They’re not wrong but the real reason publishers are against modding is because
-
It extends the lifetime of a game and the existence of “overhaul” or enhancement mods especially goes against their interest in selling sequels and remasters.
-
If everyone was comfortable with modding it would be pretty hard to sell cosmetic items the same way they do now.
Pretty much, there are instances where remasters are completely pointless because you can just mod the original to be of superior quality
It is a reason why we will not see the GameCube versions of Resident Evil 2 and 3 ever remastered, even though I would want a way to buy these legally
GC versions of RE2/3 were just ports, weren’t they? The only original RE games on GameCube were. REMake, RE0, and RE4.
They were but they are considered Superior with the PlayStation versions due to having a superior frame rate and sound quality, although they sold rather poorly at the time as Resident Evil the remake kind of raised the standard for what a remake should be up so high, that no re-release has been able to match it in quality. Not even the other remakes in the same series.
In many respects the remakes of 2 and 3 are a measurable downgrade, and are more accurate to a retelling than a remake, which is why I would want enhanced ports of the GameCube versions
That makes sense! I never picked them up as a kid cause I already had 2 on n64 and 3 on PS1. I might have to check out those versions. Are the backgrounds higher resolution too? That’s the hardest part about replaying them on an hdtv, it’s just so blurry!
Yea
The Legendary edition of the Mass Effect Trilogy was a lot worse that the modded original games.
They never fixed the FOV issues or even made it work on Ultrawide monitors. Same bugs, less texture fidelity, and no more ass shots. The remaster was a joke.
I heard they censored shit too. Sadly I feel like that’s just a staple of re-releases nowadays “Remember back in the 90’s and 2000’s when we thought politically correct was a dirty word? You know what’s a better idea? The opposite extreme where anything even slightly vulgar or sexual must be censored or they’ll corrupt the poor innocent 30-50 Target Demographic…”
-
I choose to believe that this is the first time some Capcom executive became aware of rule34 content, and organized a series of awkward high level meetings about it where the rest of the staff all had to pretend like they haven’t known about the existence of lewd fan content from age 13 on.
It’s a pretty amusing head cannon.
Meanwhile, we’re all reading your comment pretending people only start to look at lewd stuff at age 13…
The only thing offensive to public order and morals is prudish bullshit religious ideology.
Nothing about the naked human form is immoral.
Sir, I will make you aware of your error. Children (innocent!) may be exposed to the naked breast from birth to age 1.5, and then again from age 18 until death. Any exposure to the unaugmented protuberances of the female form during which the victim has witnessed the earth revolve around the sun more than twice but fewer than one score times has been scientifically proven to corrupt the youth and chasten the modest!
You heathen! You would allow little innocent children to see boobies! This is an outrage!
It’s like one of the most beautiful things in existence.
Female characters are heavily sexualised and objectified though. And what media does it is not helping with the issue happening in real life as well.
It’s immoral because Chun Li didn’t consent.
Lol. Cartoon characters giving consent.
Sure, but there’s a time and a place where nudity is appropriate, which I think is the point they’re trying to make.
Sort of. They present a straw man about tournaments and other public events, and while that’s a fair point, those can (and probably already do) have rules about it.
You should always have the option to use a mod in your home. If companies don’t want to support running a game with mods, that should be the first thing support asks.
You should always have the option to use a mod in your home.
If we weren’t talking about an inherently competitive multiplayer game, I’d agree.
You can still play single player if you choose.
But when you play MP, I completely understand then restricting mods.
There is nothing inherently wrong with nudity and sexuality.
It only makes you uncomfortable because of the way you were raised. But it’s difficult for you to see that you are looking at this with those set of values.
I mean it’s not surprising that Capcom is complaining about people modding nude characters into their games, but this still reads like some Capcom executive just learned what mods were and what they could do.
But also hasn’t seen them personally in action because otherwise he’d be too busy to say anything.
His mind is going to blow when he learns of Rule 34.
Removed by mod
This reminds me of when Tommy Itagaki threw a fit over nude mods for Dead or Alive. “These characters are like my children!” If that’s how you treat your children, someone ought to call CPS.
Christ. Dude was surprised the game with a jiggle physics slider for tit bouncing got nude mods?
The first Tomb Raider had a woman made out of a few basic polygons resulting in triangular breasts and of course, someone made a nude mod for it.
People refer to “Rule 34” on the Internet for a reason.
Yeah, and I remember playing those demos when they first came out. Tho my point was that DoA was a jiggle physics trailblazer then homie comes at horny peeps. This is what made your money, dude. Animu titties. Cope.
Right? If it were something like Last Of Us I’d get it, but fighting games generally have characters designed to titillate. The ladies are mostly cheesecake pin-ups but with bigger muscles. Getting cranky about nude mods in those is hilariously hypocritical.
The fact Itagaki compares nude mod to children is extremely concerning. An investigator needs to make sure children are safe around the guy.
I have no problem with mods, including mods that introduce adult content.
However, I can certainly understand not wanting nude characters showing up at a public tournament that doesn’t want them there. The tournament organizers are trying to provide an experience for the players and viewers, and it’s entirely-legitimate for them to want to control that. I mean, if you’re having, say, a poker tournament, it’s entirely within reason for the organizers to say that they don’t want the players, say, stripping down in the middle of the tournament. Hell, or they could want an only nude tournament. Their experience, they’re crafting it.
However…I don’t really understand the circumstances that led to mods being a unique problem here, and the article doesn’t say.
One possibility is that the tournament organizers wanted to have nude characters involved and it’s just Capcom taking issue with having their product involved. I assume that that’s not the case here.
Another is that a player broke expectations or tournament rules by doing so. If that’s the case, okay, but I don’t see as how mods are some special or unique concern. Any tournament in sports or whatever is going to have the possibility that competitors act inappropriately relative to what the tournament wants to permit. Could be tennis players doing Hitler salutes or billiards players mooning the audience or StarCraft players using profanity in text chat. And in general, I think that the approach used there to mitigate the thing is pretty similar. You have a referee or judge who disqualifies a player, and they forfeit. The local audience is gonna see, but whatever, the same players could do so in a crowd anywhere, tournament or no. If you’re streaming to a remote audience, then you have a delay of a certain amount of time on the stream, and you give the hosts a button to cut the audio and video feed, and if you have the crew to handle it near-live, maybe do things like bleep out or black out whatever you want to censor and keep the feed going. I don’t see how mods are anything special here.
They’re crying wolf to try and justify putting shit in the game to prevent modding (so they can sell more skins) is my personal theory.
People active in online game communities are already an outlier, never mind the fraction of a fraction of those people actually modding them. It doesn’t seem worth the bad PR.
Why on earth would a fighting tournament allow mods? Nevermind cosmetics… it’s just a easy gateway to cheating. Nobody knows what kind of code those mods are executing. Maybe it’s a simple cosmetic mod that has a hidden option to make some move a few frames faster.
The problem isn’t the mods, but the tournament organizers allowing it in a competitive setting, without any filtration.
If you mess with frame data you get desync and it’s very easy to tell when that happens. Messing with anything other than models/textures will desync the game unless you’re talking about offline. But even then pretty much every mod you download is made to be used online so people would notice by the time it makes it to an offline
Yeah, this is a strange situation. As far as I’m aware, skins would only be player-side so this shouldn’t be something like accidently showing a nude character, this would be some person bringing their own modded game and bystanders seeing it? Was this someone’s setup they forgot to un-mod or some dude who lost and set up some games on his own hardware?
One of the tournament presenters, who was broadcasting the match that was being spectated through his PC, forgot to disable the nude mod.
This article goes further into the original incident.
Thanks; that makes more sense. I still think that the “this really isn’t a mod-specific problem” stands, though – I mean, said streamer could also have had a pornographic desktop background or whatever. It’s on that streamer to set up the experience that they want to provide.
This seems rather more like a general problem with streaming configuration on PCs. To the extent that it’s mod-specific, I’d think that it’d be mostly that one might want to set up a streaming-specific set of settings and be able to switch to them conveniently en-mass, and one option might be to change mod sets.
I don’t stream, but I do recall seeing various issues with streaming come up:
-
Users who stream don’t like having notifications that have usernames of their real-life friends come up while streaming, because sometimes those people get hassled.
-
Ditto for any kind of private messages coming up during streaming. In a normal playing environment, this may be desirable, but if one is streaming to a huge number of people, one doesn’t want one’s private conversations exposed.
-
Similar with other private data, like private documents that might have business or personal information sitting around on the desktop. One might not want to stream that.
-
One might not want (or might want!) to use a modded configuration to stream, but it might be better to make that opt-in rather than opt-out.
I think that a better way of dealing with this is for desktop environments to provide first-order support for streaming. Like, provide an easy way to get to a sanitized environment. Maybe the right way to do this is to have multiple user accounts, and just switch to the “streaming” one, but then there is some configuration that one does want to share. That’s not ideal, but I think that it’s the lowest-effort way using existing functionality to get a sanitized streaming environment. Maybe provide a way to let one user account capture the screen of another user account, and run the game in the guest user account, and be able to switch between the two accounts. That way, all the configuration and whatnot can be in the “main” account, and everything that goes out the stream can be from the “streaming” account, and there’s a level of isolation provided. This (mostly) isn’t really a use case critical for business PCs and collaboration with shared desktops, which I think is where a lot of the conventions used in streaming came from (though maybe the private message issue is). But it is if you’re trying to act like a television crew would in setting up a television broadcast.
I also don’t know if Steam Workshop was involved here, but Steam doesn’t AFAIK provide a way to switch “sets” of mods across user accounts; that would be desirable, so that the “main” and “streaming” account could have different sets of mods.
-
‘There are a number of mods that are offensive to public order and morals’
I’m always surprised when I see articles like this sporadically come up.
These days you can mold games into whatever you want them to be with mods. It’s a deliberate action by the consumer and fits right in with rule 34 content.
There’s also a lot of bigger targets out there for adult content like Skyrim and the Sims.
Why surprised? Capcom needs to say something because their game was involved, but they don’t have anything really to say, so they article fluffs it up a bit.
It baits rage, gets clicks, and ultimately is inconsequential.
I don’t think they really need to say anything is my point. It would be like Mojang commenting about gun mods for Minecraft
They make a game that’s popular in tournaments, and this mod was used at a tournament. So I think they have an obligation here to say something.
This mod wasn’t “used at a tournament”. An online tournament was held, and the guy running the Twitch stream was using SF6’s spectate feature to display the match. Said guy had a naked mod installed. None of the tournament contestants were using mods (or if they were, said mods didn’t cause any issues).
Oh jeeze.
deleted by creator
