Jim Sterling (The Jimquisition)

You can play games offline on steam fine. There's that nifty "Go Offline" button. It won't even annoy you about putting it online unless you select the store tab (which, ya know, if your own fault if you try to access the store while offline)

edited 14th Aug '17 9:18:48 PM by Ghilz

Which is ignoring the fact that the Steam service as a whole is designed from the ground up to be always online, and indeed most companies that sell their games through the service insist on it for anti-cheating purposes, especially the ones from Uplay and Origin that can and have been bought on the Steam platform, but thanks for playing.

Except the majority of steam games will boot perfectly fine if steam is offline. Steam is not forcing your games to be always online

Even the ubisoft and EA games will. And even Origin has an offline mode where most non-online games will boot fine. So yeah, sort of complaining about a problem that isn't nearly as widespread as you make it sound. I avoid U Play like the plague so I can't speak for that coz Uplay is the plague

Guess who got a nod in the PS4 Undertale trailer.

Ah lol

Hey, I'd date that skeleton too.

Oops, wrong thread.

edited 19th Aug '17 10:56:24 AM by MapleSamurai

Slightly on the bishounen side.

Same as

edited 19th Aug '17 10:56:54 AM by MapleSamurai

Players are invited to decide for themselves what gender the protagonist is. It's never stated, not even in pronouns.

Yeah, every single thing about the protagonist is up to interpretation. I for one think we're actually controlling Chara's reincarnated corpse, and "Frisk" is just their real name.

You're correct, it is WB Interactive Entertainment, Jim did mention that in the video.

Anyone know if the console version of the game will require always online? I assume it will, because of the microtransations, but they might later patch it in the option to go offline if people complain, since Metal Gear Solid V The Phantom Pain let you turn off online mode (I think that was there from the beginning in the case of that game though. Then again, when you're making modern Konami look good, that's not good.)

In any case, I agree with the earlier grumbling about that. It really is one of the most rotten parts of modern gaming. I can live with fee-to-pay microtransations, annoying and unhealthy a trend that may be. It'd be nice if they at made sure to give people an offline option by the time the servers go offline a few years from now so people can, you know, still play the single player game they paid money for.

edited 7th May '18 7:30:23 AM by MainManJ

If such a thing as a "yes, you can play this game offline now we've killed the servers" patch is ever needed, it will either not happen or cost you money to buy it as DLC.

Shame that it's really happening, it would have made for a phenomenal April Fools Day gag.

Selling you the option to continue playing your game offline as DLC? They wouldn't do that, would they? I mean, It's the AAA game industry, they're certainly greedy enough, but has any company ever actually done that?

No, but people really like their hyperbole.

Not to my knowledge, no.

Excuse me, I mean not yet.

Here we go again...

Was wondering when he was gonna talk about that and if it'd be in a Jimquisition or not.

I... don't get how this happens twice in a row. Sometimes I wonder if this is just a self-fulfilling prophecy as determined by how "scalpable" a product looks but either way it's really silly that the pre-orders have been this godawful after the NES Classic^* no relation last year.

Here's hoping the subject doesn't get revisited come Christmas time and they're stocked well in-store.

What makes this hilarious is I managed to pre order a Switch when it was announced but I'm SOL for this.

Apparently, Gamestop and Toys R Us are gonna have in store only purchases for the SNES Classic on September 29th.

@Drunk, no, I'm just really good at extrapolating a game company's future intentions from their past deeds. Hyperbole? Please.

I said at the time of Horse Armor in Oblivion if games companies were allowed to get away with that sort of thing they'd continue to do it in increasingly shitty ways and I've been proven right every step of the way.

And Jim Fucking Sterling Son agrees with me.

Not from where I'm sitting, buddy.

edited 25th Aug '17 1:11:19 PM by TamH70

"They're going to sell a 'play offline' patch as DLC" IS hyperbole, nothing more.

It seems unlikely in today's economic climate, but it only takes one asshole to try it and get away with it to suddenly make it the standard. And whether they get away with it will depend more on the demand of the game than anything else.

This is the key reason they've been able to push the ticket as far as they have: because they do it on games that everyone wants and thus are willing to tolerate bullshit on.

If someone says, "I'm making a fighting game but you have to buy each fighter individually. It's $60 for the game and then $20 per fighter you want to be able to play as," they aren't going to get much positive attention. It's a stupid idea, it's a horrible scam, and most people will give it a pass.

But if they add, "It's called Street Fighter VI," then it suddenly becomes entirely acceptable. People will bend over and take it, because they want a new Street Fighter. It stops being an absurd and unthinkable proposal and becomes the standard. Now you can make new fighting game franchises like this, 'cause Street Fighter normalized it.

People are all too willing to overlook the marketing practices of a game if the game itself is something they really want. Developers know that.

edited 25th Aug '17 1:08:39 PM by TobiasDrake

There's still a mile-wide different between trying to sell you a game piece-meal and outright trying to sell you patch content like offline mode or bug fixes.

The game industry had some nasty developments, sure, but can we maybe stick to realistic predictions?

edited 25th Aug '17 1:13:50 PM by DrunkenNordmann