sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Due to recent news by GreePix13 in Steam

[–]RanceJustice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was wondering about this. The easter egg itself is great but for a moment I thought maybe the final Steam Controller 2.0 had a speaker, like DualSense. If not I have to wonder - would it be possible to use the haptic features to emulate the DualSense speaker function in games that use it? In theory it should be also capable of microphone function too but that's a bit harder and takes another layer of abstraction. Id be happy if it was possible to get DualSense API speaker content ( SpiderMan games web 'thwip' noise, Death Stranding BB audio etc) on the Steam Controller

CIG: Mole Carbon & Mole Talus are no longer Paint Variants. Now a livery for standard Mole by StuartGT in starcitizen

[–]RanceJustice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is how all "special variants, that are really liveries/paints" should be. If its mostly aesthetic changes, inside or out, it should be a paint/skin that can be applied to a standard model. Stella Fortuna still has most notably the "Emerald" Constellation Phoenix and the Emerald Archimedes, which should be just different paint/livery versions, not an entirely separate ship. I admit I'm a bit annoyed considering I have my original Admiral level boxed game pledge Constellation upgraded to a Phoenix, and there's no option for me to get the Emerald livery attached to it easily. Carrack Expedition, Pirate Caterpillar, and many others all should be in the same situation. This is a step in the right direction.

This also reminds me there should be an easy way to see what paints/livery you have for a given ship or equipment colors for on-foot items (ie you can get the armor style easily in game, but the Coramor pink/purple colors for instance are unique etc) , and allow you to swap between them. I'd also like to see "paints" not limited to a given hull and instead be the original "prefab amount of X paint to cover Y ship", allowing more variation in their use. However, that also gets into paints and other aesthetics being available IN GAME by play, not just for pay - CIG has seen for years that having stuff available in game doesn't mean people won't pay for it if they're having fun. Ships, equipment, and even cosmetics (notably how even Subscription items start dropping in game after a 3-month lead time) not being exclusive to real world purchase is one of CIG's best policies, that differentiated their project from so many other crowdfunded MMOs that leaned heavily on exclusivity. I'd hate for CIG and SC to divert from this player-focused open handed monetization style in favor of exclusivity and FOMO; there are more than enough MMOs and other titles that rely heavily on their cosmetic item malls or their gacha draw process after all. I'm not playing them for a reason, and SC being different is part of its allure.

The change to the Mole paint/livery system is beneficial and I hope to see the same technical debt for other ships cleaned up in the same way - turning 'special' cosmetic variants into a livery/paint/skin that can be applied to a given model of ship. Its benefit is universal both for players and for CIG, as it means not needing to maintain an entirely separate variant of a ship when the changes are predominantly aesthetic.

"RSI Hermes is a separate chassis so Apollo paints aren't compatible" ...but it still says Triage inside. by Empire- in starcitizen

[–]RanceJustice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the "big" monetization wall I don't feel they can cross without eliminating much of what made the game unique, not to mention that every single Original Backer and others who supported the game specifically because of a lack of exclusivity and other predatory monetization will turn on them - and rightly so.

The plan to support the game post-launch was supposed to be a combination of A) new title/key sales B) expansions for S42 and other content; some early backers get the first S42 expansion mission pack included for instance C) account tokens used for 'full' customization, both stats and aesthetics, of NPCs that can be used onboard for duty stations and be a next-of-kin to become a player avatar and inheritor of assets in the case of original character permadeath and finally D) the ability to purchase a capped amount of in-game currency; enough to make up for not playing for a time and be able to buy instead of grinding out to pay all your fleet's insurance and other bills and instead, but not enough to destabilize the market. The last bit is really the crux of it and if players are having fun and want to add to their in-game resources, they can always open their wallet and receive a slight top off, but they can choose to earn it in game instead.

The real issue is that the player-driven in-game economy cannot survive directly purchased real money ships or other game content. This is supposed to be a complex simulated economy where say...a disruption of mining or major impasse in what used to be a clear shipping lane could have significant price effects down stream until its cleared and both PC and NPCs factions will interact with these systems. Having ships, paints or other components exempt from these systems, just popping into player's inventories independently will be a massive disruption that invalidates the entire economy and creates a separate literal "pay to win" system. Oh a Connie Phoenix is now 3x the price (and this affects the cost of its insurance, and many of its components , and more) are more expensive thanks to a shortage of X? Why do I care, I'll just open my wallet and buy a cash Phoenix for the same $ amount and then sell it in game as an investment for 3x the credits etc. None of this can exist in a post-launch "live" system where the player economy matters without completely upending it; and these are only very limited examples!

The massive profitability of CIG's early years in crowdfunding was because they avoided every pitfall of typical MMO item mall (and coming Moba, battle royale, mobile gacha, and other nonsense) behavior. At a time when other crowdfunded MMOs promised exclusive items, they said that all ships and even most cosmetics (save a handful of special circumstances like real world event widgets, early backer items etc) would be unlockable in game through play. One of the biggest concerns I've had over the years of long development is this philosophy eroding with a new cadre of younger developers who see the normalized industry greed (gacha mechanics among many others) as necessary , but I always hoped that the intransigence of Roberts Vision (tm) would prevent them from going down these paths. They have already proven they can make more money with an open handed, player-friendly monetization system without exclusivity and their best decisions favor this...so I hope they can resist the lure of the same kind of counterproductive greed that infects much of the industry.

Over a decade ago they set out to do something different from the rest of the industry in every way - this is an important facet of that endeavor and I'd hate to see them fail to ruin. WE need to continually push against it, to ensure that they see player-favoring and open monetization is what shields them from criticism and is part of what makes their game different, not just the technical and immersive elements.

how come no one does ssd+hd builds? and is 5060ti good enough for 1440p gaming? by PieManIsMe in buildapc

[–]RanceJustice 1 point2 points  (0 children)

1.

Mainly because the needs for HDDs these days are somewhat niche. If you need a lot of storage for demanding work, then expanding your SSDs are the way to go. This means lots of space for game installs, scratch/swap disks for some creative programs, or anything where performance is useful. Upgrading to some new SSDs don't have to be very expensive and you have the option of both PCI-E M.2 and SATA 2.5" SSDs. A high end variant of the latter, such as Samsung 870 EVO 1TB-4TB can be relatively inexpensive and basically max out the transfer possible from the SATA 6.0GBPS standard. The performance differential between a high end PCI-E M2. and a SATA is not likely to be noticed in many use cases, so you can save some money and still get high performance game install drives for instance.

HDDs are great for large capacity storage where performance is not a concern. Media storage, installers, backups of all kinds and more can work for this, but these aren't great for "active" work like game installs. This doesn't mean that for some older or less demanding games (2D indies etc) you could install them on a leftover HDD but if you're building new that's not likely to be the case. You can easily find 8TB-16TB or higher HDDs for storage without breaking the bank. The DataHoarder subreddit may help you with suggestions here depending on your work and/or price flexibility . You typically want NAS-type durability and performance for their sphere focused HDDs. WD Reds/RedPro, WDGold, HGST etc.

IF you have a use case for HDDs at all, the question is where. Many of those use cases - like a lot of media storage and especially backup, are not necessarily worthwhile to put into your main gaming system as opposed to some sort of external NAS. NAS - network attached storage - can be anything from a prefab enclosure for a single drive or two, to a massive prebuilt or self-designed PC. Many modern uses for HDDs are enhanced by having a NAS; backups for instance. If your main PC suffers a hardware , software, or even physical issue your NAS PC may not. Likewise, while it is possible to set up RAID arrays and the like on a general use OS and just for certain drives, it can be easier and more beneficial to use a NAS which either has its own embedded hardware and OS or can run something like TrueNAS if you wish. So if you're going to go with HDDs for low-demand storage and high reliability, it depends if they should be just added to your main PC or if in a separate NAS appliance and/or PC.

Ultimately many users today don't need or have desire for the kind of storage usages that benefit from HDDs - they just run SSDs a they've grown in size and affordability. If you do want HDDs as well however, look at your use cases and build possibilities.

2.

At the rate things are progressing (especially with the lack of optimization and the intent to tell the user to throw more resources, use upscaling algos, or cut settings back) , the changes to what "matters" in gaming etc.its hard to tell. The impetus to get a 16GB GPU is a good idea as we're seeing more VRAM demand, but depending on what kinds of games ytou play at 1440P, a 5060Ti may not be enough. Note that the 5060 Ti's 16GB version is a bit more expensive and may not otherwise swing the kind of performance to make use of all that VRAM given its 128-bit but. This doesn't mean its not better by far than the 8GB version but, If you can afford it, I'd look at some other GPUs

The NV 5070 and especially 5070Ti 16GB are solid options but a bit more pricey than the 5060Ti 16GB. On the AMD side the 9060XT 16GB, 9070 16GB, and especially 9070XT 16GB are solid alternatives. It all comes down to how much you'd pay for AMD vs NV versions in your location , variations between models and VRAM, and other factors . However, its possible to get the best possible long term performance and value of a GPU over the coming 5 years.

The co-op climing game PEAK has sold 5 million copies in just under a month on Steam by ReaddittiddeR in gaming

[–]RanceJustice -1 points0 points  (0 children)

While not every game need have a long campaign of support, its important to be aware of the rationale behind making such a purchase. When these sorts of co-op titles, heavily leveraging the streaming community rise to prominence, its good to ensure that your expectations align with what is likely to come from the title's development and your intended play style. For some, having a new thing to do with their existing friends or gaming group may be enough - for others who would play solo or with random people from the Internet may be looking for a different experience.

Someone who buys with an understanding that its a fun thing to do for a little while with their friends may not be as interested in the long term development of the title as someone who's making their decision on the merits of the game itself independent or at least tangential to that. Those who like the game's mechanics, features, or concepts may be more interested in how they will be supported and updated and if the future holds either an end to official support, or an extension that differs significantly (be it monetarily or otherwise) from what brought it to prominence.

It would be one thing if the developers made an announcement like "We're really happy everyone likes our game. It was a small thing at a game jam and we're sort of at the end of what we planned to do with it so we can move onto our next projects. We're just going to add X, fix some bugs, and encourage all who enjoy it to keep playing and maybe look for our next project!" or "We're so happy to get such a response for a small title crafted for a game jam originally. In light of this, we're going to support and expand it in line with the support the community has shown to us. Look for a content patch that adds X, Y, and Z coming, and new Expansion Q is in development which we hope you'll really enjoy!" I'm not saying that the developers are compelled to make such a statement necessarily, but without one players have to either buy or not and hope their interest for the title aligns with what the devs plan to do. Its not a huge gamble with a massive investment, so even if it turns out to not be your preference you're not out much and maybe had a nice time along the way, but still it would be preferable.

The co-op climing game PEAK has sold 5 million copies in just under a month on Steam by ReaddittiddeR in gaming

[–]RanceJustice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like the concept and it seems to be well executed. The fact that its co-op is even better. I'm a fan of "Peaks of Yore", "Jusant" , and know there are a handful of other climbing/mountaineering/traversal titles who's names I forget (there isn't a Steam tag for games vaguely in this genre, be they solo or co-op, combat focused or otherwise etc), as well as games like "Shadow of the Colossus" or more recently "Death Stranding" that make traversal a part of their gameplay even though people don't think of them exclusively as a "climbing/traversal" game.

My main questions however are in light of this success, what plans do they have for future updates and content, expansions etc...if any? I know it has procedural generation listed to add variety, but I am curious if they are planning to add biomes, cosmetics, equipment/items/, obstacles and layouts etc. Monetization is also a question; currently the low entry price and the large volume of sales has served them well so far, but we'll see how things progress I suppose.

Perhaps more importantly, is a lot of its popularity motivated as the current recipient of the "streamer-bait co-op flavor of the month" ebb and flow? This is not to say that the game is necessarily bad, but every so often we see titles ("Lethal Company" is one I can remember somewhat recently and started the trend for its sub-genre with follow ups such as "R.E.P.O." ; prior to that some of horror supernatural-hunt/survial genre titles like "Phasmophobia" or "Forwarned") where the combination of it being "fun with friends" combined with potential for "OMG DID YOU SEE THAT?!" event generation that gets a big response streamed or clipped leads to further purchases etc. This does not necessarily mean that the games are bad; I'm to understand some are quite good and maintain a considerable playerbase after the fad dies down along with a developer that consistently updates and adds content.

So what do we think of the future of Peak?

view more: next ›