Honestly, IMO the lack of D-pad was less of an issue than the lack of a second analog stick. The lack of a second stick made the controller almost impossible to use in any game that was designed with 2 sticks in mind. For example Nier Automata 9S hacking minigame was a horrible experience with the Steam controller.
Honestly I’d even prefer that because it diminishes the value of in game purchases and would be a step towards getting rid of them as well.
I think it mostly revolves around how you get 100 players together for a good game. The match making part.
This part is not really what the initiative is about. The initiative can’t guarantee you’ll be able to find 100 other people to play with. Even matchmaking (unless it’s somehow made integral to the game) is not really relevant to the initiative. What the initiative is concerned with is preservation of games. To give a specific example, if you’re able to organize 100 people to play the same game the initiative wants you to have the technical capability to set up the game for 100 people. And to give a more real life example, Anthem is shutting down at the start of 2026. That means if me and my 2 friends get nostalgic and want to play Anthem in 2027 we literally cannot, the game won’t run. But if what SKG wants to achieve would be a reality right now then EA would have to have a way for me to set up whatever is necessary for me and my 2 friends to play Anthem together, be it some kind of server binary or P2P solution or source code or whatever, doesn’t matter how the company wants to solve this as long as it works. That’s what SKG is about.
My initial question in this thread framed changing the game design, not networking stack. So it was about making it all local/same screen only. An absurd example on purpose.
SKG isn’t saying companies should make BR-s local/split screen. It’s only concerned with keeping games in a playable state. SKG doesn’t alter the game design unless the technical stack required to keep the game running is somehow integral to the design of the game. SKG deliberately leave the “how a game should be preserved” open so publishers/developers could preserve games how they see fit. If the publishers/developers want to rip out the multiplayer and replace it with local/split screen that’s how they’ve decided to preserve their game. That is not really criticism of SKG, that’s just a bad faith argument that can be made only because SKG isn’t as restrictive as people claim it to be.
And specifically in your example the design of a BR game does not need to change at all because the only thing preventing some BR-s from being preserved is the fact that you cannot set up your own servers.
What exactly is this dramatic change that you think would have to happen?
But even then it’s astronomically unlikely to be retroactively enforced. Old games will be grandfathered in and it would apply only to future game releases.
There is a chance but what is he convincing them of? That they should take a non-existent exclusivity deal with Steam? They already have the data that exclusivity with Epic does not work and Steam doesn’t do exclusivity deals.
That’s what I mean by artificial exclusivity. There are games where the developer or publisher decided it’s the only platform they will release on but that kind of “exclusivity” is not at all the same as Epic paying developers or publishers to not release on Steam. Valve/Steam doesn’t prevent those games being released elsewhere, the developers/publishers themselves don’t want to.
I could understand smaller (I’m talking literal solo devs or studios with less than 10 people) choosing to be exclusively on Steam. Supporting other platforms can have huge overhead costs for them. But for a studio the size of Gearbox there’s no benefit to being exclusively on Steam. They have enough support staff to manage multiple stores. There maybe be suits wondering if it’s worth being exclusively on Epic but there are no suits sitting around wondering whether to be exclusively on Steam or not, the answer is obviously not.
Why are people taking this even remotely seriously? This is Pitchford doing marketing for BL4. BL3 already showed people don’t want Epic exclusivity and there’s no such thing as Steam exclusivity. They can choose to release exclusively on Steam but that’s just artificial exclusivity because nothing about Steam prevents them from releasing on Epic or GOG.
It’s a pointless poll made by Pitchford either to keep BL4 in the media cycle or to just shit stir, possibly both.
How much more specific do I need to be when I explicitly say “USB-C headphones”? What do you think USB-C stands for?
You could’ve done a single web search yo find that you can buy wired headphones that go straight into the USB-C port.No dongle required. But you’re too busy foaming from the mouth like a rabid dog to even understand what I said.
Why aren’t you complaining about the removal of a keyboard? Or the removal of SD card slots? Or the removal or the IR light? Or the notification light? or something else that used to be there but isn’t now. Why is the 3.5mm port so special it deserves constant complaining about almost A DECADE LATER? Why must you be these grumpy old men who can’t fucking move on with the times.
I don’t really care if the port is there or not, I’m just fed up with the constant whining about it. It’s gone, the ship has sailed. The majority are more than happy to use wireless headphones, 3.5mm is a niche in the mobile space. There are alternatives if you really like wired headphones. What makes 3.5mm such fucking hill to die on? Nothing. It’s just petty conservatism of people unwilling to move on with the times.
You know you’ve got not argument when you have to compare a $700 dollar phone to a $5 dongle for your argument to even make sense.
First of all, I seriously doubt any $700 phone without a 3.5mm port is going to have a decent DAC, because there’s no reason for it. In those phones the DAC is used primarily for phone calls. If those phones had a a 3.5mm port and they were flagship phones then maybe they would have higher quality DACs in them, but then they’d also cost more. And secondly, I wasn’t talking about some cheap $5 dongle, I specifically said quality headphones.
Then maybe don’t make examples of something I never talked about? I think I’ve been very clear that I’m talking about replacing 3.5mm headphones with a USB-C headphones. I wasn’t talking about replacing a 3.5mm in/out cable with some kind of a USB-C in, 3.5mm out cable. Such a cable would have to contain a DAC and if it’s going to contain a DAC you might as well buy a USB hub with a 3.5mm out port so you can continue using your 3.5mm in/out cable while you also charge your phone. See how that’s a completely different scenario with a completely different solution?
You have headphones on in your car, listening to music, while you’re driving? I hope you’ve checked your local laws because that is illegal in quite a few countries. It’s also a very niche example as most people would use the car stereo instead of headphones.
How often do you charge your phone and listen to music at the same time? And is that really something you cannot compromise on?
Okay? Literally nothing you said applies to USB-C headphones. Except for this part:
The simplicity of simply plugging them in and it just works is something really abstract to alternatives.
Fair enough, feel free to buy USB-C headphones then.
Edit: Time for the real reply.
I never have to charge my wired headphone.
But you still have to charge your phone. When I charge my phone I also charge my headphones. Most wireless headphones notify you in advance when they’re running low, in my experience enough in advance to not run out before charging again. And finally, charging even once a day is still less overhead than having to manage wires every single time you use the headphones.
Nor do I have to buy new batteries or new headphones when they die
Yeah, you only buy new headphones when the wire gets damaged because that one time you didn’t take good enough care of the wire. I personally had to buy a new set of headphones every year because I’m bad with wires. I’d either store them poorly because I was in a hurry or they’d get stuck on something and get yanked. My first BT headphones lasted me 5 years before starting to have noticeable battery issues and then I still used them for another 3 years before the battery was so dead it wouldn’t live my daily commute.
overall my response boils down to “just use wired then” because the arguments are silly personal preference arguments and the wider consumer market has already decided that wireless is better. But if you want wired nothing is stopping you from getting USB-C wired headphones.
I don’t follow? If you mean simplicity in terms of ease of use you might as well use BT headphones as you don’t have to worry about any wire management. Ease of use is the main reason BT headphones are the go to for most people. No carefully packing the wires so it won’t break, no accidental wiring mess or anything wire related. You just turn them on (which for most in-ear ones just means taking them out of the case), stick them to your ear and you’re good to go.
If you meant anything else by simplicity you need to expand that idea.
Honestly, I don’t really get the people who complain about the lack of 3.5mm jack on a smartphone. If you’re looking for quality you’re more likely to get better quality out quality USB-C headphones than quality 3.5mm headphones due to the USB-C headphones picking up less noise and having its own DAC (which is probably better than the phone DAC that 3.5mm would use).
EDIT: I would’ve been surprised if this take wasn’t controversial. But I guess it’s a good example how the fediverse is not a leftist echo chamber. You have a loud minority complaining about not being able to use a century old technology that the vast majority in the mobile space has moved away from and any compromise on what you want is unacceptable. That’s about as conservative as you can get.
I don’t think it eats away the faith. Capcom fixes the performance and endgame before the next release, everyone remembers only the final product. Capcom releases a poorly optimized game with bad endgame. It’s a massive hit. Eventually people start complaining. Capcom fixes the game and the cycle continues.
People could’ve learned from the launch of World but people remember only the final update and final update World is great.
I get hating Fallout 3. I hate how it (and every subsequent Bethesda Fallout game) has done irreparable damage to the Fallout lore. I think its main story is pretty shit and the only reason it’s not a steaming pile of shit is because somehow Fallout 4 was able to surpass Fallout 3 in shittiness.
But you have to have your head pretty far up your ass if you think people wouldn’t actually enjoy it. It’s a good game (a bit dated by today’s standards), it’s just not a good Fallout game. And the people who love Fallout 3 don’t care about the reasons that make it a bad Fallout game.