Home
Anyone who says that a developer doesn't deserve to see a single cent from the people playing their games is simply being a selfish twat. Developers are people too, and giving them money doesn't just allow them to live, but to create more. If you got some kind of enjoyment out of playing a used game, you should want to support the people who made that experience possible - not flip them the bird and say it's your right as a consumer.
I'm lucky enough to be able to afford to buy games new so that I can support the developers and publishers whose games I enjoy so much, but I understand why people buy used games when they can't afford to buy new. As someone hoping to become a game developer eventually, I would rather they get that experience and I see nothing than they not have it at all. However, that doesn't mean it's the perfect situation. If developers/publishers even saw a 5% return when a used version of their game is sold at gamestop, it would be better than the current 0%.
I've always wondered how well having the ability to directly pay a developer would work. So if I buy their game used and love it, saving 20 bucks or what, I could just simply send them what amounts to a tip for providing me with a good few hours of distraction. I don't really know if this is feasible though since you'd have to set up a system of payment, but I think it might work to at least some degree."
Now, if both of you are the only ones alive at the end of this... that still really sucks. However, at least she's still there with you (and maybe you can aerosolize the cure and keep some things going so that you can live a while afterwards)."
I'm glad you all liked the article ^_^ I think I'll write another sometime soo"
Infallibility is solved by having a random number generator determine where in a circle an AI's grenade or bullets will land and is modified by distance.
Making sure that the player is not unduly focused on is done by literally treating them like one of their AI allies. If you have it so that the enemy can engage the player's allies, you don't create a separate system for when the enemy is engaging the player instead.
The hardest thing to program though is detection so that you avoid having omniscient AI - whether or not an enemy "sees" or "hears" the player. For the most part only games that have a focus on stealth elements do it well. It's far easier to just have the enemy "know" where the player is than have to try and find them."
A way to solve the problem would be to detect the player's line of fire and create a sort of invisible wall that friendly AI would treat as a solid object. So they'd either duck below it or avoid it entirely, preventing the AI from turning themselves into swiss cheese.
Another way to prevent friendly fire would be to actually give the player a good field of view. Most games feature a 90 degree FOV, so the player is robbed of the peripheral vision that would otherwise give them the knowledge that a friendly was about to run across their line of fire. A FOV of 120 degrees should suffice for that.
Making allies bullet sponges for friendly fire is a simple (maybe lazy) means of dealing with the problem."
The problem with not having bullet sponges, are that you make a game too easy, or too unforgiving. It's either too easy because just one round kills anything - or it's unforgiving because you send so many enemies after the player to make up for it that the player dies fast.
There's also the double standards issue. If they only take one or two shots to down, should the player? Is restarting from a checkpoint every minute because someone shot you ok if you can do the same to them?
I look at how few bullets I can take in COD on Veteran, and it frustrates me to play sometimes. Sure, make the enemy shoot more accurately, have there be more of them, have them behave more intelligently, but leave me my ability to take damage so that I can actually move around the map. Make my fights more difficult, but not because I have to restart every 30 seconds due to 2 errant bullets. This game style forces me to play like I'm a sniper, and, while I enjoy it, I'm not sure everyone wants to play that way and would like to be allowed to run and gun every now and again.
In online competitive multiplayer you have the issue of latency as well. Someone with an insanely fast connection can get off the one shot long before someone else's screen even says they turned the corner. I know modern warfare has done this to me a few times where I'm fully behind cover on my screen, or I've emptied 5 rounds into a guy, and then I watch their kill cam and it turns out I wasn't around the corner according to them when they shot at me, or I only shot 1 rounds at them instead of 5. Bullet sponging decreases the effect of latency since both parties get a chance to react and move and need to maintain accuracy. It also makes it so the latent player can still do some damage and weaken someone, where they otherwise would have simply died.
Bullet sponging serves some purpose, though, in my opinion, there are better ways of doing things."
$99 bundle total costs: $99 + 24x$15 = $459 total over 2 years
Cost bought alacarte: 4gb 360+kinect=$300 + 24x$ 5= $420
Cost bought alacarte (with sales): $280+ $48x2 = $376
So you're losing between $39 and $83. However, you're also gaining access to these items for a period of 2 years, and are essentially renting them. If you look at any place that rents 360s, you'll notice that the $1.65 - $3.46 per month you're paying is insanely cheap by comparison. Rent 2 own will end up charging you almost a thousand dollars over the course of the year for the same thing minus the gold subscription.
This option is great for anyone who can't afford the large capital investment of instantly buying the xbox and kinect bundle, but has the $15 a month to spend. Truthfully, they probably should just go without, but this really isn't extorting anyone when you look at the convenience offered. You want to see extortion, you look at the pay day loan and the rent to own companies and their insane interest margins."