An uninstallation fee for users to prevent them from defrauding devs by repeatedly reinstalling.
Chailles
joined 2 years ago
I'm not super familiar with the WH40K franchise and what other games are out for it, but what genre of games would you have preferred they do? I suppose a straight up action shooter would work, but isn't there a Space Marine sequel coming soon that's for WH40K? Plus there's also Darktide (the futuristic counterpart to Vermintide).
I think people really overstate Todd Howard lying to compare it Peter Molyneux's shit. Like we're looking at Molyneux who said you could plant a tree and have it grow in real time or whatever. The same Molyneux who promised a "life-changing" award for winning a P2W clicker game (the award was royalties and early access to Godus, a game which they abandoned for what was essentially Godus: Subtitle, which was promptly abandoned soon after). And now his most recent game being something that involves "blockchain technology" where you can make money in real life by making money in game.
Those random YouTubers make those ecologies with the explicit purpose of simulating an ecology in a totally closed environment, not as an additional side piece to a game.
Not even to mention how a functioning ecology can never properly exist where a player is involved. Players will just kill things without any rhyme or reason to.
Not to mention that it's such a sudden announcement. I mean, sure, they gave people 3 months notice in advance, but when you consider the scale of many games probably take longer than 3 months to make the decision AND actually make the switch (or make up for the switch), it's cause for quite a bit of harm.
Granted, the majority of people may not be affected by it due to needing to meet a requirement of like earning $200,000 and 200,000 installs at a minimum, but I feel like the once you reach that, it's just downhill from there.
In addition to your example of costing the devs for reinstalling the game, you now have to consider the possibility of a user (or group of users) maliciously reinstalling their games to financially damage the developer. Sure, Unity says they'll have fraud detection for stuff like that, but then it's literally up to the people you owe money to decide whether you should pay more or less money to them.
If you just ignore a score of 0, then why even have it and conversely, why not show the same treatment towards the equally as ridiculous score of a 10?
The tools are usually stripped down versions of their internal kits. At least, that's what I've read on the topic. I don't actually know whether that's entirely true or to what extent if it is.
The other reason may also have to do with console modding. Getting that set up or whatever.
Modders aren't single minded collectives. A modder who wants to make a quest mod will make a quest regardless of the inconveniences a QoL mod they could have made would have fixed.
But I mean, this isn't just for Vanilla New Vegas, is it? Plus New Vegas is known for being particularly unstable.
I think Steam's Yes/No system is the best option we've got for user review scores. As you said yourself, for most people, it's either 0 or a 10. And while granularity can help, it's worthless when it differs on a user to user basis. One users 5 is another users 7. And is the difference between a 1 and a 2 even remotely the same between a 9 and a 10? Probably not.
The biggest argument I could see is that "Mixed" option where it's neither option, but I feel like that doesn't really help anyone overall and is just indecisive.
To further add on that, to complain about censorship for a mod that LITERALLY censors the game.