Unions don’t work the same way in all european countries.
In France, the union I belong to is organized by local company and public service, with a spawling system of dual cascading federations by geographic sector and economic sector.
And there are several competing national union organizations which overlap. I don’t know exactly how the other ones are organized
This is the difference between a trade union and an industrial union. You can join an industrial union elsewhere in Europe or even in the US, such as the IWW.
I wish developers would learn that just because they’re well paid doesn’t mean they’re getting the full value of their work. Your CEO didn’t become a billionaire by paying you the full value of your labor.
There’s always room for more and unions can get that.
This is from a Swedish perspective, but: My experience with unions has been that they think it’s more important that nobody is paid more, than to pay everyone what they’re worth. In other words they’d prefer everyone being paid equally over raising the minimum wage. Their motivation seems based in jealousy more than a sense of justice. The money they collect from their members is spent on offering stupid IT courses that nobody (except unskilled people) needs, or stuffing their own pockets.
I like the idea of a union, but to me it seems like the actual unions we have today either lack real problems to solve or forgot about them. Every time a representative comes to visit I just get angered by how out of touch they are. They should focus on their core values and get rid of all that idiotic fluff, so they can lower their fees and recruit more members. But like any organization they grew fat and slow.
Ensuring that people know how to use Excel is not a problem that the union should be spending money on.
At my office we can work at any hours of the day that we prefer, as long as we check with our coworkers and do our agreed 40 hours / week. When the union heard about this they told my employer that we must do all our work during daytime.
Their reasoning was that our liberal hours give us the opportunity to take on more obligations in our personal life at daytime (such as taking kids to soccer practice) which means we have to work in evenings to make up for lost time. And this, in turn, means we don’t get enough rest. So basically they don’t trust the employees to take responsibility for how much rest they need and want to stop them from doing personal chores during the day.
We (the employees) finally won against the union in this, but what I kept thinking during this ordeal was “jeez, don’t they have more important issues to address?” If they did, why would they be meddling with this.
I think you don’t understand unions or what they are fighting for. Your presumed freedom in working hours is exactly what the unison stated. If you need freetime to fix chores you should reduce your working hours and not work throughout the night.
Yes, but then that’s my choice to reduce my working hours, not something my union should force on me. It’s patronizing. All ~100 employees disagreed with the union on this. IMO that’s a sign that they are overreaching and forget who they are working for. They need to realize when they are done and just sit back and enjoy what they’ve accomplished, instead of mindlessly optimizing for the wrong target. At any rate, if this is the kind of stuff they pull I won’t want to support them, because to my mind they are making things worse, not better.
Eh, more of a case by case basis in the tech industry imo. Most game studio devs should probably unionize, but it’s not all horror stories everywhere. I’m not against unionization by any means and it’s always on the table, but when me and my coworkers already have great pay, great benefits, stable careers, and great work life balance I don’t really see what additional benefits it would bring. It’s an over-generalization to say that you’ll be earning more money as a union employee when you’re already making more than 90% of the population, I know first hand that some trades even make more than their unionized counterparts in my area.
It would being better pay, better benefits, even more stable careers and better work-life balance.
It doesn’t matter how much money you’re already making, or how good your benefits already are. If you have a Union, you can negotiate for improvements. There is always room for improvement, unless you’re working at a fully-mutual workers cooperative.
I know first hand that some trades even make more than their unionized counterparts
I’d be interested to learn more, do you have a source or anything?
I already negotiate. Every couple years I interview around, I get a job offer, I take it back it my employer and they either match it or I leave. I’ve personally increased my salary 6x since I’ve joined the industry about a decade ago, I know people who have increased it more. I don’t know anyone in a unionized field who’s managed to achieved anything like this. I don’t know that it’s impossible, just seems to be much more rare. I’m a specialized individual in a specialized industry, I already have bargaining power and I definitely reject that my compensation, benefits, job stability, and WLB would be better if I had been unionized this whole time.
I’d be interested to learn more, do you have a source or anything?
Like I said, first hand. Purely anecdotal, I’m sure it isn’t the case for all union jobs.
I'm not in games, but if/when things start to turn, it's far easier for myself and the people around me to just leave for an employer that treats us right than to try to unionize and force the current one to behave. Those are the benefits of having a job that's very much in demand though, not to mention one that can be worked from home and isn't dependent on geography, so the union isn't necessary because the employees already hold enough power. If the employer has a monopoly on your jobs, being able to unionize is a powerful tool in your toolbelt.
the funny thing is actual ability to pay is varying from business to business. AAA development with in-house engine is simply inferior as a business compared to mobile gamedev or producing shitty battle royale clones with Unity. If some business can’t compete with big tech or low-effort money grabbers, does it mean it has to go?
This does suck though. To start, a counter-offer-based model begs discrimination. You should be getting yearly raises commensurate with (at absolute bare minimum, not even necessarily accounting for inflation) the increase in productivity from year to year.
This is to say nothing of work environments. Unions could reduce or end crunch. Not just as hard blockers, but mandating the kind of project management that doesn’t require crunch.
This does suck though. To start, a counter-offer-based model begs discrimination. You should be getting yearly raises commensurate with (at absolute bare minimum, not even necessarily accounting for inflation) the increase in productivity from year to year.
I see that a lot with just the starting percentages of yearly raises. Most companies never keep up with market value, and by the time you’ve spent ten years there, you’re making much lower than the industry standard.
The worst is employers who have some 1-5 scale for yearly performance and they gatekeep bosses who try to give out too many 5s. It’s not a competition among your peers. If the whole team is doing good and working hard, then reward all of them.
I don’t know about discrimination, you’d have to provide actual statistical evidence of that for me to believe it.
I do get yearly raises, they’ve beaten inflation by a lot every year except for one. I left that job and took a 30% compensation increase elsewhere.
I rarely see crunch time. I have no problems whatsoever with the frequency and intensity of it, but if it became a problem I’d leave and find a job elsewhere.
I don’t work in silicon valley, but they make a lot more than I do and my wage doesn’t feel suppressed lol.
The job market in tech is alive and well in my experience. There was overhiring during the pandemic which ended with some layoffs, I don’t see that as the market turning, but we’ll have to wait and see.
I know Lemmy wants everyone everywhere unionized, but for me in my industry the arguments for it are hand wavy at best. I find it disingenuous to tell people in this industry that they don’t have bargaining power as an individual.
It’s not that you don’t have individual bargaining power. It’s just that if you were unionised, you’d have much more.
The extent to which you are arguing against overwhelming evidence cannot be understated. You are arguing against something less controversial than evolution.
We know that unions promote economic equality and build worker power, helping workers to win increases in pay, better benefits, and safer working conditions.
But that’s not all unions do. Unions also have powerful effects on workers’ lives outside of work.
Edit: Lol this dude ran back and added sources to previous comments after I called him out on not providing sources. Before the edit he claimed collective bargaining can get 50% raises for everyone.
Right, and what percentage of unions are successfully negotiating 50% pay raises? Surface level nuance free thought experiments aren’t going to convince me here
It was an analogy. The point is that a union gives you stronger negotiation power than you have alone. By not being in a union, you’re getting worse outcomes than you would have in a union. All of the statistics we have demonstrate that unionising results in a big increase in wages and benefits. You’re basically saying “no” because you think you know better than the science. This is just like anti-vax sentiment.
You’ve sent zero statistics and I’ve yet to see any statistics or even anecdotal evidence that pertains to my industry. All you’ve done is promise ridiculous benefits like 50% salary increases through unrealistic analogies. My experience is purely anecdotal, but frankly it’s better evidence than pipe dream analogies.
But sure, go around calling people anti-vax because you don’t know how to put together a proper argument, I’m sure that’s how you get people to change their minds about unionization. Why would I continue this conversation at this point? If this is something you’re passionate about I’d rethink your strategy.
The extent to which you are arguing against overwhelming evidence cannot be understated. You are arguing against something less controversial than evolution.
We know that unions promote economic equality and build worker power, helping workers to win increases in pay, better benefits, and safer working conditions.
But that’s not all unions do. Unions also have powerful effects on workers’ lives outside of work.
Why on earth do you think I’d continue this conversation at this point? You’ve called me an anti-vax flat earther, I don’t know why you decided to resort to insults before sources, but it’s clear you aren’t discussing this in good faith. No thanks.
Your position is completely indefensible, and you know it, but you continue to hold it because your ego is more important than reality.
Do you know of any other groups who prioritise the preservation of their ideology over reality?
If you had any actual arguments against me, you would use them. But since you don’t, you’re just acting oh so indignant and high-handed that I had the temerity to call you out on your bullshit.
Maybe next time, if you don’t want an education, you should keep your ignorance to yourself.
Every couple years I interview around, I get a job offer, I take it back it my employer and they either match it or I leave.
I don’t even have to do that. My employer always give me good raises and even better bonuses. Every year.
Benefits are great. PTO is great. Work-life balance is great. No layoffs whatsoever. It’s not just about making money for the company and the owners, but the rest of the employees as well.
I don’t need the strife from trying to start a union here. Save it for companies that have pushed their employees too far. Unionize where it’s going to have the greatest benefit.
That’s great, I’m finally at a point in my career where I think it’ll be the same. As long as there isn’t a major culture shift, I could see myself staying at this job for the next 10+ years
Ever talked to the cleaning staff how they’re faring? Your suppliers in Cambodia (or wherever)?
It’s not that hard for capital to see reason when it comes to specialised, educated, and sometimes right out irreplaceable workers, but that doesn’t mean that capital suddenly developed a conscience.
You know perfectly well what I meant and the intent and purpose behind my comment. Try again.
And even if you’re working in a five person co-op outfit and someone of you indeed does scrub the toilet: What about the dishwashers at that Chinese takeout you order at every other day. How does your actual supply chain look like, even if it’s pizza and coffee.
What are you arguing about exactly? Not a single comment in this chain is anti union at all, and the comment you replied to even argued for unionization where it will have the greatest benefit, i.e. all the jobs you just mentioned.
Why are you acting like this is some sort of prisoner’s dilemma where either everyone unionizes or no one does?
And I never said anyone was. That’s something you came up with.
All I wanted to do is remind people is that capital giving a fuck about your ass doesn’t mean that said capital is benevolent, or you shouldn’t organise, because it’s still going to fuck anyone over it can get away with fucking over. Like the cleaning staff.
How can you force the bosses to pay cleaning staff properly if the engineers aren’t striking for them? There’s a gazillion desperate scabs out there and I can’t even blame them, how can you blame someone with two jobs for wanting a third to pay rent.
…that, btw, is why the likes of the IWW organise companies and industries, and not trades.
Not without class consciousness, no. But yes that is how it often works in countries that aren’t the US. Occasionally, it also works in the US, e.g. the Hollywood strikes right now. Was it the writers I think who got a proper offer right now and they said they’re going to continue until others got theirs, too.
I definitely reject that my compensation, benefits, job stability, and WLB would be better if I had been unionized this whole time.
Why? What is your reasoning for rejecting this? Can you justify it? You’re just saying “no” without any thought or explanation. Do you just refuse to believe that things could be better?
And frankly that’s not how this works. You’re the one trying to convince me that a union is in my best interest, the burden of proof is on you and you’ve given no substantial evidence.
I read your whole comment, but at no point does it explain why you think you wouldn’t be able to negotiate improvements with a union. What you have written essentially amounts to:
“I was able to build a really beautiful cabinet with hand tools. I reject the notion that power tools make it easier to build cabinets. I know people who have power tools but they haven’t made cabinets as nice as mine.”
If you have multiple people as a group who have the power to completely sink a business negotiating together, they stand a much better chance of improving conditions than any of them do alone.
How are you reasoning against such a self-evidently true claim?
My point is that skilled individuals in specialized fields already have strong individual bargaining power, something that you continue to underestimate in this thread. Collective bargaining is not risk free with one outcome, this is a fact that all the nuance free analogies in the world won’t change. If the sector is overall happy with individual bargaining power you’re going to need more proof than supposed “self-evident” claims.
Let me fix your analogy. A power tool salesman walks up to my door and tells me I have to throw out my hand tools because I can build cabinets much faster without them and then calls me an idiot for not wanting to throw away the tools I’ve mastered over the last decade.
I’m in the same field as you are with years more experience. Not only that, I have experience in management in the same field.
I am not denying that you have individual bargaining power that I’m sure you’re leveraging successfully.
I am just pointing out to you that if you were unionised, you’d have even more bargaining power which would almost definitely have resulted in a better outcome for you.
Collective bargaining may not be risk free, but it’s lower risk than individual bargaining, by definition.
There’s plenty of proof, and I don’t see why I need any more. You’re just refusing to acknowledge it, like a flat earther faced with the results of their experiment refusing to accept it. Just because you say “no, I don’t like this scientific proof” it doesn’t mean that I’m somehow failing to back up my argument when I refuse to give you more proof. You have THE proof of the matter. Accept it and be right, or reject it and be wrong. It’s up to you.
As for your analogy, being in a union does not mean you lose your individual bargaining rights, you can continue to negotiate your salary individually if you wish to do so. You do not lose any power or rights from being in a union. You only gain power.
I’m in the same field as you are with years more experience.
Lol is this the point in your argument where you call me a kid?
Collective bargaining may not be risk free, but it’s lower risk than individual bargaining, by definition.
Lower risk often means lower reward, and I already consider individual bargaining in my field low risk.
There’s plenty of proof, and I don’t see why I need any more.
You’ve provided exactly zero links in this thread.
like a flat earther
And there it is! Again! So far you’ve called me anti-vax and a flat earther because your unlinked evidence and shitty anologies aren’t convincing me of unproven theories in my field. This conversation is over and you’ve done more to hurt your cause than help here you condescending prick.
I appreciate the good faith you’re putting into this. I tend to lean your way, but it’s interesting to see this discussion play out. Thanks for being respectful. I appreciate it, even though (up to this comment) I’m just observing the thread.
Until this moment you haven’t asked me for any sources for my claim, whereas I have asked you multiple times for yours. Your basis is “just my vibes” and now you’re acting like I’m an asshole for pointing out that your position (arguing against science based on vibes) isn’t rational. Now by claiming I haven’t backed up my claims, despite pretty much accepting that they were valid until this moment, you cast me as irrational, and instead of asking for proof of my claims so you can amend your perspective, you just loftily declare that the conversation is over, because you know fine well that if it continues, your world view will be completely compromised.
Anyone who wants to see the proof can simply Google “average wage difference for unionised workers” or anything like that. You can do the same thing. I’m guessing you already have, but decided “that doesn’t apply to me” because you’re oh so special.
Lower risk often means lower reward
For investment and such, yeah sure, but not everything follows the same pattern. Unionising and collective bargaining is a perfect example, because it consistently has been shown to lower risks and increase rewards, again and again.
Act all indignant if you want to. You’re giving me a perfect platform to demonstrate the superiority of my ideology against your very weak, irrational reasoning. If you think that I’m somehow hurting my cause by revealing the inherent incoherence of your position, then yeah, sure, I’m really destroying my cause right now.
Just because you’re paid well doesn’t mean others are not being mistreated
FTFY
without unions there could be a huge salary disparity between devs in the same role, in the same company, even in the same project. I’ve personally witnessed more than 2x, heard about even more.
Sometimes it’s more than justified with individual’s performance and impact, sometimes it’s not. Some people are just better skill-wise, some people are better at applying pressure on their employer, holding business-critical knowledge hostage or simply negotiating.
Point here is - while unionizing might make things better on average, there would be a very real pushback from people who are benefitting from current system and this is not necessarily management. For management in some cases it would be even a net benefit, since they don’t have to deal with primadonnas and someone tying things to themselves just for leverage.
As an engr manager, I’ve often seen disparity as a result of being hired during good years vs bad years for the company. Or when someone gets a better offer to leave, the company may change their pay but no one else’s. Or hiring externally vs a transfer from another internal team. Or whether the team is coding for frontend web vs dev tools, even if using the same language. Or if female.
It’s always a challenge for one person to fix – with HR, with the department head, with yearly budget. And sometimes fixing one disparity means not having the sway to fix another as well.
Which is to say – pay transparency and unions are good for everyone. And if the company can’t afford to treat the employees equitably, then the company shouldn’t exist. (Or it should reduce its avocado toast budget.)
Neither Cyberpunk nor Starfield are rushing to win any awards for their writing. I’m playing the expansion for Cyberpunk at the moment and it’s average at best.
Anything Rockstar and Sony related I’d assume would be shitty for Xbox people. The bonuses that PlayStation players could get for GTA Online was ridiculous, so this is nothing new unfortunately.
This article speaks right out of my soul, when comparing Starfield and Cyberpunk 2077 2.0.
The quest qualtiy itself is comparable, but the delivery of Starfield makes it solely my job to create immersion (which I can and will do), while Cyberpunk 2077 2.0 grabs me by my balls and drags me into the world.
Spoiler for a small quest in CyberpunkWhen the barkeeper leans slightly forward, looks carefully right and left to make sure no one is listening and then tells me he suspects his wife sees someone else, I smell his parfume and I notice he relaxes his hurting back by stemming his arms onto the desk, because he is doing a double shift. Having Silverhand commenting on every step of the quest and turning it into a noir detctive story, making fun of me, added more immersion to a “follow person, report back”-mission. That I then can just call the quest giver on the phone, as a normal being would feels life like.
A similar quest in Starfield:
I talked to the barkeeper in Starfield from the wrong angle and he only turned his head and it was very uncanny valley, because over the whole conversation I was questioning how he can still talk with a broken neck.
I talked to the barkeeper in Starfield from the wrong angle and he only turned his head and it was very uncanny valley, because over the whole conversation I was questioning how he can still talk with a broken neck.
They might have fixed it by now but a certain little fortune teller has a very similar issue in an elevator in cyberpunk.
After helping him out I had a certain Ripperdoc showing which arm he operates with by raising it. Only his arm rotated backwards as if his elbow was turned around 180 degrees, arm clipping through his biceps.
But at least in Cyberpunk I’ve got the feeling that a bug like this is an honest oversight, whereas Starfield gives me the feeling that Creation Engine (2.0 these days?) should have have been killed, burned and buried after Skyrim. Each game since (and including) Oblivion I’ve felt like I’m looking at limitations I already noticed in the previous game built with Creation Engine or NetImmerse/GameBryo.
I haven’t played starfield and don’t intend to but I played cyberpunk on launch thanks to a covid scare and even on launch it was a good game to me. Had it’s problems but I got 300 hours out of it before the year ended.
Questgiver: “Hello, I don’t know you stranger, and I don’t trust outsiders. Can I help you? Oh, you want a quest? This evil company in Neon does bad shit and I need you to inject this virus and make sure it doesn’t get back to me. Also, the mayor here is evil AF. Don’t say that out loud, he has ears everywhere. I trust you stranger with my life. Have 8000 creds for picking up my mail, and 2000 creds and a unique purple gun for blowing up half of the city.”
I absolutely don’t get why Bethesda sold Starfield as a “new generation rpg”. It’s nothing but an archaic game with old mechanics. Don’t get me wrong, I’m really enjoying my time on the game so far (30/40h).
This is such a weird take because Cyberpunk's storytelling was a series of Grand Theft Auto phone calls occasionally interspersed with "UR DYING V, I'M KEANU REEVES AND IM GONNA TAKE UR BODY LOL". There wasn't anything interesting about Cyberpunk's storytelling. I believe a Bethesda game could be more boring than that, but it doesn't retroactively make Cyberpunk great as a result.
It blows my mind that people praise cyberpunk. They skipped straight past the character building and introduction to the city and its characters with a fucking 30 second cutscene, and then you just start getting calls from people you’ve never met like they know you. It didn’t interest me at all.
Ah so they didn’t just blow past the city and character introductions with a cutscene and then you start getting calls from fixers you don’t know, who talk to you like you have an existing relationship?
Tell me more about the incredible storyline that introduced you to the city and its inhabitants at the start
Mine was “car chase for a lizard” then the guy I just met dies, who was apparently my best friend because we played 2 missions together
V, someone in their twenties, maybe early thirties, had no life, friends, or business acquaintances or knowledge of the city before the player comes into the story.
I suppose the game should have been 25 hours longer so you could have a sit down meeting with each fixer, get to know them, maybe have some tea with them. Maybe a walking tour of Night City so that everything is spelled out for you would help?
People spent 8 years making Cyberpunk their entire personality. Of course they are going to make it seem like the best thing since stuffed crust pizza.
Ah not liking something makes me the bad guy because apparently it’s my whole personality.
Nope. Just talking about something in the thread where there’s a discussion about it. Happens to be I agree with many others that it was an overhead disappointment propped up by marketing money.
Felt the same way about it. The plot device of the character potentially becoming Keanu really broke all motivation for me. Why would I complete the main plot if each mission made the infestation worse? I made this character, why would I be interested in watching them become someone else’s Gary Stue? I wanted to be my Gary, not theirs.
The story would have been much improved by dropping Johnny Mnemonic Silverhands and instead having the partner, whose name escapes me because I only got to know him through 2 missions and a 30 second montage of us getting to know each other, as the ride along personality. Instead of him taking you over, he’s fading away and you have to save him.
Throw in a heroic sacrifice from your semi AI partner at the end or a plot twist him into a villain Tyler Durdening your ass while you sleep and it could have been something magical.
The theme of cyberpunk is that you have a literal anti corp terrorist in your head, and how that is affecting V’s psyche. Like there are points in the game where you choose some dialogue options and the game is like “is that V’s opinion or Johnny’s”.
I think they should have not played up the “if left unchecked, he’s going to kill you” sense of urgency bit though. But basically every open world game has the same problem with how do you reconcile having an open world, but also have a plot that needs moved forward. Like they can’t just outright game over you if you just do side quests for a in-game week or so.
That’s where starfield actually gets it right. You aren’t the “chosen one”, you are just a guy. The main plot of the game has no sense of urgency, because it’s fully driven by how much you dig into the artifact mystery. Any one in constellation could be doing the same things you are doing, and getting the powers and finding more artifacts, they all have seen the same visions you have when they first touched one. Again, you aren’t special.
I know this isn’t a popular opinion but I’m actually pretty optimistic about this. Blizzard has been shit for a while and this will at least change things, even if it might be for the worse. Also give me their entire catalogue on gamepass pls.
I've been seeing a ton of cyberpunk ads since starfield was released just shitting on starfield and talking up cyberpunk. This seems like a smear campaign. Frankly if your a fan of sci Fi and video games. You should probably try both when they're on sale.
Cyberpunk put ALL their money into marketing, and they’re heavily investor-pressured into showing the game is better received than it actually is. I still firmly believe that a large percentage of the praise is astroturfing. Especially when they downvote everything negative without a response
Ok here’s a response. I pirated cyberpunk on release fully expecting it to be buggy. I enjoyed bits of it at the time but I stopped because it was too buggy and unpolished.
This is CD Project Red’s track record, but somehow everyone forgot about how bad Witcher 3 was. I expected this 2.0 update eventually and I’m glad they started another marketing push, so that I can know it’s time for the game to actually be ‘done’. Obviously they paid streamers to show the game, that’s no secret. But also it looks genuinely better, just like Witcher 3. So I’ll probably actually buy it next time it goes on sale, after pirating it to see if it’s worth it now.
Meanwhile Starfield looks exactly like the milktoast Skyrim reskin I expected it to be, with nothing really standing out. Bethesda has been slowly comodifying their games since Morrowind -> Oblivion then followed an obvious template since Skyrim. It really shows in their boring designs.
Cyberpunk was trying to do too much, but Starfield isn’t doing enough.
Fair point about starfield, I haven’t played it yet but have heard many negative things.
But your point about cyberpunk, in response to me is “It was too buggy to enjoy on release and I haven’t played the late, updated version” , but you’re glad it’s being marketed on every platform?
They’re good at that. I remember trying Skyrim when it was new and we all didn’t know there would be like 15 rereleases and it felt weirdly dated. I couldn’t really put my finger on why, it just felt old.
I know everyone says it, but FUCK they should let Obsidian do the writing, and they need to drop that ancient game engine. Microsoft has probably killed this company.
Fallout: New Vegas had some of their best story telling. The Outer Worlds had awesome lore too. I’m really surprised they didn’t bring them along.
I just replayed DAO last year. It holds up in a way Cyberpunk didn't manage on its first play through. The rest of the series is a trash fire though. Mass Effect is forgettable outside of the excellent world building of the first game.
Yeah nobody knew how to tell stories 10 years ago, it’s only thanks to new storytelling technology that cyberpunk can tell such a boring story with barely any variations. (YOUR BACKGROUND WILL SHAPE YOUR STORY! lol)
Barely any variations? Did you even finish the game?
There's several significantly different paths you can wind up going down in the end. Like, incredibly different endings. And your actions do influence how those endings all play out, too.
I hear this argument from people who played the background prologues and thought those were the major decisions in Cyberpunk. Mild spoiler alert to anyone who hasn’t played: they are essentially short tutorials, not major storylines.
I didn’t say anything like that. I’m asking you if you’re judging newer games against your nostalgic view of how good those games were. But you’re weirdly defensive about it so go jerk off to female Shepherd and come back with that post nut clarifty
eurogamer.net
Najnowsze