It’s interesting that this comes out during the FTC vs Microsoft case.
As much as Google shot itself in the foot, as usual, this also shows the anti-competitive landscape in gaming. One of the biggest issues Google had was convincing AAA studios to develop games for their “console”. Meanwhile, Microsoft is solving that by buying studios like Zenimax, Mojang, and soon Actiblizz. If you own the studio, they’re guaranteed to develop for your console, and they may choose not to develop for any competitor’s consoles.
But it has always been that way, with first party titles and exclusives , even purchasing studios like Rare or Psygnosis, its not like a brand new situation that developed right after Google announced Stadia.
If Google had done even any research, I would have started by looking at the PS1 launch and how Sony broke into a market then dominated by Nintendo and Sega with their exclusives, they would have secured a multi year pipeline of AAA titles before launch.
This is a mess Google could have completely avoided with some basic research and discussion with the remaining independent studios. Instead they launched and assumed that they could fix this shit later, rather than making an informed decision on if they actually had a real chance.
its not like a brand new situation that developed right after Google announced Stadia
No, but it’s telling that one of the world’s richest companies ran into this problem. It’s pretty typical of Google to be arrogant and not understand the market they were trying to break into. Also typical of them to give up when it turned out to be a hard problem to solve. But, still, they chose to give up rather than make what (for them) would have been a reasonably small investment to buy a few AAA studios.
It seems to me that to have been successful in this attempt they would have either had to become a major console manufacturer with their own exclusives (maybe not a market they wanted to be in) or to be the junior partner working with another console manufacturer, where they controlled the server side and the other company controlled the client-facing and studio-facing side. But, Google rarely does partnerships like that. You’re right that it really seems like they didn’t go into it with their eyes open. They seemed to just arrogantly assume that their technological superiority would be enough to disrupt consoles without having to do what everybody else did.
But this is a situation of their own making, anybody even remotely cognizant of how Sony and Microsoft entered the market, even Steam has lessons to share, would have been aware that they needed that pipeline of AAAs, and exactly how expensive AAA titles are to make. Its usually public record how much one of the manufacturers paid to buy studios as well, the order of magnitude of cash needed to properly enter the market are hardly secret.
Either they thought they could bully their way into getting them or they thought they didn’t need them, which is even worse, way way worse. They could have spent the money the others are in this space but didn’t, this is the main reason this fell on its arse. They can moan all they like about the price of admission but they could have afforded to pay it if they wanted or lobbied to change it before hand rather than wasting a few billions on this.
It will be very interesting at the level Apple pitch their new gaming service if the rumors are true. Do they go after the mobile lite eco system that Netflix is cobbling together or do they go all in?
I wish that I could read Chinese, to check if Recreate Games’ claim of mistranslation holds some ground. It feels fishy though - usually developers are quite cautious with ambiguity; and when a business says that the customers are “confused”, more often than not the customers are quite lucid and complaining about spot on stuff, it’s just that this goes against the business’ best interests.
I’m really excited to play with all these changes. I have just shy of 200 hours for 2 playthroughs, and virtually every change they’ve made here seems like it’ll improve things a lot.
There is no name calling involved in calling a bigot a bigot. The whole “polite discussion” thing is at best a thin veneer of respectability slapped on an obvious dog whistle.
Free speech does not mean freedom of consequence and it is well within Nexus Mods’s rights to not tolerate transphobia on their platform. I would even call that the bare minimum, actually.
If OP really wants honest and constructive discourse they should come out and actually express an opinion instead of hiding behind the fallacy of having “constructive” Interactions about whether or not fascism is ok.
While I appreciate your perspective, it seems there’s a misunderstanding. I’m not advocating for bigotry or hiding behind ‘polite discussion’ as a shield for harmful views. My interest is in the broader context of what content is so problematic that it requires removal and under what guidelines. Free speech indeed comes with consequences, which is why it’s important to examine those guidelines and their consistent application. This is not about condoning transphobia or any form of bigotry; it’s about discussing the thresholds and criteria that platforms like Nexus Mods use to make their moderation decisions. Understanding these mechanisms is essential for any community that wishes to maintain both openness and respect.
You talk about the “complexities of the subject matter”. There are none. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for the aforementioned mod. It was only created as a dog whistle and a beacon for bigots. Rational discussion cannot and should not be had when one party is not acting in good faith. I see no legitimate reason to dispute that ban, do you ?
I’m glad we’re getting more advanced magical vocations. The magick spearhand looks great and honestly gives a lot of jedi vibes. With the separation of archer and thief, we’ll have even more classes.
Super disappointed, I held off on buying S&V because of the technical issues but had assumed they’d be ironed out later. Doesn’t look like I’ll be getting it anytime soon
There’s very little constructive discussion to be had about this, if any.
Civility is one thing, but there’s not really anything to debate here. What complexities?
The mod’s only function was to hide an options menu. Its only purpose is to hide the fact that other people might wanna choose something else than the default, it literally did nothing else.
It didn’t add any option.
If it added any option at all, like to replace pronouns in dialogues with your character’s name or anything that’d be something else but it’s not.
I doubt that mod was made in good faith, but I don’t really care either way to be honest.
I’m not triggered by that mod’s existence, nor by its removal because it’s all mostly outage bait.
That other poster knew that was going to be a dumpster fire before they hit the button to post.
I honestly doubt this one is meant to do any better.
I understand your perspective on the mod and its likely intent. My original aim was not to discuss the mod per se, but to explore how moderation decisions are made. If we can’t have an open debate, it becomes difficult to understand where we draw the line on what is or isn’t acceptable content.
Shouldn’t users have the liberty to tailor their gaming experiences according to their personal preferences, especially in a game known for its moddability? It’s also important to note that not everyone who might use such a mod is necessarily doing so with the intent of exclusion.
“Why should it be removed?”
Because it hurts real people.
“But shouldn’t people be able to modify the game as they want?”
Sure, they can do it themselves, but no one has to host content that causes real-world harm.
“But why draw the line at this mod?”
See answer 1.
Ya know, I love it when people like you use “civil discussion” as a mask, because it’s always the most transparent thing ever. Your real goals are always on your sleeve, but you just keep pushing the same things over and over again so that, in the end, you can say “Look, I was civil, they weren’t!”
Do you know what gives you away? It’s the way no answer you ever receive is satisfactory. It’s never enough. And it’s usually cyclical, too, which is exactly the behavior you’ve displayed here.
First, the mod in question is not adding a new feature to the game but removing an existing one, a fundamental difference when discussing user agency in customization. If someone finds this feature unappealing or unnecessary, they might opt for its removal via the mod, thus tailoring the game to their preferences. This is in the spirit of game moddability, which celebrates personalization.
Second, the concept that ‘no answer I ever receive is satisfactory’ misconstrues the purpose of engaging in discourse. Discussion is not a box to be checked off but a mechanism for deeper understanding. If the answers received were universally satisfactory, the discourse would be stagnant, wouldn’t it?
Lastly, if a mod does not align with one’s values, the solution is straightforward: do not download it. The presence of such a mod doesn’t mandate its use. Assigning a single motive to all users of a mod is not just an oversimplification but also an assumption that does not stand up to scrutiny. Therefore, as we engage in this dialogue, let’s not make broad generalizations but aim for a nuanced understanding.
Claim whatever motivations you want, but reading through this series of comments does a great job of showing everyone your real motivation. You are not here for rational discussion of moderation policy. Your trying to argue that bigoted materials should be allowed.
I can’t stop looking at this train wreck. But ima try.
Spend a year on Moonstone Island tending to your farm, crafting potions, exploring over 100 islands in the sky, taming spirits, unearthing hidden temples, making friends, or having a sweet romance — play your way in our adorable, upcoming adventure life-sim!
High magic stardew valley? Looks really neat! I like the look of the card battles, too.
games
Aktywne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.