安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
8 
举报此帖
Do you have any proof of this? Any source? Or is this pure speculation?
Look, I'd love to pin the whole situation on YouTube/Google as well, but as far as I know, all that was said was that it was no longer avaliable. I.e, we dont know what party ended the service.
I feel it would be unfair to blame YouTube if it is a dev based problem, and due to the severe lack of communication from said dev, that's still unknown.
Don't be this naive. Why would a dev, with decent sales and a large game-fanbase, gut their product if they weren't forced to?
It's clear from the generic user interface that this was a quick alteration.
Finally, if you look elsewhere on the internet you can find discussions about how the scum at Google/YouTube have rapidly shifted their "curation" towards severely policing content and monitization standards. It isn't a huge stretch to see how rolling out YouTube's subscription service could have triggered legal action against a game that was using their product "for free".
Unless you work at Google/YouTube, you look pretty ridiculous for defending the company's behavior over the last year.
Im not here to argue that. I'm arguing Fact vs. Claim.
Declaring a company scum without proof that they're doing something naughty is illogical. I don't care how much it might be likely, if you dont know if a company is scum, it's illogical to call them scum purely out of speculation.
It's completely likely that this was of youtube's doing. I was simply asking if you had proof, as claiming it was "obviously" youtube's fault is misleading, as it can turn out to not be. (i.e, maybe the API got overhauled, maybe the dev is looking for other options based on moral objections etc. etc.)
Streaming is convenient but you can never rely on it. Files on your hard drive are forever ( or until it crashes ).
Agreed. Just make a folder on your desktop, call it "Music", put a bunch of stuff you love in there, point your beat-racing/fighting games that allow custom music in there. Problem solved. If you really liked playing the Flea Market Montgomery theme song off YouTube or something, just rip it.
I'll agree with all this. I actually have plenty of local music but we rarely played that way. But for me, this was more of a party game where people would just pick whatever song they wanted and it helped them get into the game. A very important thing for people who aren't necessarily gamers is to get them playing. Being able to pick any song that popped in their minds was a nice hook.
Also, placing on the leaderboard could be quite an accomplishment and it was fun looking at local, regional and global stats.
My speculation on Google/YouTube serving this Dev a Cease & Desist order still stands. This change was too abrupt, the dev 'too' tight-lipped, for it to be anything else. If anyone can put up another theory, I'd be happy to hear it.
Since I would think that having a YT premium sub would kinda negate any moneyflow related issues...
Probably due to the fact it would be under heavier traffic flow than an average premium subscription.
Sure I could buy music and store it on my system most computer users, even though flling up your storage drive with data that could be eaisly stored seperately by other means is just in general really bad on your systems performance, in my expierence at least.
But i personally dont do that because i have always had IMO more convinent access to music. At first it was pandora before that turned into garbage and now its a Subscription to Youtube Red (now Premium).
And not to plug youtube red but one of the benifits for your subscription was that you had access to it over multiple devices.
The least they could of done is work with Audioshields developer to implement a login system that allowed premium users to still access youtube ingame since they are allready paying for it. Google loves to bundle benifits accross multiple platforms anyway, just look at twitch and amazon prime. To me it just seems like a rational, albiet niche, to bundle Audioshield and access to youtube.
Through no fault of the developers Audioshield is pretty much dead for me because Google either neglected to attempt reaching out to make a reasonable buisness decision with AS, or they just wernt even aware of the games interaction with youtube and just put out an update that unfortunately breaks that interaction.
Bear in mind were talking about google here, heavy network traffic (that they couldent handle) really is not an issue they have ever had. Poorly encoded/uploaded youtube video's sure. But thats a fault of the uploader 90% of the time.
Not sure if this is a dig at youtube for never branching out or not.
Cause Google and Amazon are 2 completely different companies. Google are in no way affiliated with Twitch or Amazon Prime.
In my experience YouTube hate trying new things, and when they do try something new, they tell nobody about it. (I.e, adpocalypse)
I've got a subscription to Spotify for the same reason. I just prefer spotify's integration with discord and their ease of use over multiple devices (controlling PC music and volume from phone while in game etc.) :P
It's much easier to stream nowadays than to download tho, thats for sure.
This is hilarious.
Anyway: if you don't have any songs locally and for one reason or another won't buy any, take a look at jamendo.com. No celebrities, but a lot of very good *free* tracks many of which works well in Audioshield.
Also, an offtopic PSA : there is a beta branch of Audioshield called "bleedinedge". Subscribe to it .. there is a new game mode and it is painful (in a good way)