No. 18769Anonymous 16th June 2014 Monday 7:50 pm18769Ubisoft may have gimped PC version of 'Watch Dogs' intentionally
It seems that Ubisoft actually limited the graphic performance of Watch Dogs on PC, when contrasted with the console editions. A modder found this out and has worked out how to restore the 'original E3 settings' (ie, a game which looks like the 'bullshots' shown in gaming conventions prior to release).
Why this was done is unclear. Some anons are alleging that Ubisoft was pressured by Sony and other console makers into limiting the PC graphics capabilities in order to make their consoles look less inferior by comparison. In any case Ubisoft haven't yet commented on the situation.
>>18843 It's certainly been the case at most dev events I've been to that the Mac users were hipsters with expensed kit paid for by current or former employers.
Looking at it from a moral and (somewhat) objective standpoint, I find it hard to support sites like GOG. Sure it's a decent service they are providing, bundling up old games and getting them out so people can play them with less fuss.
But the fact is a lot of these titles are abandonware anyhow, and even the ones that aren't, I highly doubt any of the developers that actually worked on the game are getting royalties. I may as well just pirate it, I won't feel any worse, because buying it now is hardly putting money in the pockets of its creators.
It's like with second hand CDs or reprints of old albums by bands that have long since split up- People buy them because the industry has drilled this idea into their heads that the legal thing to do is the right thing to do, which it isn't; you're just propping up some businessman's empire. The actual content creators are the people who get the worst deal in both videogames and music.
>>18855 >I may as well just pirate it, I won't feel any worse, because buying it now is hardly putting money in the pockets of its creators.
Even in a case where absolutely nobody who worked on a game receives royalties from a sale on GOG, the creators were paid for their work. They are paid because they make money for their employers. With services like GOG, the increased longevity of a product can increase the value of games developers to their employers.
The comparison to music is rather shaky, principally because as technology has developed, music production and distribution has become much more accessible to emerging artists without the budget of a massive record label behind them, making the whole infrastructure rather an anachronism. With film and games, at least at the blockbuster/AAA level, the exact opposite is true. The budgets for major releases are rising, not falling, and the amount of money and the sheer manpower required to facilitate the production of those games is ridiculous (see the $500m Destiny headlines, the ACIV credits that makes Ulysses look brief, etc.). Unlike the music industry, the behemoths of the games industry can actually justify their existence with a straight face. That "businessman's empire" you're propping up is what allows the games industry as we know it to exist.
Obviously a lot of people, particularly at the bottom of the industry, get a shit bargain, but "the actual content creators" aren't getting a better deal if you take their shit without paying for it.
You're sounding very Marxist in your sentiments. The fact is that businesses are facilitating that exchange, and it's up to you whether you want to pay it or not. I don't buy this idea that simply owning capital does not entitle you to anything (which is sort of what you're arguing here). One does not need to have had to create something to earn something from it, as distribution and awareness of a product are key factors as well.
People know they can pirate, and the choice is really up to them. So even if your first argument was true as well, you're being pretty patronising by criticising them for their own bloody choices.
>>18857 >I don't buy this idea that simply owning capital does not entitle you to anything
Not him, but that's basically money for nothing. Opposition to money for nothing doesn't seem particularly Marxist to me.
That's such a progressive way of thinking. If you ran a school I'm sure ofstead would give you an OUTSTANDING award. As long as you're not doing any terrorism or owt.
It's a bit frowned upon these days, like pissing in the shower. Everyone does it but nobody can admit to it or they become pariahs. Don't worry though, I'm sure UKIP will sort it all out when they win 97% of the vote in the GE. They can't jihad us if they've all been voluntarily deported!
Huh, I wasn't really going for a Marxist angle, but I suppose so. I don't think it's necessarily a lefty position, however.
Think of it from the opposite end of the spectrum- In a proper lasseiz faire, free market worldview, the "right" to distribute software, or anything in fact, in such a manner is nothing but a legal fiction. It's a arbitrary creation of that works only in our particular idiom of capitalism.
What's actually fundamentally immoral about pirating such work?
>>18867 >You're thinking of socialism, which is what's meant to come in between.
Not according to Marxism - the only way to reach a supposed Marxist utopia is through the poor rising up from having no other choice. I've mentioned it before in another thread but a true communist should vote capitalist over socialist as the idea is for capitalists to fuck the poor so much that they have no choice but to do something about it, as opposed to socialism appeasing the poor but not being a true Marxist utopia.
I'm not a Marxist by the way but it's an interesting voter's dilemma.
Marx's theory of history has socialism as what is established between capitalism and communism. You're thinking of social democracy, which was proposed by people like Bernstein and other revisionists.
Marx would have supported capitalism in societies he deemed not yet ready for a socialist uprising, but it's a pretty major mistake to think he'd've supported capitalism over socialism just to cause an uprising of the proletariat. That's aside from the fact that he and Engels revised their opinions towards the ends of their lives, understanding that the proletariat simply wouldn't explode in revolution as evidenced by the fact they never did - the German SPD, their own party, were social democrats because of this. They had long term and short term goals for the party: short term being making the proletariat ready for revolution, which involved education and social reform on the short scale. The revolution was long-term, but was considered inevitable by much of the party due to his "scientific" theory of history that they considered writ. Revisionists challenged this, saying revolution wasn't necessary (something I'm inclined to think Marx would have believed). On the other side, you had people like Gramsci who said revolution had to be brought about by intellectual leaders guiding the proletariat. The most extreme example od this was Lenin, who was an idiot.
>>18882 Not him, but I'm the OP and I find the spinning of threads about video games on the video games boards towards political bullshit irritating also.
I've been going on for the last 5-6 years and saying that games are simply not worth buying anymore, bar for exceptions like GTA or Metal Gear Solid and the like.
Consoles are a joke, with no other purpose than to part you with your money as efficiently as possible. They stifle creativity massively, and as seen by OP, they place a cap on quality - due to their inherently inferior design - in that they can only have a fixed level of hardware that is already out of date when put into production. Getting a "fixed package" system 20 years ago would've made sense as PCs were expensive and it was far easier to design a dedicated console with a simple interface for people to enjoy games. Consoles now are essentially gimped PCs giving zero freedom to customize or upgrade.
If I were to design a console, I'd centre it around the PC design, make a modular, upgradable platform, where only the chassis is fixed and everything else can be upgraded over time. The screen would obviously be a HDTV, and peripherals can be easily bought, keyboards, touchpads, etc... It'd come with standard controllers and a 3rd touchpad interface (something like the WiiU) where you can control your console exactly like a PC.
>>18890 I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with games consoles for doing stuff like playing karting or fighting games with m8s, but they're no substitute for a good PC, as Microsoft and Sony seem to want them to be.
>>18890 Modular consoles in this day and age would be the worst thing for consumers.
I can already hear various stockholders rubbing their hands together and the cha-ching in their pupils. This sort of thing will be exploited very similar to how DLC has been exploited.
Not to mention everything will be propriety and developers (or mostly publishers) would love to push component A so you can play Game B.
>>18894 Because they'll probably be as expensive as customizing an apple computer. Put it this way PS Vita only allows proprietary memory cards which are significantly more expensive than your average memory card. Now imagine if you allow these people to price proprietary components which can be everything from the RAM, to the CPU to the GPU.
The PC's connected to the, telephone.
The telephone's connected to the, internet.
The internet's connected to my, motherboard.
My motherboard's connected to the, keyboard.
The keyboard's connected to the, mouse.
Left leg in, right leg out.
Everyone down to Dixons!
>>18890 >If I were to design a console, I'd centre it around the PC design, make a modular, upgradable platform, where only the chassis is fixed and everything else can be upgraded over time. The screen would obviously be a HDTV, and peripherals can be easily bought, keyboards, touchpads, etc... It'd come with standard controllers and a 3rd touchpad interface (something like the WiiU) where you can control your console exactly like a PC.
The one huge benefit of a console is that you're always working with the same hardware, which makes optimisation much simpler. Your theoretical console is literally giving up the one advantage consoles have for no real benefit.
>>18890 Why not just make a mini-itx PC? It is modular, upgradable and peripherals can easily be bought.
The main problem is that it would be more expensive than an atx PC as itx cases and motherboards tend to be more expensive.
>>18864 >pissing in the shower. Everyone does it but nobody can admit to it or they become pariahs.
I have never done this. There's always a toilet right next to a shower, why would you need to piss there?
>>18907 >Your theoretical console is literally giving up the one advantage consoles have for no real benefit.
Exactly. GTAV managed to make my PS3 do a surprisingly good impression of my PC's GPU, despite the PS3's GPU being eight years old at this point. The console upgrading thing was horrible when they tried it, the 32X and N64 RAM expansion being the examples from history. If you want an upgradable system, get a PC or Steam box or whatever. I hope that neither Microsoft nor Sony offer performance upgrades on their respective platforms, it'd only serve to fracture their install base and they'd be far better off not doing so.
>>18928 > There's always a toilet right next to a shower, why would you need to piss there?
It saves time and money. It takes time for the shower to warm up, so I might as well piss in there then use the warming up water to flush it. The rest of the shower makes sure it's properly gone. So why not?
>>18928 >There's always a toilet right next to a shower, why would you need to piss there?
This hasn't been the case in any of the places I've lived. Well, there was that one house, but I'm not sure if it counts if there's a wall in the middle.
