10 days 16 hours
Europa Universalis IV
15 days 4 hours
Kingdom Come: Deliverance
3 days 16 hours
36 days 21 hours
Path of Exile
11 days 11 hours
I've read up that one of the members of CPY said that they "Love the challenge that denuvo has provided". The guy truly love solving it like one big puzzle.
There's a substancial difference: cards are a physical thing. You can store them, sell them, trade them, etc. And they're yours forever to do anything.
Lootbox items (and the lootboxes), on the other hand, and with a few exceptions (Valve ones come to mind), you can't . You have no control over them.
Heck, you don't even have actual ownership over them, the corporations that make them do. If the game closes, you lose all that. That doesn't happen with cards.
Also, cards have a fabrication cost. The maker spends resources to make them and then get a profit. Meanwhile, lootboxes are infinite. The makers can make as much as they want (but they usually create artificial scarcity to increase their value).
How old do you think most teachers are, kid? And how do you think they remained untouched by technology over the past thirty years?
Any teacher younger than fifty probably had an NES growing up.
Mankind Divided became my favorite Deus Ex game. Is the story lacking if you didn't play The Fail and read the prequel? Definately but it was same with Human Revolution.
However there are many small details depending your choices that really kept me immersed into what was happening.
Also the actual gameplay time for me was bit longer than Human Revolution (not counting DLCs) and twice the length of the original.
Did they shoot themselves in the foot with design choices? They amputated themselves! Microtransactions, it was weird but didn't affect my gameplay.
Pre-order gear when you have pre-rendered cutscenes that show different gear...
All the extra missions being separate from the main game. What is the point of resources and abilities when nothing carries over?
Opinion on Alpha Protocol is wildly variable. Personally, I loved it in spite of its technical and balance issues and absolutely want to see more short-form (but highly replayable) RPGs like that. It's only about 10 hours long, but it took people *years* to see all the possibilities in it.
Ok so your in favor of suing individual people who cheat in a multiplayer game. It's quite funny how your in favor with Epic on this when you don't hear a lot of other game companies that do the same, suing people over this kinda bullshit...
I'm defending this cheater because I see it as bullshit to sue people, your making it more reliable for companies to become sue happy towards other gamers, both single player and multiplayer games, and I who cheat in single player games for the sheer enjoyment of it (infinite ammo on a destructive physic engine game like red faction guerrilla, hell yeah). I don't want to get sue for having fun in single player games.
I recommand a better and stronger defense, people use easyanticheat on certain games like ghost recon Wildlands and 7 days to die, and possibly more games that actually use easyanticheat program to prevent cheating.
I hope Epic loses this fight...
I agree that the single player experience shouldn't have an anti-cheat included. Seems I have good news for you though; There's no anti-virus on single player games.
To go into your examples: 7 days to Die and GR:Wildlands; 7D2D has many mods (including its own NexusMods page), and seems plenty fine with you modding away in single player. Anti-virus only kicks in with the multiplayer scenario.
Then GR:Wildlands; I didn't realise anyone still owned/played that game after its woeful Betas/reviews. Either way, it's an online-only game if I recall correctly. You're always on a server so that other players can drop in and out of your world randomly (they pop up on the map as icons if I recall correctly from the Closed Beta). To have hackers on the Online server is just begging for more problems when two players interact with each other. Ignoring the chances it'll lead to crashes for the PCs without the mods installed (getting told information that they don't know how to interpret) or the potential to overload low-spec PCs and cause imbalanced frame-rates based off who you're playing with; openning up to 1 type of hacker is openning to all types. You'll get people like yourself who just turn on God mode/infi-ammo in single player, but you'll also get people who join servers, spawn hundreds of enemies around the team then DC again before they can be reported. It's impossible to draw a line as to what's acceptable cheating and what's not; so from a legal and philosophical standpoint it makes much more sense to say no cheats at all in online experiences.
I haven't heard of even a SINGLE case of a company pursuing or charging a player for messing with a single player experience. Please correct me if I'm wrong; point out an example of a SINGLE player game with anti-virus banning people, or an example of a person getting sued for cheating whilst playing a solo-experience game.
Most games approach it the same way nowadays; having Antivirus enabled/reporting on the multiplayer servers, and disabling the antivirus (or stopping it from reporting faults) in single-player. Developers know the value of mods (see where Skyrim is today, with mods on all platforms). This is the way gaming should be. Problem comes when people decide they'd rather break game rules to abuse others in game. There's no defense or argument valid for this kind of 'gaming' (even this example with the kid; the best defense they can come up with is an evasion of justice). You want to explain where your defense for cheating in Fortnite comes from too? The game is built on its competitive ladder and Player Vs Player content. Please do try and explain why this kind of person should not be sued; or why companies should ignore the individuals who aim to find enjoyment through annoying others.
I've stopped playing multiplayer games before now because of cheaters (CS:GO, H1Z1, ARK and CoD to name a few). I feel confident in saying I'm not alone in people who've quit titles because of such abundance of cheaters before now, leading to the point that these hackers are literally hurting the games economy; reducing the player-base, creating more negative reviews and overall reducing title and DLC sales. Screw them. Steam IP banning should be a thing in my opinion. Let the suckers who repeatedly get VAC banned be removed from the eco-system. With their lack of games over the recent years, Steam have the money to sort out the infrastructure of IP recognition to halt and reject blacklisted IPs. If the game companies can't do anything about it, bring the restriction up a level. Give people something to actually fear and maybe they'll cheat less. Our current position is that people feel indestructible, happily cheating in the knowledge the worst that can happen is the game account gets banned. Oh no, they have to make a new account; such a hard life. Guess they'll just have to cheat to bring the account back up to the same level. Yet more cheating added. The cycle continues. This cycle needs to end.