Regardless, why do you always need to jump on the defense of corporations whenever there's even a hint of a corporation vs. consumer debacle, SB?
IIRC, you absolutely loved Xbone's originally planned always-online DRM, blocking game resales/lending and even the mandatory turned-on Kinect. And now it's Take Two who's in the right for sending a C&D letter without previous explanation to the tool creators that helped them sell an additional hundreds of thousands of GTAIV/V copies, in exchange for nothing.
Out of curiosity, are you also in Zenimax's/Bethesda's side regarding paid mods?
I dislike misinformation. And the outrage over Take 2 and Rockstar Games attempting to protect their users is the height of misinformation. I used that BBC article as I hadn't bothered to look into it prior to you bringing it up since I don't play GTA V but I was interested in what was going on, hence looking to see what the kerfuffle was about. I also used the BBC as it's generally regarded as a credible source versus some random website on the internet. BTW - here is Rockstar's official comment on whole thing.
"Take-Two's actions were not specifically targeting single player mods. Unfortunately OpenIV enables recent malicious mods that allow harassment of players and interfere with the GTA Online experience for everybody. We are working to figure out how we can continue to support the creative community without negatively impacting our players."
They still want single player mods to be available to owners of GTA V. But not when it is one of the sources of harm and harassment of owners of GTA V regardless of whether it was created with harassment in mind. This should be quite obvious by how much they endorsed Open IV up until malicious mods started to be enabled by it, which I'm sure is an unforeseen and unintended application of Open IV by its creators.
As to the Zenimax/Bethesda thing, despite me often not liking many of their practices, I'm not against it after hearing what TotalBiscuit had to say about it. He's friends with some mod makers and talks to a lot of independent developers and mod makers. And he's quite vocal about blasting developers or publishers when they do something anti-consumer. Which is what he did with the previous attempt by Bethesda to offer mods for purchase.
Mod makers pretty much don't make any money from their mods despite spending hundreds and thousands of hours creating some of them. Internet warriors love to claim that they can make plenty of money from donations. However, when TB asked one of the highest rated mod makers for Fallout 4 how much they make from donations? Almost nothing was the reply.
There is nothing preventing Mod makers from continuing to release free mods. Bethesda isn't going to stop supporting it or do anything to discourage mod makers from releasing their mods for free. Additionally, any mod that currently exists cannot be made into a paid mod. Any mod that is submitted for potential partnership with Bethesda to be turned into a paid product must be completely new and not include anything that currently exists in a free mod. IE - only newly created mods that are in some way unique are applicable.
This is a far cry from what Bethesda tried to pull with their previous attempt where they went and made free mods into paid mods. That one I had a lot of misgivings about, although I felt then, as I do now, that mod maker's should have the opportunity to profit from their mods.
I suppose you are against mod makers having the opportunity to profit from their work and instead think all mod makers should be forced to release their mods for free?
And if so, why wouldn't you be on Sony's side for not allowing multi-platform multiplayer? Anyone who wants to play with their friends who have a Playstation will need to buy a Playstation too. There's probably a larger chance of anyone's friends to be playing on a PS4 than the ones with a PC+Xbone+Switch combined, so all the more money to Sony, right? Isn't corporations making big money (at the cost of consumer choice) a good thing for this specific case?
How is that in any way reflective of my posting history? I dislike exclusives because it prevents everyone from having a chance to experience a game if it they want. I've been a hugely on MS's side ever since they started to push for all XBO titles to appear in Windows form as well, and hugely critical of Sony for actively trying to prevent 3rd party exclusives from appearing on PC, thankfully not successful in all cases. I jumped right in and cheered anything that enabled cross-platform play.
I haven't been shy about advocating that people should be free to experience something however they wish to. I've defended PC gaming and I've defended console gaming. I've defended Sony in the past and blasted Sony in the past. I've defended Microsoft in the past and I've blasted Microsoft in the past (just look at some of my recent posts about Edge or Windows 10 when it launched). Edge is still a piece of hot garbage, BTW.
Hell, I will not buy anything from EA because I despise some of their practices on PC, but I still don't let that prevent me from trying to judge their actions objectively. EA Access is a great thing with huge benefits for the average consumer, for example.
Regards,
SB
The update consisted of resolutions that we (beta-testers) were working on before this heavy-handed tactic even came about.
That's so childish!
