How does the game randomize character appearance? Would it really take six month to build that into an user interface, with some sliders, a preview window, and a "randomize" button? I am not a coder. I think it's BS, but I am really asking.
Of course ideology can go into gameplay decision. When you build same sex relationships into a RPG, you are adopting the ideology that players should be allowed to pursue those relationships v. someone who believes his game should have nothing to do with that. I happen to support freedom in gameplay, so I am against whatever Newman is trying to do for the same reason I support same sex relationship in games, as long as it's not my character.
I seem to remember a previous discussion on this very same subject. Wasn't the original justification that the random appearance is a way for Rust to impress on players the arbitrariness of race and gender? We don't get to choose our birth. For someone who strongly identifies with his current identity, which the vast majority of people, and the fraction who stereotype others, being forced into a different person and into the often subtle prejudices he or she may face daily is a pretty good game design. I don't think Rust, being an open world, multiplayer, survival game without nominal narrative, is the best medium to tackle this challenge, but then I at least appreciate what Newman is trying to do. Instead of what BS reason he gave (or rather the way it came out).
That is not really the issue, I guess. The problem is people put down their hard earned cash, not to mention investing many hours into what they thought was a survival game with a lot of freedom to be their own character. Some guy last year went to bed as a white man in Rust and woke up to a black woman. Many people are not that tolerant. I know I would never play any open world game as a character with whom I cannot identify as myself. Can that guy get a refund?
My proposed solution is a grass root movement to uproot the way American laws protect EULA of games. If Rust's EULA is anything like others I've seen, Newman should be able to revoke any player's license to Rust at anytime and substitute it with a different version of the game that the player can accept or relinquish at his discretion.
@KimCheeWarriorX: Don't worry about that! You cannot be accused of breaking the law in any place that cannot exert legal personal jurisdiction over you. On the other hand, I get the feeling from watching the news that my government (that of the US) seems to believe it has personal jurisdiction over everybody in the world that thinks about it the wrong way or behaves in ways that pisses it off.
@Max_Rage: I think analyzing this argument is interesting: Valve (or any web-based business) is under Australian legal jurisdiction (or any legal jurisdiction) because, although it does not specifically ask or accept information that identifies customers as Australian residents, it knew or should have known from discoverable meta data or other networking technology that that some users accessed Steam from Australia.
I do not have the legal expertise to fruitfully debate that argument. At the same time, other users have shared that Steam in fact explicitly permits its users to register as Australian residents and buy games as Australian residents. That raises additional questions. Even if Valve knowingly conducts business with Australian residents, does it fall under Australian legal jurisdiction? If Valve did, can Steam's EULA with an Austrian resident stipulate that the EULA is to be governed by the laws of Washington State in the US? (The more accurate question is whether that stipulation is void or voidable.) I have read such provision in almost every EULA I've read and many contracts. I am deeply uncomfortable with it. That goes for several common contractual provisions: binding arbitration and agreement not to join class action, for example.
As my Contracts teacher says, we engage in contracts every day from the day we are born to the day we die. It's pretty scary if I think about exactly what I've agreed to.
@Max_Rage: Are you implying that Valve knowingly conducts business in Australia? Do you know of any evidence? For example, when you register a Steam account, is Australia one of the choices for your country of residence? Does Steam accept Australian addresses for payment address verification? Does Australia have region specific content on the Steam store, e.g. some games not available or Australia-specific ratings on the game store page? All these things can go to show that Valve does business in a country.
On the other hand, if all the interactions between Australian users and Steam do not indicate that those users are actually Australian, especially if they have to misrepresent their nationality when using Steam, then what is the reasoning for Valve's knowingly doing business in Australia? Making a service available on the Internet does not in itself give any local judiciary jurisdiction over a company, even if some of the revenue comes from a place where the company does no legitimate business. That wouldn't make any sense, don't you think?
I am under the impression that Steam accounts are region specific. You access a different store page in some parts of the world. I also read that there are restrictions on activating games purchased or gifted from other regions.
So, what region do Australian Steam users fall under? Do they all get US Steam accounts or an umbrella international account? Maybe Valve doesn't legally do business in Australia, and Australian residents who want to use Steam have to misrepresent their residency when signing up. Maybe not.
Way to go, Tim Sweeney! This prompted me to look hard again on upgrading to Windows 10. Also something else.
I never thought about getting apps for my phone from anywhere except Google Play; I didn't even know what "side loading" is. It sounds like side loading is impossible on iOS? Well, I spend way less time on my phone than my PC, and all my apps are free. It never occurred to me that PCs could ever have the kind of OS-tied software distribution monopoly that almost everyone accepts for smartphones. (I know. Dinosaur!)
I wouldn't mind terribly Microsoft's monopoly of all software distribution on Windows, now that I moved the bulk of my gaming to console, if we got a mainstream, open, alternative OS. What JoshRMeyer said. I just need a PC that can interact with the WWW, play videos, word process, is reasonable secure, and have access to a vibrant, non-curated software (app, no, that's too smart-phony) ecosystem. I haven't tried Linux since years ago in school. I hope there is a force that comes together to really push Linux as a benign alternative OS like Firefox is to browsers.
These four specific games have distinct enough reasons to exist, and I am grateful for the choices they provide. I hope those who like BL enjoy The Pre-Sequel as much as I enjoy the action movie feel of CoD. I am a casual FPS player though; I didn't pre-order any of these games, and I expect to play only one and maybe one other. I am no FPS enthusiast, but I'll even go a step further and say the current glut of FPS is a great opportunity for players to be picky.
Does that prevent "better" games from being made? Maybe. I'm not about to stop buying what I like just so I can force developers into making something different in the off chance I'll like the new game more. To say that these iterative games somehow take gamers' attention away from existing "better" games is to sell short player agency in the most fundamental way.
Now, if someday even a shooter simpleton like me has a problem deciding between multiple FPS, futuristic or not, then I think we have a problem.
Unfallen_Satan's comments