I’ve learned a long time ago that if you just wait a few years these games will go on sale for $20 and will have enough informed reviews to help make a solid purchasing decision. Gamers need to get off this new release hype train and be patient. I personally won’t play KCD 2, I disliked the first one. I will probably try Avowed in a few years after I get through my existing backlog of ~100 unplayed games in Steam. We are spoiled for choice and the market is filled with good indie games.
Sure but the cheap market would not exist if a majority of people would not buy the game at full price. Sure there are a lot of smart people who don’t fall for the FOMO and hype but if a AAA game would only sell for 30€ it would not offset its development cost and no new game would be made.
If they cut the system, we’ll get the money in our pay. So at least we can control it. Just don’t spend it on games that will hit your backlog and sit for years. I’m personally guilty btw.
I don’t know, I was unemployed for a while and literally spent every waking hour gaming for many months straight. It was the happiest time of my life. I’d give up a lot to be so financially stable I could do that again.
I substitute socialising with small streaming channels. Like the ones that have less than 5-10 people watching ever. You can come and go as you please and no one cares, and you can make real connections and have actual conversions with both the streamer and other viewers. People with channels that small aren’t doing it for the money, they’re doing it to have people to chill with while they play.
Some would say they aren’t real friends but I think there’s a point you can get to where I would disagree.
Having one thing be your only hobby will get boring for the majority of people, so just have some extra hobbies. I could definitely spend 75% of my time gaming and the rest on other hobbies and feel great.
I’m so sorry, text of the original Reddit post below.
My family poops big. Maybe it’s genetic, maybe it’s our diet, but everyone births giant logs of crap. If anyone has laid a mega-poop, you know that sometimes it won’t flush. It lays across the hole in the bottom of the bowl and the vortex of draining water merely gives it a spin as it mocks you. Growing up, this was a common enough occurrence that our family had a poop knife. It was an old rusty kitchen knife that hung on a nail in the laundry room, only to be used for that purpose. It was normal to walk through the hallway and have someone call out “hey, can you get me the poop knife”? I thought it was standard kit. You have your plunger, your toilet brush, and your poop knife. Fast forward to 22. It’s been a day or two between poops and I’m over at my friend’s house. My friend was the local dealer and always had ‘guests’ over, because you can’t buy weed without sitting on your ass and sampling it for an hour. I excuse myself and lay a gigantic turd. I look down and see that it’s a sideways one, so I crack the door and call out for my friend. He arrives and I ask him for his poop knife. “My what?” Your poop knife, I say. I need to use it. Please. “Wtf is a poop knife?” Obviously he has one, but maybe he calls it by a more delicate name. A fecal cleaver? A Dung divider? A guano glaive? I explain what it is I want and why I want it. He starts giggling. Then laughing. Then lots of people start laughing. It turns out, the music stopped and everyone heard my pleas through the door. It also turns out that none of them had poop knives, it was just my fucked up family with their fucked up bowels. FML. I told this to my wife last night, who was amused and horrified at the same time. It turns out that she did not know what a poop knife was and had been using the old rusty knife hanging in the utility closet as a basic utility knife. Thankfully she didn’t cook with it, but used it to open Amazon boxes. She will be getting her own utility knife now.
<span style="color:#323232;">[Edit: Common question - Why was this not in the bathroom instead of the laundry room? Answer. We only had one poop knife, and the laundry room was central to all three bathrooms. I have no idea why we didn't have three poop knives. All I know is that we didn't. We had the one. Possibly because my father was notoriously cheap about the weirdest things. So yes, we shared our poop knife.]
</span>
In my experience, there are actually a lot more dialogue choices based on your skills, which I really liked—it makes me feel more connected to my character. So I’d say there’s more role-playing depth than Skyrim, but at the same time, the action feels better too.
I really enjoy the combat; it’s not easy, even on medium difficulty. If I’m not careful, I can die pretty quickly, which makes it more fun and engaging for me.
The only downside is that the world feels smaller than Skyrim. In Skyrim, I had this feeling that the world was endless, but in Avowed, it feels more limited. However, that’s fine—not every game can be a legend like Skyrim for me! :)
This is a genuine question and not me trying to be snarky or anything: how’s that possible? Was there any meaningful role playing in Skyrim at all?
To me the system simplification of Skyrim went so far that the only real role you could play was the dragonborn - not your specific one but a generic dragonborn who could be anyone and everything at the same time. Maybe my definition of role playing is outdated as I feel it should include choices and consequences (like blocking or limiting access to some content) so I’d be grateful if you could expand on that.
Again, I’m not trying to suggest you’re wrong or anything, I’m just curious about your perspective (or something more about what you’ve read).
I think what I read was actually about oblivion rather than Skyrim, but I’m not sure if that changes your questions or not. I agree that the Skyrim character did feel like a genetic dragonborn. The guild quests especially made it feel that way. (I’m the head wizard, but also chief fighter dude and captain of the thieves guild… What?)
I guess for the role play aspect I prefer games to more narrowly define the main character and tell the story from there rather than leave it up to me to decide who the character becomes. A Plague Tale is a great example of this type of story telling, but of course it isn’t at all comparable to an open world game.
Change from Oblivion to Skyrim would definitely affect my question. I do think the former had more “my kind” of role playing so the initial thought would be more understandable for me.
Thanks for the answer. I get what you mean about playing as more defined main characters, it definitely has it’s benefits over more open-ended approach.
There’s never been much content blocking in elder scrolls. You could always master every skill even in Morrowind. Morrowind had a few exclusive guilds, but even Skyrim had a couple. Role playing in Skyrim is self imposed.
Guild exclusivity is actually what I had in mind. Sure, there’s nothing that significantly changes the main quest in TES games (and I think I misremembered how much blocking is there in previous titles) but that still counts for me personally. Self-imposed role play is fine in general (I do it all the time in games in fact) but I still think that lack of reasonable requirements for some (optional?) content makes the world feel more generic and player-focused than I’d like.
No, there wasn’t - Skyrim is the video game equivalent of makeup on an otherwise uninteresting individual. Might seem pretty at first, but the lack of depth or meaning dulls any beauty.
A good contrast is something like Outer Worlds, where there is usually multiple possible outcomes. I think it comes from their Fallout lessons learned and GURPS background. Love the game design. (Dislike the combat, but that is a separate thing.)
Same, I really enjoyed Veilgaurd and actually finished the damn thing, which is rare for me these days. It wasn’t perfect, but it was a good, breezy arpg.
For them to be prosecuted as a monopoly, or be considered one legally, it would have to be shown that they achieved or maintain their dominant market position by preventing or undermining competition. Say by having a bunch of exclusivity deals to keep big name titles only on their storefront, or by buying out any competitor that gained traction.
Monopoly isn’t about being the biggest seller in a market, it’s about being the biggest player in the market by undermining competition and restricting commerce.
Edit: want to clarify there is a distinction between the legal meaning of monopoly (see the Sherman anti trust act and other subsequent laws and rulings) and the colloquial usage (Only seller in the market). Steam is nether.
A lot of people seem to think that a monopoly has a much, much more direct and literal definition than it actually does.
The definition the FTC uses is:
Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors.
That is how that term is used here: a “monopolist” is a firm with significant and durable market power.
Courts look at the firm’s market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
Some courts have required much higher percentages.
(Well, at least untill Elon and Trump put the fucking Shark Tank guy in charge, or something like that.)
Generally speaking, a monopolist is a single entity that has captured a huge chunk of an otherwise varying and well differentiated market, if your market is closer to the theoretical (ie, not real) idea of perfect competition, or if you’re talking about a consolidated market with only a few major players, the monopolist has at least 50% of the market, though, depending on other factors, that line may be drawn at up to 75% ish.
Different specific situations, regions, laws, etc. establish differing specific criteria… but the idea is not that a monopolist is defined by being literally 100% of the market.
That situation would specifically be referred to as a ‘perfect monopoly’, and like ‘perfect competition’, is basically theoretical only, or a situation where you’re looking at something like a local public utility or some kind of government/state entity.
In actual mainstream academic and legal usage though, a monopoly is a single entity in the market has a very outsized market share when compared to any other market participant, such that its actions alone can very significantly affect all other market participants.
…
Now… when it comes to Steam… a whole lot of the arguement is ‘what is and is not the market, what constitutes its boundaries?’
If you define it as just ‘PC video games’, then sure Steam likely is an effective monopoly.
But if you define it as ‘all digital games’, then no, not even close, the Google Play Store and Apple Store are responsible for far more digital game downloads than Steam, way waaay more games are mobile games than PC games, if you go by yearly or monthly downloads, or market share.
It gets even more complicated with cross platform games.
Ultimately, it would be up to a lawsuit, lawyers, judges, industry experts, to argue all of the specifics of exactly whether or not its legally valid to formally classify Steam as a monopoly that would need to be broken up or penalized or regulated in some way, and a huge part of that legal battle would be based around differing definitions of what exactly Steam is a monopoly if, and whether those precise definitions are valid.
…
‘Other options exist for consumers’ or ‘they don’t have a perfect monopoly’ is not a valid arguement against Steam being a monopoly if Steam facilitates 85% of PC game sales, and the other 15% is split up between 10 or so other digital store fronts.
If that is your rubric for ‘what is the market’, then yeah, Steam is a monopoly.
But, if your rubric is ‘all digital games’, then no, Steam is just a large player in a market with other larger players, other slightly smaller players, and many other very small players.
…
Beyond that, a huge part of legally being determined to be a monopoly is unethical/illegal behavior of the ‘monopolist’ being used to obtain or maintain their monopoly.
In Steam’s case… I think that would be pretty hard to substantiate, its more so just that Steam had the idea first, expanded upon it quite a lot, and no one really bothered to try to compete with them on the same level untill basically the Epic store, fairly recently.
I’ll ignore the market share question and talk a little about history. The compatibility layer is what killed OS/2 back in the day.
See, IBM (with OS/2) and Microsoft (with Windows 2.x and 3.x) were cooperating initially. Windows was the new kid on the block, and MS was allowing IBM to make a windows application compatibility layer on OS/2 in the early days. Think Windows 2.x/3.x. This was a brilliant stroke on behalf of MS, since the application developers would choose the Windows API and develop against that API only. Soon, there were no real native OS/2 apps being sold in any stores. Once MS Office came about, OS/2 was effectively a dead commercial product, outside of the server space.
The parallel here is that wine allows developers to target only the Windows API (again). This means you don’t have to bother with linux support at all and just hope that Proton or whatever will do the work for you.
There are some modern differences though. First: Linux didn’t start as a major competitor to Windows in the desktop/gaming space. We’d all love the Linux marketshare to increase, but largely there isn’t a huge economic driver behind it. So Linux will increase or not and the world will keep on turning. We’re not risking being delegated to history like OS/2. The second: the compatibility layer is being made as an open source project, and this isn’t MS trying to embrace-extend-extinguish in the same way that their assistance to IBM implementing that layer was. (We could quibble about .Net and Mono and others though.)
So I don’t think it’ll play out the same way. Linux will be okay. It’s already a vast improvement from prior years.
Historically, there was nothing like a killer hardware situation for OS/2 – no equivalent of the Steam Deck – that was driving wide hardware adoption to encourage additional native apps. Valve has done more for linux desktop adoption in the last few years than anyone that came prior.
I remember it well. I think the biggest difference between OS/2 then and Linux today is that OS/2 wasn't all that much better than Windows in any easily understood way for the average non-technical user.
bin.pol.social
Ważne