Ah fuck this is such a hard read to much emotion. What a beautiful thing the internet is. Reading this kind of unblackpilled me a bit and reminded me of the relationships and realness that are experienced online in virtual worlds.
“Valve “forces” game publishers to sign up to conditions which prevents them from selling their titles earlier or for less on rival platforms.
It claims that as Valve requires users to buy all additional content through Steam, if they’ve bought the initial game through the platform it is essentially “locking in” users to continue making purchases there.
This, Ms Shotbolt argues, has enabled Steam to charge an “excessive commission of up to 30%”, making UK consumers pay too much for purchasing PC games and add-on content.”
It claims that as Valve requires users to buy all additional content through Steam, if they’ve bought the initial game through the platform it is essentially “locking in” users to continue making purchases there.
"Valve “forces” game publishers to sign up to conditions which prevents them from selling their titles earlier or for less on rival platforms.
Complete horseshit. If they were preventing publishers from releasing earlier on other platforms, then how did all those timed exclusives on EGS exist.
And the bit about price parity only applies to Steam keys, aka, support and distribution is still being handled by Steam. Keys for GOG or EGS don’t apply
Sounds good. Valve are doing a lot of things right but I often find that they go under the radar when compared to similar stories around Google and Apple.
Because Apple and Google are trying to lock down their platform to make sure there is no competition. The only thing Valve does is exist. Valve isn’t trying to make it impossible for GOG or Itch or Epic store to exist, in fact Valve can’t even do that (unless their SteamOS becomes a locked down platform which guarantees a consumer backlash) because PC is an open platform. Partly thanks to Valve you’re no longer tied to Microslop either, you can swap to any Linux distro and have the vast majority of games still work. Valve isn’t even using it’s market position to keep competition down (even if the lawsuit tries to argue the opposite). The brought up arguments either have no impact on the consumer market or a things that other storefronts are also doing.
I’m not against having more competition on the storefront side, but this lawsuit is just about trying to squeeze money out of Valve.
In many ways I agree but the point of not being able to use expansion packs across platforms is a kind of lock in. I wish more tech companies were like Valve for sure, but they too need to be kept on check.
Is there a store that allows using expansion packs across platforms? There may be some individual games that may allow it, but I don’t know a single storefront that let’s you use DLCs or expansions across platforms/storefronts.
Seeing as the games industry makes more than movies I wouldn’t be surprised if more actors don’t exclusively go towards acting in games. It pays well I think and typically the work schedule is better I believe(someone confirm or deny this?). I’d love to see more actors on the games side and not as PR stunts.
I’m replaying COD4 and taking notes at the moment for a review I’ve wanted to do for years, coincidentally.
Looking at just COD4 without being influenced by knowledge of the sequels, it’s got a decent story and if you look at the edges you can find contemplations of cycles of violence, and while not to the point of being anti-war it does emphasize the waste of it.
The characters are Tom Clancy levels of larger than life, which is significantly more restrained than what came later. Individually the story beats and scenarios have at least a texture of realism, often loosely based in something real and then strung together in a story that isn’t convoluted.
I could see it being a good movie with the right handling. It probably wouldn’t be.
The characters are Tom Clancy levels of larger than life, which is significantly more restrained than what came later.
Mind going into more detail on this one? I’ve been reading the Jack Ryan novels, and I’m 3/4 of the way through Rainbow Six (the book) right now, and I think part of the appeal is that the characters feel small, as those stories always involve ensemble casts.
I agree that 4 and especially MW2 both feel very Clancy. I might even be more partial to MW2 as it’s got this prominent theme of history being written by the winners that hits all of the notes that matter to me most in movies.
Some scenes in MW2 stick out so strongly to me still. ::: spoiler Spoilers for a very old game. The march through the neighborhood, the White House, the knife throw at the end … ::: It’s funny to me that the controversial moment won’t be a big deal at all in a movie, as there’s no player control.
/Edit: COD’s bread and butter really is big budget action movie moments.
While (classic, I’m not counting stuff ghostwritten under his brand) Clancy characters have hyper competence, it’s to be expected given that they are turbo ultra elite soldiers or spies. Their motivations and ability to act doesn’t reach the point of self parody.
For a COD4 example: Nikolai, the Russian that the player rescues early on in the game. He is a mole inside the Russian antagonist faction feeding information to the SAS. He got found out. He’s being kept at a house with a handful of regular soldiers watching him. When you rescue you him he is calm or at least puts up a calm front and thanks you. That’s a pretty believable guy who could have been a real person who is doing something realistic and dangerous.
In MW2 that character can materialize with apparently infinite types of military aviation hardware, and he is also a pilot able and willing to do insane maneuvers. And he is personal friends with Captain price rather than just being an SAS asset. And he is in touch with a friendly militia group in the middle of Europe.
There is a distinct jump from COD4 to MW2, where it goes from Tom Clancy to Michael Bay.
MW2 is still fun, but it exists in an entirely separate tonal reality than COD4.
I’d argue that those people with infinite resources, or personal friends with someone in high places, exist in a number of Jack Ryan stories, and perhaps it’s a matter of how frequently you encounter it that stretches one’s suspension of disbelief. I’ll also point out that the sequence of events that led to Jack Ryan being president are as crazy as anything in Modern Warfare 2.
I’m not saying Clancy stuff is always completely grounded, especially the longer it goes on, but I’m trying to use the Clancy comparison to capture the essence of an idea. COD4 while fictional, and with moments that aren’t wholly realistic if you really hold them up to the most intense scrutiny has the overall texture of realism. MW2&3 and Black Ops games all exist as throwing bigger and more insane setpieces out with no regard to any realism.
It’s a the last COD with a real gutpunch moment that says anything about anything. The nuke going off it a moment of realizing you aren’t a special main character and you die like everyone else, and that maybe war isn’t just a big fun adventure. All the shock moments have been trying to top it are so dramatic that they don’t have the same effect that the nuke did.
Critics like her say the very term “gold digger” reeks of misogyny.
No, the term itself doesn’t imply gender at all.
Anyway, I never really saw the problem with gold diggers, it’s a relationship like any other - you give your partner something they need and the partner gives you something you need.
So what if one of the parties needs money and the other a young woman to feel better? If there’s no coercion and no actual scamming, I don’t see the problem.
That last “if” is a big one. Most of the time these relationships aren’t as clear headed and well thought out as you’re hoping they are. Hurt feelings are the norm, and hurt feelings of powerful people lead to revenge.
The term originally meant to label a particular kind of person in a relationship. It implies someone is intentionally deceptive and is lying to maintain status all the while manipulating another person in order to steal or be provided with money.
While that other person might not know it. Its still clear to others. Hence golddigger being an insult. Even if that person doesn’t believe they are one or that their love interest is
And is also used to decribe those who intend to commit fraud through a planned premeditated divorce (for the specific intention of taking half someones money house ect not caring at all what that will do to anybody)
That is generally, just plain bad. Its not that hard to let it be bad and not try to defend it because #imawhiteknight#polyculecool or whatever drives the defense of the indefensible here
So redefining that because you want to make up stories about how things work isnt going to make that go away. Forgetting that specific behavior is toxic because relationships come in different shapes and sizes, has and will always be just some new fangled, toxic-positivity bullshit and you should be ashamed of your toxic-positive bullshit
They are not currently stranded, and were never considered stranded, except maybe for the few days between Starliner’s empty return and the Crew-9 Dragon’s arrival.
bbc.com
Ważne