Octopus Overlords

Unagi wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 8:59 pm

hitbyambulance wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 2:00 pm

LordMortis wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 12:51 pm I liked the old style demolition driving games

How weird, I went to check this game out after you just shared it here... and it showed as in my Library. I have no memory of a game called Wreckfest. I went to my Library to see when I purchased it, and I bought it back in 2014.

Apparently, it was called "Next Car Game" back when I bought it.

It's come a long way since then, and it looks really fun! And I own it!

did you maybe get in the Kickstarter for this? they couldn't use "FlatOut X" since their old publisher had rights to the name. (and that publisher had a different studio make "FlatOut 3" which was by most accounts pretty bad - i never even bothered with it, even though i got it in a bundle.)

be sure to try the riding lawnmower demolition derby. there's also one with farming combines, i think

Unity is over. Not likely to recover from this. Developers have to pay unity $0.2 per install if they made over $200K and have over 200000 install. Not per sale, but per install. An user install it on 5 devices, pay Unity $0.2 x 5. An user replace his PC or mobile and have to reinstall, pay Unity $0.2 again.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/12/2387 ... evelopment

Victoria Raverna wrote: Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:42 am Unity is over. Not likely to recover from this. Developers have to pay unity $0.2 per install if they made over $200K and have over 200000 install. Not per sale, but per install. An user install it on 5 devices, pay Unity $0.2 x 5. An user replace his PC or mobile and have to reinstall, pay Unity $0.2 again.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/12/2387 ... evelopment

I was reading about that last night. With the response I was seeing, they will either need to dial it back, or lose their market position.

Since Unity knows when their stuff is installed (but not who installed it), they really did make it 'per install', and they can't tell if it's the same person installing it over and over, or different people. And that includes demos and pirated versions (although they say they're trying to figure out a way around those.) Making a developer pay for pirated games...

Do you realize how easy it would be for the 'review bomb' mobs to set up scripts to install/uninstall/install just enough of a game to trigger the telemetry, sending tens of thousands of 'install' pings for a game just because the developer has a character with the wrong pronoun?

/edit - or to just figure out how to send the ping without installing? A script could send those out every few seconds, maybe even rotating IP addresses. Share the script with a few hundred malcontents, and you could have millions of fake installs per day. 250 people doing it once every 5 seconds on a machine left running overnight could result in bills in excess of $6,000,000 per week for indie developers. No doubt Unity could recognize that level of interference, but it highlights just how it could be abused.

It also made "free to play" games unviable.

Kasey Chang wrote: Wed Sep 13, 2023 6:16 pm It also made "free to play" games unviable.

What really hurts F2P games with it is the fact (from something else I read) that with mobile games, it's often less than 5% of installs that are actually played more than a couple of minutes. People install a dozen games, play most of them for one level, and move on to the next. Even with games that make enough revenue to trigger the extra charge, that's 95% of the charges being for games that were never played.

And I was just reading on PC gamer that there's another issue: Free games. Not free to play, but free - like GoG giveaways and Game Pass. Guess what? You just got 5 million more installs and no extra income. And what happens to older games? How many of them would be removed from platforms entirely when they stop actively bringing in profits, but continue to generate bills from Unity? We'd start to see games completely removed after four or five years.

I don't think there'll be any future games using Unity. Not even if they cancel it or dial it back.

No way to trust Unity after this. If they can change it now, what to stop them from changing it again?

You made good profit? Unity decide they want bigger cut so they change the fee. Suddenly your profit is gone.

It's been clarified that it will only apply to monetized titles. But even so, where do they draw the line? What if a FTP game uses microtransactions? It's a slippery slope, and it makes me think Unity didn't fully think it through.

They also clarified that for subscriptions like GamePass, MS et al will be the ones paying. Which means Unity games won’t be on subscription services, or these big boys will send their lawyers to Unity which will not end well for Unity.

Look, when you’ve pissed off MegaCrit this badly, you done fucked up, A-A-RON.



Seems to me like Unity’s position in the market is about to be utterly destroyed. Every dev I’ve seen talking about this is furious, and simply walking it back isn’t going to be enough (see the Reddit discussion linked in the Xitter thread above on the licensing sorcery Unity employed leading up to this for more).

So many games use Unity, possibly because it's cheaper, easier and less intimidating to use than some of the others. But the ironic thing about this move is that it's bound to discourage anyone who may want to become a game developer.

it's "in myriad ways"

I see definite parallels between this and WOTC's attempts to increase monetization of D&D, particularly their revamped, retroactive new "open" license (which has since been put on hold. I hesitate to say cancelled, as we're likely to see it again, and soon).

The milking of developers retroactively, and the backlash. Expect weasel words and attempts at damage control before rolling it back completely by the end, only to try again in a year or 3.

https://kotaku.com/unity-developer-fee- ... 1850834439

Don't know how much was blind sales but Unity execs sell millions in stock (buying none) leading up to this announcement. I don't get it. If you know it's bad for investors then you know it's a bad decision. Unless you know the company is already in big trouble. Also the walkback is amazing. I also doubt it will be enough for smaller developers to come back. You can't put your career into that uncertainty and from the sound of it, Unity make bad decisions from the hip and reposition later as a matter of course.

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2023 8:48 am I see definitely parallels between this and WOTC's attempts to increase monetization of D&D, particularly their revamped, retroactive new "open" license (which has since been put on hold. I hesitate to say cancelled, as we're likely to see it again, and soon).

The milking of developers retroactively, and the backlash. Expect weasel words and attempts at damage control before rolling it back completely by the end, only to try again in a year or 3.

That's what it reminded me of! Thanks! I knew it reminded me of something else that happened somewhat recently, but I couldn't remember what.

So you just have to trust Unity. The number of install that you need to pay is up to Unity to decide.



https://unity.com/pricing-updates

How is an install defined?
An install is defined as the installation and initialization of a project on an end user’s device.

How is Unity collecting the number of installs?
We leverage our own proprietary data model and will provide estimates of the number of times the runtime is distributed for a given project – this estimate will cover an invoice for all platforms.

Do installs of the same game by the same user across multiple devices count as different installs?
We treat different devices as different installs. We don’t want to track identity across different devices.


https://unity.com/runtime-fee

All determinations, calculations of installs, and revenue related to the Unity Runtime Fee will be made by Unity in its sole discretion.

At some point, it would be cheaper for Microsoft to buy them up.

If Microsoft gives them a few more weeks, there'll be a steep discount.

This could essentially kill off Valve's Early Access program, as so many Early Access games are made with Unity and are often in the Early Access program for many years (Kerbal Space Program for 4-5 years for example). I imagine this would make it very difficult for titles to gain traction and become a success after they exit Early Access, if they even do.

Blackhawk wrote: Sat Sep 16, 2023 2:42 pm If Microsoft gives them a few more weeks, there'll be a steep discount.

I wonder if the reason of this change is actually to sabotage the valuation of the company so it'll be cheaper for Apple or Microsoft to buy them?

Victoria Raverna wrote: Mon Sep 18, 2023 12:09 am I wonder if the reason of this change is actually to sabotage the valuation of the company so it'll be cheaper for Apple or Microsoft to buy them?

I'm pretty sure that would require the shareholders to embark on a plan that ensures they will get paid less from the deal, so that doesn't seem very plausible. That may be the end result of the pricing changes, sure, but I doubt they would shoot off their own foot intentionally.

There's also the whole 'that would be highly illegal, in addition to against the best interests of those carrying it out' piece.

Chraolic wrote: Mon Sep 18, 2023 9:04 am

Victoria Raverna wrote: Mon Sep 18, 2023 12:09 am I wonder if the reason of this change is actually to sabotage the valuation of the company so it'll be cheaper for Apple or Microsoft to buy them?

I'm pretty sure that would require the shareholders to embark on a plan that ensures they will get paid less from the deal, so that doesn't seem very plausible. That may be the end result of the pricing changes, sure, but I doubt they would shoot off their own foot intentionally.

Shareholders except the CEO and other execs that also own shares don't have direct control on decision making like this, right? So it is not the shareholders ensure they get paid less from the deal. It is the executives in Unity that did it. Maybe they have other way to get paid that'll compensate the losses because of the lower share prices?

I wouldn't discount the 'bonehead idea' theory.

Yeah, good luck with that one. Maybe you should have done some listening before you lit all of those bridges...

'Confusion,' they say.

Almost word for word WotC trying to weasel their way out.

Hilarious.

edit: well, they skipped the step where WotC tried to blame their customers for being ignorant and not understanding the thing they were protesting.

Unity's updated update to the pricing model is out.

Seems like this addresses most of the issues with the plan. Unfortunately for Unity, they are firmly in the 'find out' stage at this point, and are royally fucked.

This was asked in the Cyberpunk thread, but my reply moved too far off topic, so I moved it here.

Octavious wrote: Wed Sep 27, 2023 1:31 pm Curious does anyone actually enjoy checklist items in games? Like find 100 pictures scattered around the land. Every open world game has it, but is that actually fun for anyone? I don't think I've ever finished something like that in any game.

Sometimes, if they're fun. They're fun if they're interesting to find, and if they make sense and fit into the world.

Make sense and fit into the world organically (like they belong there): GTA San Andreas spraying over rival gangs' tags? Yes. Fallout 4 bobbleheads? Yes. Assassin's Creed Golden Feathers? No. GTA San Andreas 'hidden packages' (that were glowing and floating?) No.

Interesting to find: Starfield magazines (they're sitting where you'd expect to find magazines), yes. Batman Arkham Riddler trophies (they're interesting puzzles - most of them.)

Other factors:

Collectibles tied to progression? No. Arkham Knight's Riddler trophies (in order to get the good ending, you have to get them all.) The recent Doom games (collectibles or challenges are required to upgrade your gear.) If you want to reward the player, reward them with fun things (cosmetics, decorations, cards, songs, whatever) - but don't force the player to do numerous tedious, frustrating, repetitive actions in order to simply see the game.

Collectibles that are too numerous: No. (The 'good ending' Riddler trophies? There are 243 of them.) Assassin's Creed Black Flag (the collectibles are fine, but there are treasure chests, Animus fragments, Templar keys, taverns, shanties, stelae, art, manuscripts, messages in a bottle, and buried chests.)

The game built around collecting? Sure. The obvious example would be Pokemon, although I've never played it. Ni No Kuni, though? Oh, yeah.`

One interesting twist? Elder Scrolls. In both Morrowind and Skyrim, I played in a way that made everything a collectible.

Morrowind was the first game I played that was persistent, and where you could place items in the world and they'd stay. I had a lot of fun with that with my first post-DLC full-run character. I grabbed a house mod that had an extra room or two, opened it in the editor, emptied a room, and filled it with tables and mannequins. I then set out to get one of everything - every armor, every weapon, every shield, every ring, every amulet, every unique, every knick-knack. You name it - I probably had it. Spoiler tags just for neatness (I'd love to have a 'neatness' tag that did the same thing!)
Then came Oblivion, and then Skyrim, and it just didn't work well. The physics were too fidgety. Morrowind didn't have physics - if you positioned something, it was pretty much locked in place. In the later games, if you placed items and closed a door nearby, the physics were likely to hurl everything around the room. But then Legacy of the Dragonborn came along. It was a mod in which you inherit a museum. An empty museum. An empty museum with racks and slots for every single weapon, armor, jewelry piece, creature, collectible, named item, book, and everything else in the game. And it was simple - drop them into the sorter, and they'd appear on the appropriate mannequin, rack, shelf, or display. Any quest or temporary items can be easily duplicated and the duplicate (which is non-functional) placed. When you finish certain milestones, it adds displays related to that (like if you finish the mage's guild, it'll add a display of items related to that quest that aren't actually able to be picked up and carried - like the sphere.) It's also got all sorts of non-museum features, like one of the best designed player homes I've seen.

Make no mistake - this is not a mod you add to a game of Skyrim. This is the mod you build a Skyrim run around. It's an Indiana Jones/scavenger hunt/sticky fingers playthrough (especially since in order to fully complete the museum, you have to finish every guild - including the Dark Brotherhood - overly nice guys need not apply.) It's got dozens of other mods built in, and it's so popular that other big mods usually use 'compatible with LoD' as a prominent selling point. In fact, Legacy has built-in support for literally dozens of other mod. If you have them installed, it adds additional displays just for their items.

Spoilers for the appearance of a few rare items in Skyrim (and not my shots):

I would say, depends on how well they're implemented into a game and what the rewards are. If they're just there to pad things out to 100% and don't offer any intrinsic value, then I'll usually ignore them. If they offer up unique items like the AC unlockeable suits via the vault, then yes I'll do them.

I do like the ones that add backstory and lore, as those build up the world and make things more interesting. But random objects you just have to collect like in GTA that act like filler? No. Just no.

Unless you’re some pigeon-murdering sociopath.

Isgrimnur wrote: Wed Sep 27, 2023 8:59 pm Unless you’re some pigeon-murdering sociopath.

I am not.

I think the only game I ever put in any effort toward finding all of that crap was one of the early Assassin's Creed games (running around Italy). I think a lot of it was because I enjoyed the mechanics of climbing the towers and jumping around.

Now, I won't go very far out of my way to get that kind of stuff, but if it's reasonably easy to grab it I will.

I collected all the treasure chests in AC: Black Flag. I think it was 100. The reward? Not a damned thing (beyond what was in the individual chests).

coopasonic wrote: Thu Sep 28, 2023 11:18 am I collected all the treasure chests in AC: Black Flag. I think it was 100. The reward? Not a damned thing (beyond what was in the individual chests).

That's a lot of booty.

At the very least, you would think it would unlock something for all the effort.

Rumpy wrote: Thu Sep 28, 2023 1:42 pm At the very least, you would think it would unlock something for all the effort.

Only if you're trying to Platinum/100% the achievements. If you're not - get them as long as you want what's inside. The sea shanties were the same way - the only value was what finding them gave you. The stelae and keys, I believe, gave rewards if you collected them all (but I didn't, so I'm not sure.)

I mean, from inside the game. Unlock a mission or an outfit or something. At least, I remember one of those GTA5 collection missions, that despite the huge timesink that it was, in the end it rewarded you with a car. It's just so much busywork though.