GothSkunk

Members
  • Content Count

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

49 Prepper

2 Followers

About GothSkunk

  • Rank
    Pathfinder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's a great zone, and a hell of a challenge. In my experience, the windiest region in the game. Not as many blizzards as Pleasant Valley, but just as dangerous.
  2. It did in fact change. Much to my chagrin. I used to use that path to carry bear meat to town without having to deal with the wolves along the road by the church and the woodlot by the water tower.
  3. Revolver's fine. OP just has bad luck. OP also didn't know moose don't bleed out, so...
  4. I can browse YouTube right now and not only listen to virtually any song that has ever been commercially recorded in studio, I can also watch music or lyric videos to them too, even if I've never paid for the privilege of owning that music to play on a device I own. I can only assume that I'm allowed to do this because the copyright owners/record companies have a deal with YouTube that means they get compensated every time someone views/listens to the track. However, neither the copyright holder nor YouTube has any idea how much music I have licence to privately play. So even if I'm on YouTube listening to music I already have a licence to listen to, the copyright holder/record company is still going to get a royalty from me listening to it on YouTube. By your argument, they shouldn't be able to do that. They've already profited from me once by buying licence to play the track unlimited times, they shouldn't profit from it a second time when I queue it up on YouTube. But they are. So, why should it be any different with video games? Granted, there is a clear distinction to be made here; in the above example, the record company/copyright holder is not profiting a second time from me, but rather, from YouTube, that platform that hosts the product. I think what Hinterland is trying to do is the same thing, in principle.
  5. I disagree strongly with the assertion that Hinterland wants us to pay over and over again; I maintain the position that Hinterland wants Nvidia to pay, since Nvidia is making money from people who subscribe to GFN for the purpose of playing Hinterland's game..
  6. I would be very careful in making statements about Hinterland being 100 percent wrong. I don't think they are. Really, it all hinges on how GFN operates. Clearly, people are upset about not being able to play The Long Dark on GFN, and in their anger they are lashing out at Hinterland. But, I do not believe that is an entirely fair course of action. Personally, I'm not concerned; I don't use GFN and never would, so Hinterland's decision does not impact me at all. I recognize that those who do use it no longer can and that's upsetting, but it is unfair to call Hinterland "greedy developers" or "anti-consumer" for this decision. After all, Hinterland is not asking for more money from their customers/players, they are asking for money from Nvidia. Is GFN an online streaming library like Netflix, something that any GFN user can access at any time? If so, then they absolutely should be paying Hinterland an enterprise license to host The Long Dark in their library. Based on my earlier conversations in this thread, this does NOT sound like what GFN is. Is GFN a remote virtual machine that you access remotely to play your games? If so, how do they do this? Presumably, Steam is probably pre-installed on every hosted machine, and all it takes at that point is for someone to log in to the machine remotely, then log in to their steam account and they'd have access to their entire library of purchased games. Any game not already installed on the Nvidia machine would have to first be installed before it could be streamed to the GFN user. In this manner, GFN now becomes a hosting service, but they're only granting the user access to the software they have a license to use, managed entirely by their Steam account. In a manner of speaking, this is SIMILAR to the Big Picture feature on Steam, but it is not LIKE Big Picture. Big Picture relies on a host machine that YOU own to stream to another device (while you may be playing The Long Dark down in the basement on your home-theater, it's your Gaming PC upstairs doing all the legwork.) In GFN's case, THEY host the gaming PC/server/whatever that you're streaming from. It is not a device that you own. You own the game, but not the device you're streaming off of. Based on earlier conversations in this thread, it sounds like this is the model that GFN is using as a business platform. Where this gets dicey is whether or not GFN is providing the service free of charge. Wade has repeatedly cited back to Milton Mailbag #32. Now admittedly I've not gone back to read it, so I'm just going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that back then, Raphael acknowledged that Long Dark was on GFN. It sounds to me like something about how Nvidia runs GFN has recently changed, that they're now charging their users a monthly fee to use GFN, presumably to recuperate operating costs from such an endeavour. If GFN is free of charge, then it is essentially a convoluted -- but possible and workable -- form of Big Picture streaming of a user's games from their digital library. Nvidia is not making any money being a host for the games they are streaming over their service. If GFN costs a monthly fee, it can be argued that they are now more like a hosting service in the same manner that Netflix is, but how they differ from Netflix is that instead of being a general library all users can access, they now host each users own private little library. And so in this manner, you are accessing your copy of the Long Dark, but you are not accessing it from a device that you own; you are accessing it remotely from a device that Nvidia owns, and Nvidia is making money by providing you the service. Money that Hinterland could otherwise be making if they had the resources to set up their own remote access machines. Hinterland provides a good (The Long Dark). You have a license to access The Long Dark. Hinterland is responsible for providing you access to The Long Dark, but you are responsible for providing yourself the means to access it. No problem, that's what a gaming PC is for. But suppose you find yourself unable to do so (your PC bricks, for example), and you are now unable to access The Long Dark because you don't have the means to do so. Nvidia comes along and says "Because you purchased one of our GPUs, we can offer you a service that will allow you to remotely access a high-powered rig free of charge. From there, you can access your Steam Library and play The Long Dark." You sign up for it, and now you are able to play The Long Dark again. In this manner, Nvidia replaces your PC and becomes the means by which you're accessing the game that you've paid for. Hinterland is okay with this. But now, Nvidia starts charging their users a monthly fee for the service. NOW Hinterland is saying "Wait a minute... we've provided a good so valuable, that people are willing to pay money to Nvidia to use their GFN hosting service in order to play it remotely. We should be getting a cut of that, because The Long Dark is one reason among many that people are using this service." I think it should be made very clear who Hinterland is asking money from. They are not asking money from us; they are asking for money from Nvidia. This is where the dispute lies. And, until that dispute gets resolved, Hinterland does not want Nvidia making money providing access to their product without giving them a cut of the proceeds. Think like so: If a customer subscribes to GFN, and in a month uses it for 100 hours, 5 of which are spent playing The Long Dark, Hinterland wants to be partly compensated by Nvidia for those 5 hours. And honestly, I don't think that's unreasonable. Unfortunately, it's the consumers who use GFN who end up being the collateral damage as a result of this dispute. But do not make the mistake of thinking Hinterland is trying to milk you further. This is an unfair misrepresentation of Hinterland's actions and it is out of line. You later on state that you have been nothing but civil. I submit that making such arguments like the one I quoted above is absolutely uncivil. You are projecting onto Hinterland what YOU believe their intentions to be, and that is fallacious. From my perspective, Hinterland has been patient and tolerant, and do not deserve these kind of character attacks. Additionally, you're spamming the forum. Clearly you're upset by this decision, but temper your anger.
  7. I'm well aware of your position, Wade. I just disagree with it. And you throwing around things like "greedy developers" is doing nothing to win me over to your way of thinking. In fact, it's entrenching me further onto Hinterland's side.
  8. I disagree and remain unconvinced, until I've heard an official statement from Hinterland. See, I don't use GFN, so I don't care about this decision. If people are threatening to demand refunds for their copy of Long Dark over this, that's just over-the-top ridiculous entitlement. To say it's "anti-consumer" is a wildly disproportionate assertion based on what would be a truly anti-consumer practice, like requiring a player to be online in order to play a single-player game (Ubisoft).
  9. Has Hinterland made an official statement? There's been a great deal of back-and-forth discussion between here and the Steam forums, but I've not yet seen anything that could be considered an official statement by Hinterland. And I don't consider Raph's musing's on Twitter to be an official statement.
  10. Personally I find the idea abhorrent. If my laptop was incapable of playing TLD, I'd get a new laptop, or I would just wait it out until I got home to play it on my PC.
  11. Assuming that what you're saying is true, why would anyone go through such a hassle to subscribe to GFN when they can just play TLD on their own PC/XBox/Playstation?
  12. No, my understanding is that GFN users were logging into what is, in essence, a virtual library of games. The Long Dark used to be in this library. Anyone could subscribe to GFN and have access to this entire library of games, without ever having to pay for them individually, just the service. Kind of like EA's subscription service, or Microsoft's GamePass. Pay per month, have access to all the games in the library. Even download local copies to your PC/Xbox for faster, more improved play. But if you unsubscribe from the service, you'd lose access to all the games you previously had access to. Thus, while TLD was in GFN's library, people who subscribed to GFN could play The Long Dark, without ever paying for a copy of it because they were essentialy playing Nvidia's copy, not their own. And, under this model, Hinterland was not making any money off the people playing their game.
  13. Have they, though? My understanding is that they've paid to use Nvidia's GFN, and The Long Dark was in the library. Now it's not. No GFN customer actually owned a copy of TLD. If I'm wrong and customers actually do own a copy of The Long Dark through GFN, then transfer it over to Steam. Problem solved. UNLESS... Hinterland wasn't compensated as a result of that "purchase."
  14. I don't think that's a feasible future. Presently, the vast majority of complex video games are -- I believe -- stored, rendered, and processed by our PCs. Most single-player games do not need an online connection to run (though some do. Looking at you, Ubisoft), and what little internet traffic a game generates deals with making sure the games are up to date to the most current version, or the back-and-forth of UDP packets that allow our PCs to process not only what we're doing, but what everyone else in the deathmatch is doing, too. Streaming a game in the manner you're describing puts all that rendering and processing data through the network interface controller before it hits the CPU and GPU, (because we have to download it in real-time) as opposed to the current method, where CPU and GPU getting their data right from the system's hard drive with a latency of nil. Playing a video game in the manner you're suggesting would be like streaming a video on YouTube or Netflix, only now you can interact with it. Gamer's internet usage would skyrocket, as would the publisher's as they attempt to serve all their customers simultaneously. I have no idea just how much data my CPU and GPU process every second while I'm playing TLD off my hard drive, but I know with certainty that it's a lot higher than what my internet connection is capable of. As for what's stopping Adobe or Microsoft, I don't use photoshop of after-effects so I can't comment on those, but Word -- or any Office app, for that matter -- is by no means a complicated program like a video game is. The demands Microsoft Word puts on a PC -- compared to The Long Dark -- is insignificant, so running it over the cloud may indeed happen one day.