Gamepass is neat idea in theory, but I really dont trust corporations to not use it to ruin it all to get more money. If most people used gamepass, you propably couldnt at some point buy games regularly at all or only at crazy prices. Also modding games on gamepass is more difficult or just impossible sometimes due to files being locked.
I would rather it all die and force back to disks, or at least some guarantee you actually own the game.
All these services are going to become endlessly tiered with eventual extra dlc costs. They know most gamers spend $300 a year on games. So if Gamepass takes off, expect the base option to eventually be $15 a month, with tiers up to $40, maybe higher… who knows what whales will spend, especially if they throw in currency bonuses.
Then they will add in some in store currency and give the highest subscriber tiers extra Boxbux to spend on DLC… or probably literally loot boxes.
It would be neat to see support for a universal digital library system. Where it can only be checked to one person. If you want to sell the game, you uninstall and it provides you with a token number it generates. That unique number is tied to the copy of the game. You sell the token number, they now own the game. If they ever uninstall it, they get a new number to trade. Or libraries could lend them for free using the same system.
The only concern was that I can’t investigate legally. I’m a detective. Why it is required to brake the law every other investigation? I hope they will make it optional
Well that’s a horrible thought for the gaming industry. Nintendo and Valve… and if they don’t sell the companies, they will buy majority stock, presumably for seats on the board, and buy it anyway.
Can’t they keep their fucking greedy mitts to themselves. Conglomerate mega corp shit is really starting to fuck me off.
Up to 87 hours warts and all. Have played through some great quests. Also found plenty of bugs and annoyances, but overall it’s great. The random procedural quests are a nice addition, a call back to Daggerfall. The space combat is an ok addition. Bases are the big waste of time here, but you don’t really need to do one. There are lots of nice shoutouts to your character after doing certains quests, including NG+. (Few things that don’t make sense, and they could’ve pushed it farther -
spoilerlike does it makes sense to join the Crimson Fleet in the Razorleaf, better to have cut out that questline for that play thru IMO
) Overall quite satisifed and i’m enjoying it a lot. I can see getting to 100 hours easily without mods.
I just talked to a guy who was facing away from me, well his head was looking at the wall while his body was pointed at me. It was…disconcerting…(and amusing!)
This is such a stupid ass post. Nobody has to put up with the shitty viewpoints pushed by the mod or from people that would use the mod. Nobody owes you civility if you reveal you hold similar views or are okay with those views being pushed. Do not tolerate intolerance.
Fuck off, the topic has been hot in politics for ages, if you’re still against trans people and fighting back against “pronouns” you’ve made your choice and know where you stand.
I understand that the topic at hand is emotionally charged and has been the subject of intense political debate. However, it appears that my original intent might have been misunderstood. I’m not advocating for or against the mod in question.
Instead, my focus is on the criteria that platform moderators use to decide what content should or should not be allowed. This discussion is not about endorsing intolerance but about understanding how these moderation decisions are made. I believe that it is possible to discuss this aspect without necessarily taking a stance on the mod’s content itself.
The topic begins and ends at “Intolerance is not tolerated”, further discussion would be a thinly veiled attempt at justifying displays of intolerance.
I appreciate your input, but I’m puzzled as to why you chose to comment on a post explicitly seeking constructive dialogue if you’re not interested in having a nuanced discussion. My original question aimed to understand the criteria behind platform moderation decisions. I believe it’s an issue that can be discussed without necessarily endorsing or disavowing the content of the mod in question. Would you be open to discussing that aspect?
Gross dude, the criteria is whatever the site says it is, in this case it was a mod with bigoted intention. What nuance is there to this discussion? Do you want to discuss what level of bigotry should be accepted? Homosexuals are off limits but trans people are fair game? Is that the nuance you want to address?
further discussion would be a thinly veiled attempt at justifying displays of intolerance.
While I’ve already acknowledged that the mod in question was rightly removed due to bigoted comments in its description, that’s not the focal point of my inquiry. What I’m driving at is the more general issue of content moderation and what warrants removal. I’m not asking for any form of bigotry to be permitted; I’m questioning how we, as a community, decide what crosses the line. It’s curious that you label my pursuit of a nuanced dialogue as ‘gross,’ especially given the content you freely share. It seems our standards for what is acceptable differ considerably.
Your accusation of a ‘thinly veiled attempt at justifying displays of intolerance’ ignores my stated objective: to foster a conversation about how platforms decide what content to remove. I’ve already acknowledged the mod’s removal was warranted due to its author’s bigoted comments. My interest lies in examining the broader principles behind such decisions.
However, as Mark Twain once said, ‘Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.’ It seems we’re unlikely to engage in the meaningful dialogue I was hoping for, so perhaps it’s best to leave it at that.
games
Najnowsze
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.