If you use a company's service without agreeing to pay them with money, you likely agreed to share your information with no strings attached. Problem there being once that's done, your information is liable to be resold ad infinitum with no legal protection for you. What should happen is legislation that federally declares that agreement null and void, and put in its place nationwide law that dictates what companies and citizens can and can't do with intellectual property as it pertains to someone's personal information.
I absolutely will accept it because it brings better gameplay. FPS games are more fun when there’s constant balancing changes and new content on a schedule. It’s infinitely better than older game models where if one thing is broken you’re stuck with it for the entire lifetime of the game.
How is this different than Valve continuing to patch Team Fortress 2 decades after its release? There's no Live Service model here.
Being able to run my own dedicated server isn’t even something I’d want to do, nor would I want to play on player hosted servers.
I think that's true for most people, but a small number of a community can support the vast majority. It would ensure a game isn't dependent on a company to exist, either.
When games go EoL, sure, require them to open source the multiplayer engine. But really, it’s not a big deal that an individual can’t host a Battle Royale server.
If that was an actual practice that'd be great. There's no incentive for the publisher to do this, however, and they're profit driven.
"in some form," being the key part of that. Someone mentioned Diablo 4. It doesn't have to be always online. Gran Turismo 7 is another example. It's a trend.
It used to not be. FPS games were run by players, not corporations. The ability to run your own dedicated server was baked into the game. Today you can still setup a Quake 2 server without having to rely on the publisher or a 3rd party. It doesn't have to be that way today, but people accept it.
It is not typical, expected behavior by most peoples' standards, partly because the majority of people at that time of night are sleeping.
You'd be hard pressed to find support for this as being normal behavior. What's important is whether or not normal matters? If it's considered criticism, why? Is she being awoken by your behavior? If so, then that's probably warranted. Otherwise, if it's just a characterization of what you're doing, so what?
I don't know Jimmy Fallon, but back when I had the ability to watch his show I did occasionally. It was light and easy to fall asleep to, but interesting enough to entertain if I had trouble doing so. I think all the late night shows to some degree understand this is their audience, and Fallon's was especially good at keeping it inoffensive.
If I were watching it midday or in the evening, I'm sure I'd find it less valuable but as a late-night show, it foots the bill well. I don't know the truth of this matter, but I hate it for him if he's struggling personally and adversely affecting those who work for him.
Valve doesn't get the credit it deserves for innovating if not keeping alive the PC space. Steam came out at a time where PC gaming was dying on store shelves, there was no support for it by triple A publishers...it was a dark time. And everyone hated Steam at first. Took a lot of work attracting smaller/indie devs to the platform to prove itself as a viable option for larger publishers.
They've proven that Linux is a great operating system for games, and without the overhead that is Windows. The ability to natively play Windows games isn't enough of a draw for me to use the Ally or Legion.
World News at Lemmy.world and WorldNews@Lemmy.ml are the two I consume the most of.