this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
323 points (98.5% liked)
Games
16538 readers
1026 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
...why the overspecific denial? Will it be involved at a later date?
Is "No." an over-specific denial?
"Will this game have DRM?"
"No."
"Why are you overly specific?"
Yep, that's my read as well. No idea what he's talking about.
No, it's the "at launch" part that was added.
From the FAQ:
What "at launch" part?
The "at launch" part in the article, right there. But you can trust the nonbinding FAQ.
I'm sorry, but what part of that says Denuvo or DRM?
The part the writer made up?
You seem to not trust anyone except the person who wrote the article and just literally made up that part to add. That's the only part you have faith in?
Yes, the part the writer made up. Either they share the concerns that we see a repeat of the Helldivers 2 fun, or they reacted to an article earlier with that wording. Doesn't matter, as I cannot see the future, I have to guess. I communicated that guess.
You seem awfully aggressive to people that don't share your view and dare to step into your line of sight. Do you always trust the official statements?
No, but I trust what a person says themselves more than another person making assumptions based off what they said. Concerns and guesses are not valid when the person has said No very clearly. Unless your stance is "trust no one about anything" then this seems a little extreme.
You're saying your guess has more validity than what they're saying, and they have a very clear answer. So I'll ask an equally silly question of you, do you always value your guess over what the sources say?
What? Maybe I don't understand your phrasing correctly. Do you mean you DO trust the official statement? No shame in that, if that's what you want to say. Or do you want to say that you only trust the official statement if it's the first thing you hear about something? Then it gets confusing and I don't think you mean that.
Concerns and guesses about a persons intentions are indeed valid. I'd rather not let people punch me to learn their intentions, I'd rather keep my distance regardless of an innocent face. Metaphorically speaking. Thanks to goodeye8 I read more about the company and their stances and now think it's valid what they say. I will still be distrusting of companies, but maybe I'll do more research before commenting. Maybe.
Also, my guess always has precedence over anything other people state. I rather trust my eye rather than someone else's. Again, metaphor. But my guess can be (...steered? Guided? Influenced?) when given more proof from different sources.
Let me try to better explain.
We start with an absence of information. We don't know about DRM. We then have new information from an FAQ. Now I've not seen them lie about this before so I have no reason not to believe it right now. They could be lying sure, but anything could be. You could be AI, I could be the devs. No one knows anything is true really, we assume and work based on a level of trust. I have no reason to not believe him so I have confidence it won't have DRM. I don't "know" it won't, but based on the information I have I am more likely than not to believe them.
Now we have additional information, the writer add the "at launch" bit. Now this could mean at launch as in, it will never have it, even from the start. Or it could me they might add it later, it's a bit ambiguous but either way they just made that part up. Made up, ambiguous statements do not give me confidence one way or the other. It does not impact my perception of the situation at all. Their comment might as well have not existed IMO.
To work off your scenario of people punching you. I'd venture to guess multiple people get close enough to punch you ever day, but you trust they won't. But anyone could. You're operating off trust (which is based on past experience) and confidence. Same thing here. Without built or broken trust I'm neutral there, I only have confidence. Yes, they could be lying, but I don't have evidence that they would right now, so why worry about it? It would be like walking around worried that everyone is going to punch you.
What really kinda bothers me is you did the research and found that they do have a basis for trust but still refuse to accept that. Even stating that you may make statements like this in the future without looking things up. Maybe. Why? Why spread mistrust that isn't based in anything and might actually run counter to the facts, that's wild to me.
I agree that you should weigh multiple sources but you held something made up by a random person as a higher standard of truth than the person actually creating the game. It's logic of that kind that really throws me.
Those are a lot of words to say you have a positive outlook on live and don't understand and disagree with my more negative one.
The punching was probably a bad metaphor. Just another way of saying that trust needs to be earned. And that the rest of the industry (at least the AAA part) did really not earn it.
In the beginning I only read the title and intro and wrote a (in my opinion) funny text. Then it got taken seriously without getting questioned. Then someone got personal.
Now I see that I was wrong, after that same someone gave me enough resources to prove their point.
It doesn't mean another mishap where I don't read the text won't happen again.
If I want to write another snark comment of the type of "...why the overly specific denial?", I will. Even if all three of you are against it.
I will give it to Saber however that they are doing good work, provided by the information of the one telling me to get therapy over a comment. So they will be spared of my snark, until they change. If they change.
You mean the "at launch" part that the writer added to the article and isn't a part of the official Saber statement? Something you'd know if you read the article past the introductory paragraph?
Yes, that "at launch". But you trust that FAQ, not like I want to do anything about that.
Have you considered taking therapy? Because you're literally making up shit to hate on a game, it's not healthy.
I'm sharing my distrust in the communication to the players based on shit that happened in the past. But thanks for the personal attack disguised as concern.
Actually I found it pretty disturbing that you'd make shit up just to throw a shade, so I'd consider the concern genuine even if poorly communicated.
Seriously, normal people don't go "but what if they're lying" any time something is said.
They do when lied to often. Doesn't need to be the same source, just the same ballpark.
I'm just going to repeat what I said. Normal people don’t go “but what if they’re lying” any time something is said. They do it when it's the same entity doing the saying, like if Ubisoft said they're going to try something different normal people wouldn't believe then, but normal people don't generalize everyone. Just because Ubisoft or EA or ActiBliz has told lies doesn't mean EVERY developer tells lies. It's incredibly toxic to think everyone is lying.
It is incredibly toxic, do you think that I do that? Over a "Why the over specific denial"? Seems a bit harsh. Are normal people that harsh?
It's a lived example of the "one bad apple spoils the bunch". There are quite a few bad apples in the publisher space, some on the developer side. Do normal people just not recognize patterns in an industry? Are normal people apathetic about how an industry treats them?
But you did. Everyone else was either optimistic or "yeah, whatever" about the statement, only you went "there must be something wrong with the statement". You are literally the only person in this thread questioning if it's genuine.
This is how bigots talk. "Some black people are bad people so I will treat all black people as bad people". "Some immigrants are bad people so all immigrants are bad". "Some young folk are lazy so all young folk are lazy". etc.
People notice patterns, as I pointed out with Ubisoft and Blizzard and EA. But people don't make sweeping generalizations based on those patterns. Just because Ubisoft is shitty doesn't mean we should be questioning everything Larian says. The problem isn't skepticism, the problem is that you're making huge generalizations to then be skeptical which leads you to make unfounded criticism.
No idea what you want to say in the first paragraph. I understand that you think it's toxic to have a different opinion? Pretty sure that's not what you meant.
There is a big difference between corporations and people. Bigotry against people cannot compare to bigotry against corporations. And then there's a difference from that to an industry. Most notably there's something called "industry standard" which (most often) the market leader sets and the competition copies in an attempt to catch up. To resist this means to potentialy lose money, something only few companies want or tolerate.
I can recommend searching for Cory Doctorow's idea of "Enshittification" to get an understanding why companies might use costumer favourable policies at their beginning which they revoke in favor of more money later. It's what made Amazon big, or Facebook. I'm sure you won't, but there might be readers of this dialogue that might be interested.
No, I don't know Saber's internal politics toward this, and no, I don't share your chipper attitude towards their intentions.
I do recognize they were nice to their customers, which is a good thing. But they were recently acquired by Beacon Interactive which doesn't even have a wikipedia page. The future remains unclear. I don't know where their path will take them, neither do you. You trust them at your own risk.
I most likely misunderstood what you were saying so we had a miscommunication. I don't think the miscommunication is particularly relevant so I'll leave it at that.
There is a difference between corporations and people, but the underlying fallacy is the same. If companies A, B and C are bad it doesn't mean all the companies from D to Z are also bad. And industry standard doesn't mean every company will follow the industry and industry standard doesn't guarantee making money. We have a lot of examples of companies following the industry standard and flopping hard, and we have examples of companies that don't follow the standard and are wildly successful.
I'm well aware of enshittification and I completely fail to see how that's relevant in this particular instance. In fact your entire premise of "they might add it later" makes no sense because literally the best time to have DRM is at launch when the potentially demand is the highest, and once your game is pirated the cat is out the bag and adding it later makes very little sense.
That's fine.
Beacon interactive was founded by the co-founder of Saber interactive for the purpose of buying out Saber from Embracer. That was literally the second result (the first one was a completely other company called Beacon Interactive Systems) on DDG if you searched for Beacon interactive. Google has the article a bit more downward as most suggestions are about that other company but in the top results are Saber interactive wiki page that has the exact same information. I can only assume that you did a search just to confirm your "company bad" bad and didn't look any further because it took just a nudge more effort to find out that Saber interactive is effectively an independent company.
But I guess it doesn't matter because you automatically assume company bad, so it's not like that is going to change your mind.
The underlying fallacy might be the same, but the target is not. That makes a huge difference. Especially with the power discrepancy corporations (the big ones at least, and most others too) have compared to singular humans.
Your point with the DRM is valid, but I could just replace it in this argument with more aggressive anti-cheat. Still, it's a good point.
I didn't know that for Beacon Interactive. Maybe I did stumble on the other one. For me, this wasn't even on the second page of results. My search was indeed inadequate. I blame filter bubbles. And a very stupid naming similarity. Good that you found this though.
I do see Saber (and Beacon) in a better light now, my overall attitude to corporations however won't change. Maybe I'll do more research before commenting. Maybe.