No offence taken! I don't actually know anything about it other than it's super popular in China. I saw a chart claiming that something like 85% of sales of this game were in China
ImplyingImplications
joined 2 years ago
Wukong is an incredibly popular literary/mythic character in China and originally tied into Taoist religious beliefs. I guess if you just see him as a monkey you might not get the appeal.
They're also not smart. The amount of work that goes into tracking target vehicles, syncing fake keyfobs, loading them into sea containers, and sending them on an international shipment to an overseas client in incredibe. This isn't being done by idiots. I can't imagine someone who got C's in highschool figuring out how it works or finding a way to stop it.
...you posted an article from a source you don't trust to a community you moderate?
"Let's learn how the justice system works in the US!"
Firefall was shutdown in 2017. Has the problem gotten worse in the 7 years since it has been shutdown?
Read what the proposed goal is and let us know how this is going to kill your games.
In the initiative creator's Q&A this is how he answers the question "I am a developer with an online-only game. What will happen if this initiative passes?" The answer is "shut down your game."
My guy, it's not whataboutism if this law change would affect an entire genre of game. I literally what to know what about free to play online games? I play gacha games like Genshin Impact, Reverse 1999, and Zenless Zone Zero. What happens to those games? They might not exist if these changes go into effect because of concerns multiplayer servers for a 15 year old game might shut down at some point.
Not just games but software as a service in general.
Right, so why is the initiative about video games? That's my issue with this initiative. It doesn't do anything to address the actual issue. Very few games use a live service model. You mention Call of Duty but their website lists that even Modern Warfare 2, released in 2009, is still active.
Very few games are software as a service and those that are usually exist entirely on a server and are accessed essentially via a browser like Runescape. A lot of these games are free to play games funded by in game purchases. Requiring these games to be released publicly when shut down is essentially requiring the game to be released for free since the server is the game. It's not going to prevent the software as a service model, it's just going to complicate server based games and might even lead to free to play online games no longer being made. I really think the initiative needs to focus on actual anti-consumer practices and not make server based games obsolete.
This person speaks as if they've lost all hope in life so there is no doubt in my mind they would rewatch the same uneventful episode of an anime thousands of times
This was not as much of an issue before but has now become an epidemic.
Which games are you talking about?
Hi, industry bootlicker here! Nintendo is listening to their consumers. I was told corporations are evil and won't listen to consumers and must be forced to do things by law. I much prefer consumers remain vocal about their wants because corporations do indeed listen. No government intervention required. I worry government rules could cause unintended problems that don't benefit anybody.