K…I’m sure nobody cares.

Well you’re objectively wrong, since clearly the one guy complaining cared enough to actually complain about it.

Good. Now let us emulate and mod your damned games in peace.

I’m cautiously optimistic about this one. Konami is obviously involved since they own the IP, but so far what we’ve seen and heard seems to indicate they’re staying out of it.

The Producer is Noriaki Okamura and, while he does have Metal Gear Survive to account for, he also worked on several Metal Gear games with Kojima, including Metal Gear Solid V, Zone of the Enders, and Policenauts.

The Creative Producer is Yuji Korekado and he’s worked on nearly every Metal Gear game over the years under Kojima.

It’s being handled by legacy Metal Gear lead developers that worked with Kojima before, not an entirely different team remastering something they have no experience with.

As great as Kojima is, he can get in his own way sometimes. I don’t think he would be good at making a faithful remaster, it would turn into something completely different by the end. He’s much more about pushing boundaries in storytelling, not adapting already told stories, even if it is his own just being retold.

It seems like they’re learning from the Vegans.

And RDR2. Although GTA5 they got an extra layer with the original and next gen console releases as well as PC.

Nope. And it’s 100% understandable.

I’m actually surprised MS doesn’t just lock the newest games from the Game pass trials. I don’t remember how long they removed the $1 around the Starfield launch, but say the releases less than 30 days old.

It better be a major point, their current engine is preventing their games from meaningfully competing now. Their 20 year old engine, makes 20 year old games with a mediocre coat of paint.

Aren’t all the games on GOG DRM-free? If so, there’s not much difference here than giving someone a USB drive filled with the installers.

Except the store can’t take it back from you if they decide to close up shop. So it inherently is a different product purchase, and should be required to be disclosed as such.

However everyone with more than a wallnut brain knows

And yet we regularly see that is exactly what the average person is. That’s what the laws have to be based around, not those that are educated about a subject.

The average person doesn’t understand licensing as a concept. They buy a movie on DVD, they buy a movie on Amazon streaming. It’s the same term and the same thing to them, but with vastly different restrictions. One you don’t even own the product at all. If Amazon decides to shut the service down, you’re Shit out of Luck. Even though you paid to buy the movie just like if you got it on a disc.

Our laws differentiate that difference in ownership because the corporations want that to be specifically mentioned to protect their interests, but they usually don’t require storefronts to tell consumers that the purchase button doesn’t mean you own the product you’re paying for. You just are able to use it as long as the company wants to let you, with little to no recourse if they change their mind for any reason.

You’re defending this fucked up system whether you intend to or not. You are basically blaming the consumer for not knowing that paying for something one way means they own it, and paying for it a different way means they don’t and it can be taken away at any time.

The point is every company hides simple facts like this in the TOS that no one reads. You know you are one of the handful of people that have bothered reading more than 5 words of it.

We regularly see the average person surprised when companies shutdown or change structures and their digital “purchases” become no longer accessible because they only own a license to something that will no longer exist and there are little to no protections for digital purchases being revoked because most laws are archaic and based on a physical product, even referencing digital items but not taking the nature of that into account.

Remember just a couple years ago when Sony was shutting down a PlayStation Store movie service and those movies were removed from customer libraries? This wasn’t a subscription service with changing library like Netflix, but specific movie purchases advertised as if it would be the same purchase as getting a physical product but digital, and from a large corporation that no one would reasonably expect to suddenly shutdown.

https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/8/23199861/playstation-store-film-tv-show-removed-austria-germany-studiocanal

Because we know of course that the TOS is read by absolutely everyone every time, and not just blindly accepted 99.99% of the time because the consumer has no option. Companies can do whatever they want as long as its on the TOS no one reads. We can’t have any sort of oversight or regulation of things companies do if it’s disclosed in the TOS.

Because the owners have grifted all of that away to private accounts already of course.

You know that’s 100% accurate. It’s EA. If there’s anything that seems good for players, it’s a mistake.

Yeah the movie issues really go back to one root cause. They needed to write and maintain a single cohesive storyline for the trilogy. Allowing the directors to also write the movies as they wanted without any apparent oversight AND switching them in the middle and back was where the issues came from.

JJ started a story, Rian came in and threw that out the window to do what he wanted, then they brought JJ back in, who basically finished the story he started, largely ignoring the middle. It wasn’t cohesive in any way and felt disjointed throughout because of it.

It’s interactive media. Why just watch when you can do?

It’s not really surprising. Maybe Hideo Kojima and his massive interactive movies were ahead of their time.

Yes it is.

deleted by creator

With massive decisions like this that fundamentally screw up the company’s perception by clients, the CEO isn’t the only one to look at, they’re just the scapegoat.

Always need to see what happened with the rest of the Board of Directors. Are those the same people? The CEO works for the Board.

Source needed for it actually working to reduce piracy. It’s possible, but I’m gonna need sources since we know from history that simply providing a better product does more to increase sales and reduce piracy than anything else. People are willing to pay when they get their money’s worth. The ones that don’t, weren’t going to pay anyway, so there’s no actual lost sale.

It just makes the bean counters feel better and help justify their position.