Also, I refuse to ignore this in any conversation about Counter Strike, it is fucked up.
Honestly, that’s fair. Valve gets a lot of good will for making good games, but the fact that they happily allow Counter-Strike to enable what’s essentially a casino for kids has got to be one of the most scummy things in video game monetisation.
Ignoring all the monetisation, which is basically a pipeline into gambling addiction for kids.
Counter-Strike players largely don’t want major change. The reason people play it is because it hasn’t changed much in the last 30 years or so that it’s been a thing. I barely switch on my PC anymore these days, so my information is largely dated, but Valve does add things from time to time, besides skins: new guns and maps, minor alterations to the mechanics and ruleset, new game modes (most of which didn’t survive the transition to CS2 unfortunately), seasonal events, etc.
Bigger changes like vehicles and destruction would turn the game into something else entirely and even if they were only available in a side mode, I reckon Valve has numbers showing that not enough people would care enough to actually play it (like the Battle Royal mode, which I’m still salty they removed).
You could argue that Valve is doing the bare minimum to keep the game alive and generating revenue from the gambling mechanics and I’d probably agree, but also I don’t think the game needs to change at a faster pace.
There really aren’t that many premium experiences on mobile that are worth a damn imo. They’re usually just ports of games from other platforms that control terribly on a touch screen. For me to be willing to pay for a mobile game it has to be a good game and a good fit for the platform. Apart from Balatro not much comes to mind.
That’s kind of my point. Some people buy 10000€ world tour level bikes, but you can get a road bike with hydraulic disc brakes new for under 2000€ which will still be a very good bike and be future proof for years to come. And you can get much lower than that if you are willing to go used and ride something a bit older eg. with rim brakes and that will also be an excellent bike, perhaps better than a new one for 2k€.
Cycling is an expensive hobby (just like gaming), but it only gets ridiculously expensive when people buy into the marketing and want the newest, highest end stuff. Which is fine and of course you can get some marginal gains out of it. It’s like buying a 5090: your games will run a bit better, but you can get just as much enjoyment out of an older card for a fraction of the cost.
Technically you can “play” other things too (there are competitors that offer the similar experiences), including GTA. But nobody is Zwifting for the gameplay anyway. It’s not really a game and just something to make indoor cycling in the off season a little bit less dull. Personally I don’t think it’s worth the subscription and would rather just watch a movie.
I mean you could say the same about any current AAA game. A Zwift setup including the bike, trainer and device to run it on can easily be cheaper than a modern gaming rig.
I don’t know, bikes are incredibly diverse vehicles too. A tricycle is nothing like a cargo bike, a full suspension mountain bike, a road bike, a time trial bike, a BMX, a fixed gear etc. and they all feel very different to ride.
And while there might not be as many moving parts as on a car, a lot of engineering goes into the design of high end bicycles. If you’re into bikes, it’s very easy to appreciate the beauty and functional design of a well designed bicycle.
The fact that they are at their core simple machines which basic function hasn’t changed since the invention of the safety bicycle in the 1880s, yet have been innovated on ever since to arrive at the bikes we have today is what makes them fascinating imo.
Some people enjoy cars and some people enjoy bikes, but there isn’t really anything that makes one more inherently interesting.
I played it and completed the story. In my opinion it’s not awful, but it’s not exactly good either. The gameplay is bland, repetitive and unoriginal. Nothing about it is special in any way and unless you care about the Star Wars license, there is literally zero reason to play it. If you do care about the license the gameplay is serviceable enough to keep you busy while it tells its story, but that’s about it. Which makes it pretty ironic that Ubisoft blames Star Wars for the game’s lack of success.
For shooters, especially competitive ones, as high as possible up to my monitor’s refresh rate (165Hz). Everything else 60 FPS is fine. Even 30 FPS can be fine, especially if I’m playing something on Switch.