Rezone for higher density, lower taxes, pollute the area to lower rent values and give them something else to complain about, change to office/commercial.
High rent complaints don’t really hurt your city’s operation too much, it’s just that it’s a blocker to the businesses’ profitability or residential maintenance and can’t level up.
I’ve actually looked into this a little bit, and it seems that the best strategy is to have a lot of money. It doesn’t actually decrease the rent at all, and in fact makes it worse in the long run, but it keeps it from becoming a problem for YOU.
Cartoon logic point and click adventure games like Sam & Max or Monkey Island. There are still a lot of adventure games similar to that style being made, but they’re all fairly realistic in the puzzles. I want the stupid, non-sense logic used in cartoons to make the puzzles harder but also funnier.
Genre peaked at, like, Red Alert 3 or Starcraft II, either-or. And the only notable title in the past (N) years has been like… Age of Empires 4. Which is good but also… It’s AoE. It’ll always be more of a multiplayer oriented game yanno? Give me my cheesy campaign stories with cool hero units and/or cheesy FMV uwu
Tbf, deserts of kharrak had a cool mp mode, too, and it’s a shame it died out immediately. It is a fairly novel and unique rts in a lot of ways, and very pretty to boot, so not sure what happened. I guess the maps are all very samey
The Homeworld Series (1+2 at least) comes Info mind in general.
OP ist right though. A masterpiecish RTS ist nowwhere to ne found. I think, it has something To Do for other genres innovating out of the RTS Framework (DotA, LoL, even Pikmin).
All can be played without the mechanical sweatfest traditional RTS turn Into, but instead focussing in Player knowledge and engagement.
However, there ist the new Company of Heroes Game, though…
Looking at this list, maybe – depending on the era you like – Bloodstained: Curse Of The Moon, or Hollow Knight for Metroidvanias with similar-to-Castlevania themes?
I have only briefly played Salt & Sanctuary, but it looks thematically kind of like Castlevania, and it’s a popular Metroidvania.
EDIT: It looks like the Bloodstained series is trying to fill in the classic Castlevania gap. I kind of preferred the later Castlevania games – PS2 or GBA – but this might be what you want. The Steam reviews have people grouching about how Konami isn’t doing this any more:
Lovecraftian horror games. There have been some games in recent years but I think there’s definitely a larger design space for this kind of thing. This could mix with other genres as well like survival and potentially rogue-like stuff.
I think that Lovecraft’s setting is actually virtually the only fictional setting where you’re spoiled for choice, because Lovecraft permitted other people to use his setting. Like, you only get to do a Star Wars game if Lucasarts licenses it, because they leverage their copyright on the setting. Most people and companies who create a setting don’t allow other people to freely use it, and copyright law permits them to make that restriction. But Lovecraft was unusual in that he specifically encouraged other people to build on his world.
Maybe Robin Hood or a small handful of others from history, like Greek or Norse mythology, that developed before copyright law had really become the norm.
I dunno. Maybe there should be some kind of Creative Commons license that permits use of setting and maybe characters, while still keeping an individual work copyrighted, to encourage creation of collaboratively-developed settings like that.
This could mix with other genres as well like survival and potentially rogue-like stuff.
One of the top entries I see on Steam – though I’ve never played it – is an Overwhelmingly Positive-rated game, Disfigure, that appears to be a Lovecraftian action roguelike that just came out a couple of months ago.
I think that if we’re doing real-history FPS games, I would like to see other conflicts. Give me a War of 1812 game or let me play as a Chinese soldier during Japan’s mid-1900s occupation or something.
People brought this up at the time, and the go-to problem with it is if you go too far back, like your 1812 example, you have to deal with reloading a gun being one of the most time-consuming actions you can perform. WWI was taboo for a while due to chemical and trench warfare, and for the most part, devs still shy away from it.
If you’re going non-fantasy (in which case you can put in whatever), I think that one factor is also that in, say, the Napoleonic era, using soldiers in formation in warfare was an important multiplier, and that’s not super-friendly to FPSes. I mean, a lot of the game would be following orders to move into a formation or move in formation.
As for weapons, you could do archery, I suppose. There have been a number of games (Thief, Skyrim, etc), that have an archer running around on their lonesome, though that probably wasn’t historically all that accurate. Well, not that having a solo character going Rambo on a World War II-and-post battlefield was necessarily all that common. If it did, it was pretty unusual:
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. Staff Sergeant (then Sgt.) Hooper, U.S. Army, distinguished himself while serving as squad leader with Company D. Company D was assaulting a heavily defended enemy position along a river bank when it encountered a withering hail of fire from rockets, machine guns and automatic weapons. S/Sgt. Hooper rallied several men and stormed across the river, overrunning several bunkers on the opposite shore. Thus inspired, the rest of the company moved to the attack. With utter disregard for his own safety, he moved out under the intense fire again and pulled back the wounded, moving them to safety. During this act S/Sgt. Hooper was seriously wounded, but he refused medical aid and returned to his men. With the relentless enemy fire disrupting the attack, he single-handedly stormed 3 enemy bunkers, destroying them with hand grenade and rifle fire, and shot 2 enemy soldiers who had attacked and wounded the Chaplain. Leading his men forward in a sweep of the area, S/Sgt. Hooper destroyed 3 buildings housing enemy riflemen. At this point he was attacked by a North Vietnamese officer whom he fatally wounded with his bayonet. Finding his men under heavy fire from a house to the front, he proceeded alone to the building, killing its occupants with rifle fire and grenades. By now his initial body wound had been compounded by grenade fragments, yet despite the multiple wounds and loss of blood, he continued to lead his men against the intense enemy fire. As his squad reached the final line of enemy resistance, it received devastating fire from 4 bunkers in line on its left flank. S/Sgt. Hooper gathered several hand grenades and raced down a small trench which ran the length of the bunker line, tossing grenades into each bunker as he passed by, killing all but 2 of the occupants. With these positions destroyed, he concentrated on the last bunkers facing his men, destroying the first with an incendiary grenade and neutralizing 2 more by rifle fire. He then raced across an open field, still under enemy fire, to rescue a wounded man who was trapped in a trench. Upon reaching the man, he was faced by an armed enemy soldier whom he killed with a pistol. Moving his comrade to safety and returning to his men, he neutralized the final pocket of enemy resistance by fatally wounding 3 North Vietnamese officers with rifle fire. S/Sgt. Hooper then established a final line and reorganized his men, not accepting treatment until this was accomplished and not consenting to evacuation until the following morning. His supreme valor, inspiring leadership and heroic self-sacrifice were directly responsible for the company’s success and provided a lasting example in personal courage for every man on the field. S/Sgt. Hooper’s actions were in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself and the U.S. Army.[4]
That’s a pretty unusual MoH citation out of Vietnam, and that’d probably be about par for the course for a single – maybe part of – a WW2 FPS level. I mean, if you want realistic World Wars fighting, the largest chunk of characters would probably just be killed by random artillery fire, not pulling off 100:1+ kill ratios in infantry combat, which…isn’t all that much fun as a first-person game.
A skilled longbowman could shoot about 12 shots per minute. This rate of fire was far superior to competing weapons like the crossbow or early gunpowder weapons…
So, as to the hail of arrows, archers shooting heavy warbows confirm that releasing twelve arrows in one minute is possible, but that such a rate cannot be maintained subsequently. Practical experience argues for a shooting rate of about 5 to 6 arrows per minute being feasible over a period up to 10 minutes.
That’s definitely a lot slower-paced than a modern FPS, but it’s still a lot faster than nearly all 18th century firearms.
Skyrim kind of ignored fatigue and let you lug around a huge store of arrows and blast them without regard for your arms getting tired, so it’s not hard realism, but I think that people enjoyed the archery aspect.
I’m honestly not the biggest fan of the genre, but point and clicks I feel are a truly dying genre or at the very least they are so incredibly niche today
Is it really 10 hours for other people? My game file usually says around 50-60 when I’m done. I think they said 10 hours is if you blitz the main story and do no side content… do people play any rpg that way? If so, I at the very least recommend a full playthrough this time. There is alot of great side content in this, and most other, rpgs.
Mario rpg is really a 20ish hour game for most people. Maybe a little less. I’m not even sure what you would spend your time doing for 3x the time. Even completionist entries on hltb are only 25 hours
It’s a shorter rpg for sure, doesn’t make it bad, my favourite rpgs are shorter.
I mean, I do tend to play around and have fun with video games. I don’t have a checklist and just run to the next thing on the list. I don’t use walkthroughs, so any puzzles or unclear mechanics are gonna stump me for a bit as I work them out. And any time there is combat based levelling, I’ll usually grind out a few extra levels, I’m always way too strong for the part of the game I’m at, but I still find it fun.
It was kind of the normal way to play games back when MarioRPG came out. The internet wasn’t super useful yet. And while walkthroughs and stuff did already exist, it wasn’t considered normal to use them to play a game yourself, just to look up one part if you got too stuck.
Steam is an infinite money generator, yes, but any publicly owned company would have fucked it up for short term profits. Valve absolutely has its problems, but its focus on the long term and respecting its customers means it can make infinite money and do stuff like this.
I mean, you got my upvote already, but one big reason is that Robertson wanted to control all the manufacturing of the screws and the bits. Phillips licensed his patent out and let anyone make them just taking a tiny licensing fee. Made a fortune on volume. Robertson: good engineer, bad businessman.
Because hexagonal screw drives are superior, they can transfer more torque and last longer. What I don´t get is why slotted, cruciform and square screw drives are even still around when there are much more reliable alternatives to choose from, like Hex and Torx for example.
I think Valve in on very early steps of enshittification. Maybe not everyone, but most companies started like that. I mean being nice to users. Counterargument to my claim is that they are already millionaires, which is true, but humans’ greed may be limitless.
Fortunately Gaben has only a minor interest in Volvo 😉.
But actually his son is involved in the games industry, and there’s plenty of other like-minded people at Valve. Hopefully the (far) future of Valve is as bright as its present.
To be clear, that gives them the opportunity to avoid enshittification. There’s plenty of private companies that are dogshit. Valve happens to be one of them that took the opportunity and ran with it.
When Gaben retires or dies, things could very easily change. But I don’t think it’ll happen before then.
When a company only has to please customers they are allowed to bend and in extreme cases break their own rules for a customer to be satisfied.
When you have to please share holders and customers. You as a laborer must decide to please the customer or the share holders. Sadly the longer you work somewhere the more like you are to please a customer if you work with them directly. The further you are from the customer the more likely you are to disagree with choosing customer satisfaction over shareholder satisfaction. Begin enshitirication.
That’s interesting. Are there other large non public gaming companies? I actually want to ask this outside of gaming, but don’t want to stray outside the community.
Epic Games*, Mihoyo**, IO Interactive, Bethesda/ZeniMax***, Deep Silver.
Epic games is 40% owned by a publicly-traded company, Tencent.
** Mihoyo filed for an IPO in 2017, but withdrew its application for unknown reasons.
*** ZeniMax Media was recently acquired by Microsoft, and is now a Microsoft subsidiary. I’m not sure if this makes it count as a ‘non-public gaming company’ by your definition.
Valve being a private company is probably the thing that allows them to focus on putting out good products w/o dealing with shareholders demanding more.
And they make a ton of money doing right by their core consumer base, I would be very surprised if we see any of that change.
If Valve were any other company they would have laid off half their staff and coasted on that 30% from Steam. They’re not perfect, but maybe the only company I feel good about giving money to, consistently.
If valve were public, and required to make a lot more money than the previous quarter, they would absolutely need (want?) to get the maximum amount of money from wherever they could. It’s what I think it’s happening with netflix & others. It doesn’t matter that (hypotetically) they make a billion dolars of revenue. They need to make more next quarter. So they need to raise prices, forbid account sharing, reduce content quarity, anything to earn as much money as possible for next quarter.
Volvo could earn a billion dollars, and if they don’t want to earn more, they could happily stay the same. They might even want to make moves thinking on the long term, such as keep customers happy and excited, or invest in new technologies like proton. Compared to netflix execs, who don’t care about the long term, they care about next quarter.
I don’t know a lot about the stock market, but it looks stupid to me to bet on infinite growth. If the company earns money, and I own shares, shouldn’t I earn money via dividends? It looks to me like the only way to make money is to buy low and sell high? Or is that just greed?
If the company earns money, and I own shares, shouldn’t I earn money via dividends?
You do. Companies give dividends all the time (well, every x months, usually at least yearly).
It looks to me like the only way to make money is to buy low and sell high? Or is that just greed?
Just greed… mostly. A lot of people want to “get rich quick”, and a bunch of already rich people like to gamble to get even richer, so a lot of market volatility comes from greed… but a share price with good growth expectations can make it attractive enough that the company may decide to give lower dividends (no need to attract people), so if you can “buy low, sell high”, you may still want to do it regardless.
You can still ride the market mostly on dividends by diversifying and investing into multiple companies whose share prices will average out in the long run (picking the right diversified portfolio, is an art on itself).
need to make more next quarter
That’s mostly an effect of tying C-suite compensations too closely to share prices, with no further checks in place. When the main driving force behind the decision makers is increasing share prices, they’ll happily burn down the whole company, cash out, and jump ship.
Sometimes it’s done on purpose, when some long-time investors grow tired and decide to cash out, maybe because they expect a change in the market and the company becoming less competitive or even obsolete. If the expected changes are big enough, it’s easier to start a new company from scratch, than to restructure an old behemoth with thousands of people used to doing things “like they’ve always been done”.
Valve doesn’t use physical media, so there isn’t a need to enforce DRM at the hardware level
the Deck itself is sold at a small profit regardless of the configuration, so there’s no benefit to pushing users to higher-price configurations
Valve enforces its DRM in software via the OS
The biggest reasons to lock down hardware aren’t really there on the Deck. On top of that, it benefits Valve to have other devices running their storefront, so using off-the-shelf parts when possible makes it easier for others to use the Deck as a template.
I really have no idea what this comment is supposed to be about. Do you think companies like Apple don’t make buckets of money from their app store? Or their subscription services? Do you think they “need” to charge exorbitant prices for their hardware? Do you think they “need” to strike partnerships with their suppliers to ensure they can’t sell their parts to anyone else? Do you think they “need” to lock them down so that even if you’re able to obtain third party parts, they still won’t work?
Corporations don’t care about “needs”. Their goals are to extract as much money from the consumer as humanly possible.
Apple’s business model is to sell hardware, in order to “extract as much money from the consumer as humanly possible” they “need” to protect hardware sales first and foremost.
Valve’s business model is to sell software, in order to “extract […] possible” they “need” to have as much compatible hardware as possible.
You can argue that Apple’s business model is antiquated or suboptimal, but you’ll have to prove that freeing their hardware and reducing prices, would mean an equal or higher increase in benefits from their app store and subscriptions.
That is incorrect. Apple sells a wide variety of software and subscription services, including ALL apps in the App Store, with a whopping 30% share of any app purchase or in-app purchases, much like Steam.
Valve’s business model is to sell software
Valve could just as easily decide they want to profit from the hardware, just like Apple. Especially now that they’ve sold several million of them. They choose not to.
You can argue that Apple’s business model is antiquated or suboptimal
It is absolutely neither of those things. They have a brilliant business model. So much so that they’re able to sucker people into paying 100%+ more than any of their products are actually worth while simultaneously pissing in their faces and telling them it’s raining by building in a locked ecosystem, disallowing the users to decide what software they want to use, and making their hardware almost completely irreparable.
As someone who used to run a louis rossman electronics repair business for a couple years before i burned out.
LG G5 was and still is my point to for perfectly fixable devices.
Motorola is trash because you have to dismantle the phone from the back layer by layer just to reach the front screen.
HTC was even worse with two tier motherboards and octopuss ribbon cables were a nightmare to navigate.
iPhone was/ is possibly the easiest fucking phone to fix, ironically…however by the iphone 8 and onwards apple found increasingly shitty ways to make 3rd party repairs nearly impossible.
windows phones, nokia, and others were hit or miss. tablets were long winded affairs but generally easy due to their inherent size.
ive been out of the game since 2019 when covid dropped. id really like to hear the inside baseball on any current operators running repair business.
i used Repair Shopr software to manage my customers. idk if thats still the go to or if another has bested it.
When I couldn’t repair my Nokia and replace the 5 € USB-Port because there happened to be a small crack in the screen (of course you have to remove the glued on screen to accese the innards), I caved and bought a Fairphone 3.
Worst decision ever. The stupid thing refuses to break to let me even use the better repairability.
Honestly, I think I’ve never dropped a phone as much as this one. And apart from a few scratches there’s nothing. I think it’s the battery cover that usually just pops off like on the indestructible Nokia phones of decades past.
Really funny how I can use Nokia as both a positive and a negative example.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne