You don’t have to like Gaben to see that Tim is much worse. Tim only cares about business. That’s why Epic store is great for publishers and developers and dogshit for customers, because Tim doesn’t see you as nothing more than cattle. Your interests don’t matter, you’re just a vessel to extract money from. You can dislike Gaben all you want but Valve at least treats you like a customer.
Nah. Sony will stick around, Playstation will die, Microsoft kills Xbox and everyone will complain about Steam being a monopoly despite their competition choosing to shoot themselves in the foot and dying all on their own.
I love how this is also a culture shock for Americans that the rest of the world doesn’t have mandatory tipping and expects workers to be treated with some dignity (such as paying livable wage). And as American as it can get, they just blame the foreigners for doing it wrong instead of questioning if maybe there’s another way to do things.
And the reason we knew in advance that this was the expected outcome is because this was the original plan. The DFA is the pivot from the original plan because of the concerns of the gaming industry lobbying against the citizens initiative.
No it wasn’t. The original plan was to get the citizens initiative to a point where the EU commission has to do something. DFA was more of a backup plan in case the initiative itself fails. Had the commission done its job the initiative probably wouldn’t have shifted its focus to the DFA. And it’s very much a series of lucky coincidences that the initiative could continue with DFA.
In the last 22 years the per game production cost has gone down. Back then games were largely physical and had a huge distribution network. You had the cost of putting the game on a disk or a cartridge or whatever physical medium, then you had the logistics cost to distribute it and finally the store selling you the game put their own marginal to justify keeping it on shelf. That was also what kept the indie scene from springing into existence because getting your game released was a massive undertaking. And you had to test test test because patching games post-launch was a pain in the ass. Now physical media is largely streamlined and the focus is shifting more on digital (because it gives better margins). Development tools have also improved and day 1 patches are the norm, all of which bring down development costs. So you can’t really compare the cost of a game from 20-25 years ago to the cost of a game from today because the industry has matured massively in that period.
And the industry has been complaining about game development being on the verge of collapse for around 15 years. I made the argument back then and that argument has largely stayed true for most of that period. The argument is that if making games is so unsustainable we should see a reduction of scope. Instead of throwing every bog-standard AAA feature into a bloated AAA game we should see games with a more focused vision and minimal bloat. It’s only in the last few years that we’ve seen studios try to cut the bloat. So I believe gaming right now has reached a point where it’s unsustainable for AAA but in previous years I’d argue it was just fearmongering to justify squeezing out more money. But it doesn’t mean the price increase is justified. Indie games and games made by private companies prove that the price increase isn’t necessary. The best game of 2025, Clair Obscur, was $50. One of the best games of 2024, Balatro, was $15. The best game of 2023, Baldurs Gate 3, was $60. None of those games were made by a publicly traded company. It’s the publicly traded company mindset that necessitates the price increase because you need to spend every penny you get and your returns need to grow with every release so you could get more money to spend which then means you need to make even more profits.
I’m not saying the price should stay at $60 for forever, but so far I haven’t seen a good reason why it should increase when we can get quality games at that price point or even at a lower price point.
You know, you could take 5 minutes to verify hearsay. From the official source
Launching November 19, 2026, for the PlayStation® 5 computer entertainment systems and Xbox Series X|S games and entertainment systems for $79.99, Grand Theft Auto VI features a single-player experience set in the biggest, most immersive evolution of the series yet.
The Grand Theft Auto VI: Ultimate Edition amplifies this experience with an exclusive collection of premium vehicles, weapons, apparel, and action threaded across all aspects of Jason and Lucia’s story, and will be available for $99.99.
It took me longer to put this comment together than it took me to find that information.
Lol. thanks for making my life better.
AS far as I’m concerned you have not addressed a single thing I’ve said (except the some games do, which again you did not explain at all so I don’t think that counts either) so my arguments stand as they are. Just because you’re incapable of having a real discussion doesn’t mean you’ve won. And the fact that you think there’s anything to win shows you’re nothing more than a debate pervert. You make up your own rules and then claim you’ve won so go parade your win and let the adults speak.
Analogies should have a point. What point is in your meth-induced analogies? I don’t have a problem with analogies, I have a problem that you think I should somehow understand what your brain-broken thought process vomited out.
You currently don’t have access to infrastructure software because you didn’t buy that. You bought a game that uses it.
Well, depending on the game I do. Some games come with server binaries that let me run my own server and regardless of what the developer or publisher does in the future I can still play those games. And once again, that could be the solution to the SKG movement wants solved. Maybe all games should come with the infrastructure software.
Given your BMW mention, if you buy a car, do you own the road it operates on? No. Well, maybe that’s separate right? BMW doesn’t own that road, so what about the factory it was made? Do you own that? No. I have an Amazon account. Do I own AWS infrastructure code? I mean I paid for that, right? No.
It’s not that laws can’t be changed, nobody made that argument. It’s about feasibility. Is it feasible for me and justified for me to own AWS infra because I paid for an Amazon account? No.
Ookay, I’m not even going to bother trying to decipher whatever the fuck this is. Either try again or don’t bother me with this again.
Do you understand the difference between the law as it currently is and wanting to change the law to be something else? Because you’re arguing that the law is what it is and everyone else is arguing that the laws should be changed because what currently is is fucking ass.
Currently we don’t access to whatever infra software companies run to keep the games working. One of the possible solutions to what SKG wants is that when you buy the game you also essentially get the server software as well so that if the company decides to pull the plug you just go “cool. I’ll get my own hardware and run it myself”.
And would you defend the same shit when it came to physical goods? Let’s say a car came with a software solution that makes the car ring home to make sure you’re allowed to turn your car on. Your argument in essence is that this is fine because you own the car and the fact that you can’t turn on the car once the car manufacturer shuts down their service is completely fine. Would you be happy with a car that the manufacturer can permanently disable whenever they want? This goes back your previous IP argument as well. The old car model is competing with the new car model so to keep your arguments consistent you should be in favor of having your car be permanently disabled because a new model came out.
In case you want an actual example of something similar, do you think the people who got outraged by BMW introducing a subscription service for heated seats were stupid? After all there are no laws that prevent BMW from doing this so people should just suck it up. Or are you’re going to argue people should push back if they think it’s a stupid idea. In that case what the fuck do you think we’re doing right now?
I disagree with their definition of “meso”. I think they’re throwing everything probability related into that pot but really it’s at the very least two distinctly different concepts. The first concept is effectively entropy of the game. It’s the random chance inherent to the game, something you can’t really control and you just have to work around. The best example of that are rogue-lites because in those games runs are largely defined by the random choice of tools the game gives you for that specific run. But if you want a more competitive game related example it’s Magic the gathering. Competitive decks are built around reducing the randomness by stacking different but similar effects, but none of it matters if you just draw a dead hand. And for clarity sake, all games where you’re dealing with fog of war or limited information about what your opponent is doing I’d put under entropy because the lack of information injects chaos into the system.
The second concept I’d call expression. Expression is what the author of the video use to put competitive chess into macro and meso. I think chess is a fully macro game and I’ll get into why it’s not meso. I use the word expression because games are a form of self-expression and how you express yourself translates into your gameplay including all the natural tendencies you might have as a player. When the author talks about optimizing against your opponents habits that’s learning and adjusting to how your opponent expresses themselves within the game. That is not the same thing as entropy, it’s not inherent to the game. If we were to tie the two concepts together entropy is the inherent randomness within the game and expression is how an individual will skew that randomness in their favor.
In the context of competitive games I’d say “meso” should be entropy and expression shouldn’t even be a factor because I think your ability to express yourself through a game is on a different axis because self-expression is inherent to every game. If you have a jack of all trades competitive gamer who can play everything from Quake champions to chess to among us but they’re naturally an aggressive player, do you think that player would switch up their playstyle depending on the game? I think they’d be aggressive in quake, choose sharp openings in chess and be always confrontational in Among us. It’s just how that player would play games.
And another point I disagree with is that CS is low macro (at least based on the graph they showed). It’s definitely lower than micro and entropy so relatively speaking he’s right, but it’s still high macro game. The author views only the economy aspect of CS and establishes that because rounds are short and execution is key the economy plays a role only in the context of giving you the tools to execute. But it’s so much more. Almost every site execution in CS is dependent on the macro knowledge of smoke, molly and flash lineups. Those are not things you can just learn on the fly as you play. You either know them or you don’t. Anyone who has played (or viewed) Mirage on a competitive level knows how important is it for T-s to nail the window smoke because if you miss it you’re almost definitely losing mid control, it it’s too slow you’re probably going to lose mid control. That is such a vital smoke pros have spent years refining it to a point. Lineups are something almost every pro has to learn. And those are per map. In fact lineups are only a part of the map macro that every pro team has to learn. There’s a reason pro teams tend to have a perma-ban map, because there’s only so much you can learn and the team with the better map knowledge usually wins the map so you focus on a set of maps instead of every map. And the team with the better map knowledge winning literally happened yesterday when Fut (a bunch of very promising rookies) beat Vitality (currently solidifying themselves as the greatest CS team of all time) on Anubis (the least popular map in the pool that is a permaban for a lot of teams). Vitality floated the map and Fut took the opportunity and straight up schooled one the best teams in competitive CS. Vitality still won the maps because they have an 80+% winrate on every other map they play but even the best team in the world can be beaten on map they’re not all that familiar with.
Having played all Doom games I’d argue the closest to the classic was Doom 2016. Dark ages IMO was too reliant on the shield and melee to the point where at times it didn’t even feel like a Doom game. 2016 had an overall faster pace but the core gameplay loop felt more like the classic and the faster pace is IMO also the more entertaining way to play classic Doom. 2016 IMO nails the essence of the classic doom.
Maybe I’m having some blinders on but what problems are we talking about? I recently got the game and at a quick glance couldn’t really identify any PC related issues. Some people have claimed performance issues but outside of some freezes when switching zones (which doesn’t really affect my experience) I haven’t really noticed any performance related problems.
In fact most people seem to have issues with game design not anything performance, hardware or OS related. And most of those issues are legitimate because there’s quite a lot of questionable design decisions.
It can also wildly swing in one direction. The price can go up by a small amount or an insane amount. Creates this funny situation where you either price too high and lose customers or price too low and lose money on every sale, doesn’t matter what you do you’re not going to win. The only thing to do is postpone as long as possible in hopes of prices stabilizing and then release it at the current market price and pray the costs don’t keep rising.
In short, everything is fucked and it’s the worst time probably ever to release new hardware.
Ah, fair enough. I assumed you also meant the current game which is priced at 70€.
As I understand the current game is developed and published by IO meaning the current Bond money probably goes to IO (as much as the licensed game profits can go to the developer) so I think it’s still worth buying. The next Bond games can go die behind a dumpster.
I don’t know. I got kinda suspicious after the fifth time he said Iran is done. I think he might be lying but I’m not entirely sure yet.
Yeah, and you’re a consumer who should be acting in your own self interest. In case or needs to be said, a company going digital only on their own closed platform is not in your interest even if you buy digital only or don’t even use the platform. So unless you like being a corporate bootlicker maybe don’t defend things that are against your self interest.