if it isn't on GOG I'm unlikely to buy it). If enough people feel the same and don't buy these games on Epic, then the practice will not be profitable enough for Epic to continue as-is and they will switch business tactics. That is all. Let this stupid whining die already, please.
I never liked console exclusivity either. That still doesn't make epic good. This practice of buying out developers was never a thing on PC until epic came around. Unless Microsoft actually bought the dev to sell games on MS store exclusively. But we all know how well that turned out for Remedy. And no, I've never purchased anything in the MS store either, or whatever it is trying to rebrand to now. And I certainly not going to buy anything from the Epic game store. Not because I dislike the storefront and it's features, but because...
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,512
No that's not what I said at all.

That is literally what you're arguing against. If you can't bother to properly read/comprehend a message without off shooting to a random tangent then don't bother quoting and faux replying. This isn't the first time you've done it and you seem to enjoy playing dumb to push your opinions out of the blue. See the Call of Duty thread when you quote me and another member clearly talking about MP aspects of the game just so you can jut in and say the following:

Modes? I still give zero fucks about multiplayer, all I care about is sp.

At first I assumed it was a language issue but the more you do it the more I'm inclined to think it is intentional.

They do not need that kind of protection when they are not an open platform...

Uh, yes they do. Otherwise they'd get scammed out of millions easily. If they don't write basic protections in their contract they're obligated to honor it. At least in the developed world; if you live in some backwater hellhole I can understand the disconnect perhaps.

For anyone else who don't have blinders on:
The point was that Epic is not the goodguy suddenly because their selection process prevents asset flips to enter their marketplace. Mentioning a non-problem does not make the problems go away.

No, that wasn't the point. You quoted a point I made and then shot off with an entirely unrelated rant. You can't even articulate what your intentions were. I'll defer to the above: You're simply injecting your rants where they are unnecessary.


Yes, you can launch fighters from all of those things. That really isn't what he was referring to (he could have phrased the statement better). What he is actually saying is that in HW1 fighters had to be escorted by an escort ship such as the Mothership, a carrier, a support frigate, or a shipyard because they did not have unlimited fuel and ammo. They had to periodically dock and refuel/rearm, and so the support ship was necessary nearby to facilitate that. In Homeworld 2, fighters have unlimited fuel and ammo and can operate off by themselves indefinitely. In HW 1, Corvettes were required for this.

I forgot about that and now I do remember. I'll get a lot of flak for this I assume but I preferred the HW2 method of squadrons. You typically had to be diligent to return them to regenerate their health/a full squadron. I think fuel and ammo is a bit too much micro management, at least for the small scale units. Although I do see the tactical element of having an escort carrier type of unit for fighters. Many mods added escort carriers which had expanded sensor range, a lot of slots for various tech modules and of course the ability to repair squadrons of fighters/corvettes. I think that is the ideal route but I can see if someone played HW1 more than HW2 they would prefer that arrangement.

I don't recall how long the fuel lasted in HW1 Remastered though. I mainly wasn't a big fan of the single ship formations because if we're going for a realistic aspect, fighters always fly in formations. And I find that you tend to group them in numbers to do anything meaningful regardless because a single fighter will expire very quickly on its own.
 

Draax

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
5,213
No This H3.Star citizen isn't due out until 2024.
I think.therefore i am i think.
It Is debatable what will come first: Star Citizen being released or humans achieving faster than light travel. Humans may very well be Star Citizens in reality before they get to be virtually in that game.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
That is literally what you're arguing against. If you can't bother to properly read/comprehend a message without off shooting to a random tangent then don't bother quoting and faux replying. This isn't the first time you've done it and you seem to enjoy playing dumb to push your opinions out of the blue. See the Call of Duty thread when you quote me and another member clearly talking about MP aspects of the game just so you can jut in and say the following:
So that is your problem? That I added an opinion about something? I hate to break it to you but on a public forum I can interject my opinion wherever and wherever I want as long as it is relevant to the thread. The quoted post is just a starting point that made me write the post. Oh now I'm explaining how a forum works to you. Is this really necessary?
At first I assumed it was a language issue but the more you do it the more I'm inclined to think it is intentional.
Of course it is intentional, what did you think? That I didn't understand the fact that they were talking about multiplayer modes? If differing opinions offend you I suggest an echo chamber instead of a forum.
Uh, yes they do. Otherwise they'd get scammed out of millions easily. If they don't write basic protections in their contract they're obligated to honor it. At least in the developed world; if you live in some backwater hellhole I can understand the disconnect perhaps.
I don't even know what is your end goal with this thread of thought apart from the obvious ad hominem attack.
I said epic's goal is not to make gaming better, it is to force people to their storefront by bribing developers with guaranteed sales. How is the whole tirade you went on about contractual protection against scams relevant to this? How would they get scammed out of millions if they are the ones seeking out developers based on following and popularity? It's not the devs that go to epic to make a deal for guaranteed sales, epic offers these on a case by case basis. Look, even if there are escape clauses written in those contracts, that still doesn't make epic the good guys. So what is your point? This is just misdirection.

You're simply injecting your rants where they are unnecessary.
That's your opinion, everyone has one. I don't even deny that these are rants, and they are necessary because there are still people like you who don't seem to care or understand that EGS's exclusivity bs is bad for PC gaming.
 

mvmiller12

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
1,072
I never liked console exclusivity either. That still doesn't make epic good. This practice of buying out developers was never a thing on PC until epic came around. Unless Microsoft actually bought the dev to sell games on MS store exclusively. But we all know how well that turned out for Remedy. And no, I've never purchased anything in the MS store either, or whatever it is trying to rebrand to now. And I certainly not going to buy anything from the Epic game store. Not because I dislike the storefront and it's features, but because...

No, I agree it does not make them good either, which is my point. Neither Epic nor Steam are the good guys or the bad guys here. They both do good things and they both also do shitty things. They both exist to take our money in exchange for providing a convenient place to make and track our digital PC game purchases. If you don't like the business tactics of a particular business, DON'T DO BUSINESS WITH THEM. Hell, I don't buy nVidia graphics cards for this reason, but neither would I classify AMD as the good guys and nVidia as the bad guys.

Personally, I've always felt that digital storefronts in general were bad for PC gaming. We gained convenience. In some cases, even online value-add services. But look at what we've lost:

1) Physical media and all the goodies that used to come with. No more wire bound manuals. No more trinkets such as cloth maps and the like. No bonus optional reading materials that built on the backdrop of the game world to make it more immersive. No more physical art books. Once upon a time, these things came standard in the box for a lot of games. Ultima in particular was famous for it. Then at some point, some of this stuff migrated to "Collector's Editions" but even so, you got something physical for your money.

2) Independence. If your digital store front no longer hosts a game you want, you are shit out of luck. Sometimes licensing disputes do this. For a while the early Fallout games (1, 2, Tactics) were unable to be purchased because of this. Sometimes a game will be released digitally, but have content (such as music) changed due to licensing issues. If your digital store front folds (and a few have such as Impulse and DOT EMU) you are REALLY shit out of luck. If you don't have a working backup, you're screwed.

3) Reliability. Yes, some games released semi-broken back before the internet. But with very few exceptions, EVERY game was playable out of the box. In the case of those few exceptions, the publisher would ship you a patch, replace your media, or refund your money to make it right.

4) Related to 1. We are paying the same money for less stuff. The promise of digital stores were that prices would go down. They really haven't. New PC games have cost ~$50 since I was buying them in the early 1990s. The only thing the digital storefronts have brought to the table in this regard is semi-frequent sales and bundles that allow you to end up with a shit ton of games that you will never likely play.

I choose to do my game shopping with GOG because at least I can (and do) download the game installers for my purchases so that I can reinstall my games whenever I please regardless of what happens to them. It's not the same as a physical copy, but it is as close as I can get in the digital era.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
No, I agree it does not make them good either, which is my point. Neither Epic nor Steam are the good guys or the bad guys here. They both do good things and they both also do shitty things. They both exist to take our money in exchange for providing a convenient place to make and track our digital PC game purchases. If you don't like the business tactics of a particular business, DON'T DO BUSINESS WITH THEM. Hell, I don't buy nVidia graphics cards for this reason, but neither would I classify AMD as the good guys and nVidia as the bad guys.
I don't do business with them, as I've mentioned. We can call them bad guy and even worse guy, but that's just semantics.

Personally, I've always felt that digital storefronts in general were bad for PC gaming. We gained convenience. In some cases, even online value-add services. But look at what we've lost:
Personally I'd prefer the convenience of digital storefronts with digital backup media as an emergency resort in case the storefront goes out of business. At first I was skeptical about steam too. And for years I haven't purchased games on it, but I think now they are too big to fail.

1) Physical media and all the goodies that used to come with. No more wire bound manuals. No more trinkets such as cloth maps and the like. No bonus optional reading materials that built on the backdrop of the game world to make it more immersive. No more physical art books. Once upon a time, these things came standard in the box for a lot of games. Ultima in particular was famous for it. Then at some point, some of this stuff migrated to "Collector's Editions" but even so, you got something physical for your money.
Trinkets, collectibles and printed manuals went out of style regardless of the digital storefronts. For years while I was still buying physical it was worthless, a DVD jewel case, and a slip of paper with an activation code, and a disc, that was it. The lack of physical items made the transition to digital even more appealing.

2) Independence. If your digital store front no longer hosts a game you want, you are shit out of luck. Sometimes licensing disputes do this. For a while the early Fallout games (1, 2, Tactics) were unable to be purchased because of this. Sometimes a game will be released digitally, but have content (such as music) changed due to licensing issues. If your digital store front folds (and a few have such as Impulse and DOT EMU) you are REALLY shit out of luck. If you don't have a working backup, you're screwed.
Yes that is an issue, but so far I haven't seen them taking away owned games, they just disappeared from the store, but they still host them for those who purchased them.
3) Reliability. Yes, some games released semi-broken back before the internet. But with very few exceptions, EVERY game was playable out of the box. In the case of those few exceptions, the publisher would ship you a patch, replace your media, or refund your money to make it right.
I don't wish for that hassle. I had to travel to the home address of the local distributor just to have my faulty fallout3 disc replaced. And the other common issue I had was with loclaization of physical media games. They were usually badly translated versions that wouldn't even work with official English patches. So most of the time we would get patches months late, or not at all. And god forbid if I wanted to change language back to english.

4) Related to 1. We are paying the same money for less stuff. The promise of digital stores were that prices would go down. They really haven't. New PC games have cost ~$50 since I was buying them in the early 1990s. The only thing the digital storefronts have brought to the table in this regard is semi-frequent sales and bundles that allow you to end up with a shit ton of games that you will never likely play.
I think the convenience of the games being available a click away from any location, cloud saves, community forums, and integrated modding, is not nothing. And it is worth more than a printed manual to me. But as I mentioned 99% of games came with nothing in the box from retail anyway in the past 10 years.

I choose to do my game shopping with GOG because at least I can (and do) download the game installers for my purchases so that I can reinstall my games whenever I please regardless of what happens to them. It's not the same as a physical copy, but it is as close as I can get in the digital era.
Too bad not many games are available to be owned like that. Some games no longer work despite the fact that I have the installers, because of their online drm or shut down servers, so this can't be blamed on digital storefronts entirely.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,333

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
Did you read the articles? First one was a temp ban, second one was reversed, obviously it was bogus, it would've been a clear cut lawsuit if they didn't back off.
Besides this has nothing to do with games being removed from your library because the license expired to sell them. Which is what I was replying about, context matters.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,333
Did you read the articles? First one was a temp ban, second one was reversed, obviously it was bogus, it would've been a clear cut lawsuit if they didn't back off.
Besides this has nothing to do with games being removed from your library because the license expired to sell them. Which is what I was replying about, context matters.
Yes, it wasn't the same, it was much, much worse. The first one was a permanent ban, and the second one is still terrible no matter how temporary. Gradation matters.

You do not own games on digital platforms, only physical games not related to stores/online platforms and GOG games.
 

mvmiller12

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
1,072
Did you read the articles? First one was a temp ban, second one was reversed, obviously it was bogus, it would've been a clear cut lawsuit if they didn't back off.
Besides this has nothing to do with games being removed from your library because the license expired to sell them. Which is what I was replying about, context matters.

Yes, I've read them. These decisions were reversed because of widespread backlash, pure and simple. They were testing the waters and determined they were a little too hot for now. This IS coming, pure and simple.

And it is relevant because if I have a physical copy of a game that is not leashed online, the publisher cannot revoke my ability to play my purchased game as I see fit regardless of what I may say about it. The system as it exists now puts ALL of the power in the hands of the publisher (in reality, the digital storefront since they effectively serve the role of publisher now) and reserves NONE of it for us. You can be cut off whenever they feel like it and you really don't have much recourse. One can argue you can go to court, but few people have the money and time to fight something like this and the publishers know this.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
You do not own games on digital platforms, only physical games not related to stores/online platforms and GOG games.
You don't own games on physical media either. You never owned any software legally speaking. You only had a license to run the software on one computer. That's regardless of the medium.
But I don't know what are you trying to prove? I'd prefer owning games too.
 

mvmiller12

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
1,072
You don't own games on physical media either. You never owned any software legally speaking. You only had a license to run the software on one computer. That's regardless of the medium.
But I don't know what are you trying to prove? I'd prefer owning games too.

But you * do * own the physical media, and you can legally do whatever you like with that physical media barring copying with intent to distribute.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,333
You don't own games on physical media either. You never owned any software legally speaking. You only had a license to run the software on one computer.
That's not quite true. You own your copy and are free to use/sell it however you please on one device at a time, unless special OEM exceptions, SaS and similar.

I've shown your "haven't seen them taking away owned games" already happened and could happen at any time.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
That's not quite true. You own your copy and are free to use/sell it however you please on one device at a time, unless special OEM exceptions, SaS and similar.

I've shown your "haven't seen them taking away owned games" already happened and could happen at any time.

Dishonest much? I was replying to a post about taking away games because they were pulled from the store, which I also mentioned in my last post. But damn the context as long as it serves you, right?

So you didn't say what are you proving by "showing" that, two people were temporarily banned from PSN and Steam.
 
Last edited:

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
But you * do * own the physical media, and you can legally do whatever you like with that physical media barring copying with intent to distribute.
You own the physical media, but you can't do whatever with it. For example you can't reverse engineer it, or use assets from it.

But I still haven't heard how is this relevant.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,333
Dishonest much? I was replying to a post about taking away games because they were pulled from the store, which I also mentioned in my last post. But damn the context as long as it serves you, right?

So you didn't say what are you proving by "showing" that, two people were temporarily banned from PSN and Steam.
As per the article, the first ban was PERMANENT and the gamer lost all his games. There may have been other reports that I missed. And even if it was temporary, it doesn't make it any better.

I'm aware of your context, I simply provided examples of them taking away your digital games in even less reasonable circumstances that the game getting unavailable on the store, so I'm not sure why you're so anally fixated on the specific context only when even worse examples already happened.

And you're wrong on that one too because Sony pulled Silent Hill P.T. and you lost access to it if you ever uninstalled it. Yeah, yeah, it was free to begin with, but it could still never happen with a physical/GOG copy.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
As per the article, the first ban was PERMANENT and the gamer lost all his games. There may have been other reports that I missed. And even if it was temporary, it doesn't make it any better.

I'm aware of your context, I simply provided examples of them taking away your digital games in even less reasonable circumstances that the game getting unavailable on the store, so I'm not sure why you're so anally fixated on the specific context only when even worse examples already happened.

And you're wrong on that one too because Sony pulled Silent Hill P.T. and you lost access to it if you ever uninstalled it. Yeah, yeah, it was free to begin with, but it could still never happen with a physical/GOG copy.
My bad, I only read the first quote in the article I didn't notice it continued bellow the ads.

But I still don't know what is your point. I already said I'd prefer owning games too.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,333
Just that the thing you mentioned already happened (SH P.T.) and even worse "offenses" too.
 

mvmiller12

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
1,072
You own the physical media, but you can't do whatever with it. For example you can't reverse engineer it, or use assets from it.

But I still haven't heard how is this relevant.

Use assets from it = Copy with intent to distribute, so I agree you can't do that.

Reverse Engineer it = Figure out how the code works to do what it does. You absolutely can do this. Have at it all day long if you like. You can reverse engineer anything you like so long as it is A) not with intent to distribute code you didn't write or B) not explicitly barred by the DMCA. The last I checked only reverse engineering copy protection with the intent of defeating it applies. Defeating copy protection is in itself a large gray area because of the Fair Use doctrine, so even so it is not so very clear cut an issue as you make it out to be.
 

THRESHIN

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
3,309
I'm a big homeworld fan. Played the first when it came out, I loved cataclysm, and yes I really enjoyed homeworld 2. Story was very different, but I'm ok with that.

I don't care if they want to do crowdfunding so long as I get a new homeworld game. I'm just happy it's happening.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2019
Messages
3
I've been looking into open world games and have seen and read the pros and cons of them and there are many who say that quality should be more focused on than the quantity but I've been thinking, how can a open world game be created if it had both quality and quantity? I'd like some input into that
 

GT98

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2001
Messages
1,251
I pledged $100 bucks for Blackbird Interactive's Shipbreakers-which eventually evolved into Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak.

Guess what happened when that came about? They refunded me my $$$ and gave me the game for fucking FREE!

I bought the Remaster edition of Homeworld when it came out.

I'm not worried about getting screwed over by BlackBird/Gearbox...the crowd funding is just allowing fans of the game (who are older and have more $$$) to support it and provide input into the game and give access to the Discord server. I pledged $150 and the Fig investing is a bit out of reach at $500 a share for me at the moment, plus that's a bit crazy for me anyways.

Only complaint is that its over 3+ years away.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,937
Just that the thing you mentioned already happened (SH P.T.) and even worse "offenses" too.
Still not in the context the original message was about. Which was removing games because of expired licenses, do I have to remind you in every post? Because I'll put it in my signature then that would be easier.

If you say police are killing people for no reason I'll say no I haven't heard about them doing that.
Then you can't come back and say but they just killed a fugitive with a gun 2 years ago, so that disproves my point.

And you still refuse to say what does this prove that I don't already agree to? That physical media with no on-line requirement guarantees games can't be taken away? Who disagrees with that?
 

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
16,642
Funded for 1.5 million not a bad day at the office usually Gearbox games are solid.
 
Top