• NuXCOM_90Percent
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Again. Ideologically, I agree with you.

    When devs are already crunching 60-80 hour work weeks to launch a game and are increasingly worried about their studio being shuttered because they only have one or two fan favorite games in the pipeline? I don’t at all blame them for not taking the time to prioritize it to the 10 people who want to play the game three years after their unemployment benefits ran out.

    • ampersandrew@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Then they can’t blame me when I buy from their competitors instead, who prioritized a critical feature in the development of their game. (And also, building the game this way is a larger drain on their resources than if they built it without the server requirement. They just want microtransaction dollars.)

      • NuXCOM_90Percent
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Okay? Obviously you should buy what you value and if LAN support is a high priority, buy based on that.

        The point I have been making is that preventing the 50 people left playing a game after ten years from continuing to play is not “planned obsolescence”. It is just the reality of software development.

        • ampersandrew@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          It is planned obsolescence. I’m quite familiar with software development and its realities. They knowingly built a game that won’t continue to function in multiplayer after the plug is pulled.

          In any case, you and I aren’t going to agree, but I take issue with their definition of “full offline” for the reasons we’ve already discussed, and I’m disappointed that the answer I found in this thread is that they’re not interested in adding LAN to this mode.