You can ignore all games from publishers on Steam. I'd recommend doing this with any publisher with anti-consumer practices.
Best thing is: I heard they see the number on their publisher dashboard next to the followers. Don't know if it's true, but I like the idea.
Fuck Ubisoft.
Holy shit, I didn't know you could do this. If there was a way to block all F2P games too, my store would be so much cleaner.
I would block games with microtransactions, being free to play, without microtransactions, is itself a positive.
They’ve gotta make money to support the game somehow
Some of us would rather not play it then. It's not hard.
I mean, ok?
You can’t just expect things to be provided for free, that isn’t how it works
Yep - we get it. But some of us don't enjoy the effects that microtransactions have on the game experience, and would prefer not to play those kinds of games. A filter whereby we could just hide those games, and browse ones that we would enjoy, that are more targeted for us, would both save us time and increase the likelihood of us finding a game we want to buy, improving the shopping experience and putting more money into game developers' and Steam's pockets. Similar to how the google play store offers a "premium/paid apps" section, because while much of the market prefers free to play and doesn't mind ads or microtransactions, they know some of us loath it and would rather pay up front for an experience that doesn't go there, and they make more money when they help shoppers shop.
I was specifically referencing the comment above saying they wanted a free to play game with no micro transactions- which means no monetization model.
It can be. It has been in the past. Locally hosted servers used to be common.
Wow thanks!
For anyone curious/looking to keep a copy just in case, GOG still has it listed and on sale for $3 US.
If you've never played it before, go. Now. Buy it on sale, hunt down an old physical copy, pirate it, just play it. There is a reason BG&E is so well loved, even today. It's an absolute blast of a time.
ETA: Instead of just mentioning it, here's the link.
Can you give me some quick teaser spoilers or something to reignite my interest? I've tried to start this game 3 times and every time i fall off cuz it feels like a clunky Dreamworks movie game
photo journualist against dictatorship, interplanetary adventure, fun and heartwarming characters.
Share with the kids and teens in your life
Genre mix of 3rd person brawling and some stealth sections. Hovercrafting including some races (many optional). Some adventure style puzzles. Awesome soundtrack. French style and subtle + not so subtle and satirical storytelling that doesn't assume you're a doofus. It actually made me a little sad at one point.
Technical: GOG version supports multiple threads/cores. Widescreen fix available. Check here: https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Beyond_Good_%26_Evil
You might have replied to the wrong guy?
Yup. Hope he still sees it. Mine is more a bonus to what you wrote. Should've been next to yours tho.
It is "for" a very specific subset of gamers. If you have played and didn't enjoy it, you are just not in that subset. For those of us that enjoy it, it was immediate and throughout. Also if you didn't play it when it was new, it will of course feel like an old game now, as it is. There are always microadvancements in video games that we barely even perceive as they incrementally build on each other. But you go back a whole generation or more and feel ten plus increments at once, it's just gonna be pervasively uncomfortable.
I have been playing video games for 30 years. Thank you so much for telling me about video games.
So... if not that, what did you actually want people to tell you about why you may not enjoy a game that other people do? That it's actually a conspiracy and you are the first person to figure out we were trying to trick you into thinking it was good to waste 5 minutes of your life?
Nothing in your response was telling me about the game. All you said is that the game is old and that game's change over time. Not helpful. P.s. I DID try playing it when it was new.
You said you tried the game, there is no special surprise that happens later into that makes the beginning worth it. Which is actually what I said, if you didn't like the start, you won't like the rest either. For the people who liked the game, it was good the whole way through. You didn't, there is no secret you missed, you just didn't like it, which is also what I said. The game is only well liked by a specific subset of people, you apparently are not in that subset. The second half of my post was also just one guess if you thought you should enjoy it but didn't. There was no way for me to know you tried it when it was new, but then at least the first half of my post was the important part for you then.
Sold. Just picked it up for €1.49. Thanks for the tip and the link.
I have the old physical copy. The DRM on it is awful, get the GOG copy.
Yeah this sucks but:
if you buy it you're giving Ubisoft money
you should emulate the gamecube version if you don't want to set it up
if you want to tinker pirate the gog release
Giving Ubisoft money is not a good reason just to have the game and playtime tracked on your Steam account.
When a Ubisoft game gets delisted:
Ubisoft or not, it still adds to the game preservation issue
It's been delisted because a remaster is happening. It was leaked recently. So if you don't get playing it now then you still can in future.
No, a remaster is not the same. They can be hit or miss. Delisting a game is just another way of erasing history.
Steam version was inferior to GOG. It was definitely missing the multi core CPU fix and maybe even still had TAGES protection (not sure about that one).
I agree remasters are hit or miss.
Take Diablo 2 for example, which is epic level of remaster. The game is virtually identical to the original. It's just working better on modern hardware and can be played in high resolution with shinier graphics. But you can still turn it to (almost) 1:1 copy of original with single keypress. I'm all for this.
And now take Warcraft 3 remaster from the "same Blizzard"... This is an example of how things should NOT be done.
Given both these coming from the same company, there's no telling in how any remaster will turn out in the end. Which is... not very reassuring?
Diablo 2 is also a great example because while in general it is a very good remaster it lacks the LAN play of the original. Features were taken away.
Well, I did not even know this. And I've played HELL OF A LOT of Diablo 2 over LAN years and years ago. But ever since then I've had no use for LAN play... LAN parties were a thing decade and half ago (at least where I live) and playing with my game buddy was simplified over internet (steam, battle.net). I still remember dark days of convincing Hamachi to work...
Remasters can be good, but publishers should always keep the original available. If I really like a remaster, I may be interested in trying the original as well. There's no downside to listing the old game unless the new one sucks enough to make the old, cheaper version more attractive.
Do a good job and I may buy both. Put a notice on the old one to point users at the new one, and consider offering a bundle of old and new so users can compare.
Except it will be infected with a Ubisoft launcher and Denuvo malware and I do not pay for anything with Denuvo filth in it.
So if you don’t get playing it now then you still can in future.
Only when online and DRM servers are up
Yeah, cause remasters always go well coughGTAdefinitive ahemWarcraft3cough.
Even then, what motive is there to prevent people from getting the original if they want to? Well, other than being able to charge $20-$40 for a 20 year old game.
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
Comments.
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: