So then if Facepunch were to buy New World and allow players to self-host servers, it would be a first for the genre, which would be cool.

Survival games like Rust often offer, as an officially supported feature of the game, the server code for you to run your own. When a World of WarCraft community server is run, it’s against Blizzard’s wishes and terms of service, and when they find out about it, it gets shut down, because Blizzard only wants you to play that game on Blizzard’s servers. I’m asking if any other MMORPGs offer community servers as an official feature the way that most survival games do, because it would be the first I’ve heard of it.

In an official capacity? Because there’s something like City of Heroes, but they only have 1 licensee and that’s all they’re interested in. Or are they games that call themselves MMOs while doing way less technically than an actual MMORPG, like Guild Wars 1? I’ll grant you I could be way out of the loop, but I’ve only ever heard of pirate servers serving this role in proper MMORPGs before.

It still sucks, but at least there’s a path to playing the game, so that bodes well for this game’s future even if Facepunch buys it.

It doesn’t inspire confidence, but it looks like they have a multiplayer game post-Rust that still works on Linux. Does Rust allow for self-hosted servers?

As an MMO, would that make it the first of its kind?

Word is Digital Foundry in touch with the modder and will be running some tests.

It’s called a “casino”.

I’m glad you enjoyed it, but that reputation spread because reviewers had a bad time with it. It wasn’t, like you said, because the internet just needed something to hate that week. And since it never got a No Man’s Sky esque update, I doubt the consensus on it would have changed much even if more people had given it a try after the fact. They certainly had the opportunity with steep discounts over the past few years. In that time, Destiny got plenty more attention and two or three other Borderlands games came out.

A big site redesign just happened at Giant Bomb, so I can’t view the review, but there’s typically a difference between an always-online game not working and some of the things you listed. Cyberpunk was reviewed on PC, and it mostly worked fine for a lot of people on PC, which is what the early review codes were sent out for. Skyrim crashed a lot but kept plenty of auto saves so you rarely lost progress. In an always online game, the functionality just isn’t there if the problems are related to server infrastructure. In fact, this is rarely punished in review scores, and the likes of the latest Flight Simulator are the exception rather than the rule for it.

But even when there weren’t infrastructure problems, people still weren’t thrilled with the game that was there when it worked.

It’s got a 61 on OpenCritic, and Brad Shoemaker of NextLander said he thought long and hard about giving it 1/5 stars at the time (ultimately giving it a 2/5) because the game didn’t even really work when it launched. That wouldn’t really indicate it was just something the internet wanted to hate that week.

“Anthem actually had the code for local servers running in a dev environment right up until a few months before launch,” Darrah continued. “I don’t know that they still work, but the code is there to be salvaged and recovered. The reason you do this, it pulls away the costs of maintaining this game. So rather than having dedicated servers that are required for the game to run, you let the server run on one of the machines that’s playing the game.” This, he added, could have worked alongside an additional move to add AI party members to the game, allowing people to play it like a single-player game.

Fuck, man…all the reasons to do so are spelled out right there.

On the bright side, it’s never been easier for extremely small teams to put out something relatively high quality on the side.

Linux is where it is because companies that care about making money contribute money to make it better. The same goes for projects like Blender. Linux became immensely more usable for the average user because Valve wanted to ensure that they’ll be able to continue making absurd amounts of money in the future regardless of what Microsoft decides to do. The licensing of open source software ensures us that we don’t even have to trust them to not pivot to BBQ sauce tomorrow, because the work they’ve already done will continue to serve us.

I personally have no problem with a profit motive on its face, and the above is why. If you want an easy underhand toss for something to criticize Valve for, it’s that their motive for profit encourages them to continue to exploit a loophole in our gambling laws to create a generation of underage addicts. They can simultaneously be the company responsible for breaking down walled gardens and creating a better personal computing tomorrow; and also the company profiting off of child gambling addiction that governments are too slow or too unwilling to do anything about.

I don’t see it, especially since Steam got to where it is now by stealing customers who rejected that same price hike on consoles. Everyone learned that Steam sales offer deeper discounts than digital purchases on consoles’ walled gardens and that online is free. If customers are savvy enough to do that, they’re savvy enough to find other storefronts in a world where Steam sucks. As I see it, anyway. I think I’d have to see the world change in a substantial way to believe otherwise.

But I think that being forced to abandon Steam, which is for sure an option they all have in a world with GOG and Epic, is exactly why Valve doesn’t really have that power. As soon as that guy sees the $5 lemonade, he’s going to hear the other guy yelling that there’s a dark alley selling it for $1 around the corner.

Do you believe Steam has the power to raise prices when those prices are set by vendors on their platform and there are at least two other major players? I suppose they have the power to try to exclude competitors, but those competitors would be buoyed very quickly by Valve attempting to do so. And even still, plenty of the biggest games in the world (Fortnite, Minecraft, Roblox, League of Legends) aren’t on their platform already.

A monopoly is defined as being the only seller, so I don’t think you can be one without being the only seller. But our laws (are supposed to) target companies that use anti competitive practices to drive the market closer toward that being true. There’s at least one suit that alleged it, but they had a difficult case to prove it. Valve doesn’t deal in things like locking up exclusive titles that make it harder for others to compete.

The advantage to Epic’s is that they offer cross play for free. I’m honestly not sure what the problem is.

I don’t think the presence of the library on Steam is doing that much work here. Epic’s been giving games away for free for five years to alleviate that issue, but it doesn’t work. And ultimately, you have to ask: what’s in it for me to buy a game from Epic when I get better features on Steam? On GOG, I have an answer to that question, but on Epic, I don’t.