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
举报此帖
Indeed, it added 1 achievement...and you unlock it by literally just having the DLC itself so in an ironic way you don't even need the DLC as you retain 100% until you get the DLC which ironically in of itself will fix itself as that one missing achievement is earned by just...playing the game once you have it.
Gotta give it to Tommorrow Corp, when it comes to wacky achievements they know how to make some funny ones.
I would even go as far as to make a new category for every free update that adds additional achievements aswell. You'd not have to worry about cluttering anything either, simply make a single button for achievements, like it is now and after pressing it, you get the different updates tabs and which achievement got added at which dates or dlcs.
Achievements that can only be completed by using new paid DLC content should definitely not be shown in the same achievements tab as the original game. If you don't own that dlc, you are not able to 100% a game at all, which should never be the case imo.
I also lost some 100% badges over the years and while I don't think it is that big of a deal, some of them I was a little proud of and would have liked to stay that way.
Dead Cells for example was a game I had 100% achievements in before I stopped playing it, which later got additional achievements added.
I personally always like to do everything there is to do in a game. Sometimes I specifically aim to be getting all achievements like in my example of Dead Cells. Because that games nature was replaying it, the achievements gave me more stuff to do, that I would have otherwise not done.
But once I am finished playing a game, I probably won't play it again. At least for a VERY long time, because I never run out of new games to play, I don't see a reason to play the same ones multiple times.
For example my Ghost of Tushima:
Is there really a difference to just seeing
You're also wrong in saying that the game is theirs. The copy of the game I bought is specifically mine. Just like the car I was buying. The car is mine and I can burn it, leave it to rust or repaint it.
And you can trust me when I tell you that the car manufacturer doesn't come to me every day telling me what to do with my car. Game developers shouldn't change my games either.
If you like someone telling you what to do, find a boss or play bdsm. Cool. But it's not for me, I don't need someone to constantly come up with new things for me to do. I buy a game and I want it to maintain its form, especially when I put 100% into it - IT'S MY TIME AND EFFORT. And what right does the developer have to take this away from me? At the Olympics, no one takes away anyone's medal just because they change the rules after 10 years. They shouldn't have that right here either. I'll repeat - it's MY TIME, MY GAME and no one else's business.
Overall, your response to me is so stupid that you should be ashamed of yourself.
And finally, don't tell me what to do, thank you. Take care of yourself.
Not really. I buy a game that someone keeps changing for me. I have never asked any developer to change my game.
Ultimately, you can't turn off achievement, right? So I have no choice - that's why your answer makes no sense.
If they give me the option to turn off achievements in my games and Steam, I will admit that you are right. Ok?
Tell me - who the ♥♥♥♥ are you to invent new things for me to do? You're neither my mother nor my boss, so kid, get over yourself.
But this is exactly what I'm writing about - you, developers, don't take into account other people's time and you think that these stupid achievements are something for which others should be grateful to you and you never think about the people for whom you are ruining 100%. In fact, you tell them straight - ♥♥♥♥ you. You tell this to the community of your players, you don't value their time and YOU decide that suddenly everyone should spend more time with your game.
Sorry, but this is the PEAK of selfishness higher than Mount Everest.
You proved me right. Thanks.
But also this "I'm certainly not adding paid DLC to my game". Exactly that! Maybe you should? Maybe instead of "I want to add new things for players to do", which everyone really doesn't care about, you should focus on developing your game? Make a cool DLC that people could buy and get another 100% for?
But no, your attitude is already showing - you want to add idiotic achievements with as little effort as possible, instead of working on improving your game. You are not a good developer.
Basically, you are repeating what others wrote above and I already answered them.
Doesn't the fact that I have a private profile mean exactly the opposite? I think that's what it means. I don't care what you think about my profile and my 100%. All the games I made were 100% made for me. I don't need your approval.
Why would my proposal reduce sales? I argue that it would be quite the opposite.
Valve and developers would still make money. People would buy DLC to get 100% in the DLC - these are often very easy achievements to complete. It wouldn't affect anything, it could even increase sales, because suddenly every next 100% would be a DLC. For those who like collecting numbers, this would certainly be a welcome change.
I would argue that this change would not only be positive, but, apart from the few idiots in this thread, welcomed by anyone.
It's not about adding something new. Let me ask you another question - If someone wins a gold medal during the Olympics, should it be taken away after 10 years because the rules have been changed?
Any reasonable person will answer - no.
And I'm not talking about adding something to the game, but about archiving original achievements after the game's release and separating them from DLC. That's all.
And Little Inferno is a perfect example:
- After 10 YEARS everyone lost 100%.
- Anyone who wants to get 100% again in the game they finished, let's emphasize again - 10 YEARS AGO - must now spend additional money.
- The DLC adds practically nothing noteworthy.
- DLC ruined this game. I know because I have it, it throws me to the desktop every 10 minutes, items disappear from my inventory and generally I can't play. It's not even that I can't get achievements - the game is literally unplayable now.
- To get 100% again you have to play the whole game over again. You can't play on old saves. So what do people do? They use other people's saves. Clearly no one is happy and the reviews reflect that.
So I really don't know what you don't like about my example, because it's a perfect example of what I'm writing about.
I will ignore your childish comments about me. You don't have any arguments, so you're trying to discredit my person, so why are you even commenting on the thread? Just walk away instead of acting like a child.
+1
I wish this were true. I really do. When physical media was more standard, there were court rulings that declared video games were effectively goods, which came with certain consumer rights. This included the right of resale, among other things. Even though technically we only ever had a license for use, and didn't own the copy, in actual practice, they functioned more like goods, and more like the analogy of the car you're using.
Unfortunately, just as back then it was, "We technically only have a license, but in practice we can treat it like a good," today the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, because the practicality part of that equation is now on the side of the digital nature of the product. With the denaturation of physical media as a primary means of distribution, and the normalization of digital distribution, physical media has all but died, and today we agree to an EULA explicitly every time we buy a game on a platform like Steam.
That means we are consenting to the terms of that EULA, and essentially it means we do not own the game at all, not even in the "in practice" sense we used to benefit from. Today it truly is treated as just a license for use in the most literal possible sense, up to and including the license issuer reserving the right (to which we agree by default) to change the product at any time going forward.
This includes (for which rules exist in terms of how much notice they have to provide) things like changing the system requirements, changing achievements, and changing anything else about the game essentially. This is why you can now leave a game for a few years, and come back to an entirely different experience. (For better or worse, depending upon your tastes.)
Again, I wish what you're saying was true. Even "in practice." But today it's not. It never technically was, but today it really isn't, and there's no recourse really.
In the 7 years Alien Swarm: Reactive Drop has been on Steam, we have not once asked players to pay for the content we were giving them. In fact, our license with Valve as a free Source Engine mod prevents us from demanding payment in exchange for content.
When we add a new campaign or new weapons or new bonus missions, we add achievements along with them. Achievements are a way for developers to signal to players which parts of their game are worth checking out, and to give the players an extra sense of accomplishment for playing those parts of the game, or for playing the game in an impressive or unusual way.
And what makes you think that I'm willing to hand out mine? You are rejecting something that isn't even offered to you.
I'm just referring to the general premise of the reserved right to make changes to the game, and how much less static games are now as products. Both the game itself, and things like achievements for them, with the latter being OP's issue.
Yes we can play earlier versions of games, but a) I'm not sure how that avoids OP's specific problem vis-a-vis achievements, and b) as a practical matter, unless you're someone who goes to the trouble of backing up your binaries and making them transportable in an independently accessible form so that you never lose access to them, or you know how to rollback to a previous build using app ID commands (and assuming those builds are still available,) or the game in question has a beta branch rollback easily accessible via Steam, and people disable all updates... most people are playing the latest build.
That's why I said "in practice" numerous times in my post. Because "in practice" games used to be finite, static goods, even if technically all we ever had was a license for use and backup for personal use. Whereas today "in practice" games are dynamic, continuously updated, and the meta layer that accompanies them now (achievements, cards, etc.) is also dynamic and changing.
OP was saying that a video game today is analogous to buying a car and the rights that come with that. And I'm saying I wish that was true, and that it used to be more true, but today in particular, it's true to a far lesser degree. (Again though, just in case people think otherwise... I personally couldn't care less about any of this these days. I was just responding to that one very specific analogy and lamenting how I don't feel that's true any more, to the extent it ever was.)
I don't have any issue with achievements being added after release though, regardless of how long the game has been out. *shrugs*
Let me understand this correctly, you actively hunt achievements which is something you are choosing to do and because the game developer(s) added more achievements, you not being let that be must get those new achievements done, and the developers are the ones who have no self control.... ?