Mine’s 15 now, but back in the day I used those bootlegged Steam clients that allowed me to run Garry’s Mod for free. Those were the hackey, piratey times of 700MB aXXo DVD rips that took 1 hour to download.
I'm just here to remind people that those guys are active shills that sold out immediately back when all of us principled ones were raging about them forcing always online DRM onto Half Life 2 and actively boycotting it (and still playing a cracked copy anyway, because hey).
And you know what? We were right. Turns out it DID make everything a nightmarish hellscape of big brother-esque remote digital rights control where you never own anything you buy. Those 20 year old veterans ruined it all.
So yeah, they get a badge and I get to go "you maniacs, you blew it up!" and so on.
Really? I was against Steam when it came out, it felt like insanity: I have to create an account, then register my CD key and it’s gone!? How will I be able to share this game with my friends?!
But after a while it’s straight up better. Do you still remember SecuROM (which shut off its servers, so you can’t even get games with it to run nowadays)? Or having to go to the developer’s website to manually download update 1.0.1a to 1.0.1b to 1.1 to 1.1.2 to 1.3a to 1.4 to … (if you were lucky they offered bigger patches where you could directly jump from 1.0.1a to 1.4 or something). And then years later the developer was bought up or shut down, so the patches were no longer available.
Don’t even remind me of having to stand up, go over to my pile of games, find the right box, open it up, grab the CD, go back to the PC, put the CD in, then start the game I want (hopefully the CD wasn’t scratched). Nowadays I don’t even have a CD drive anymore and I currently have ~70 games installed that I can start in a second or two.
I grew up with sharing CDs (and keys) with friends, or putting a CD into one computer, boot the game, put the CD in a second computer, boot the game, then play on LAN. Steam is way better still. If you don’t like it, buy from GOG.
I do buy from GOG. It's my primary online store. I only go to the others when something isn't available there. Which is most of the time, because we live in the lamest dystopia.
For what it's worth, fanboys are gonna fanboy, but I have no need to deny Steam's conveniences to call them out on the anti-property DRM crap. Absolutely piecemeal DRM is worse. Not that Steam made it disappear, I had a game install Denuvo on me over Steam just this week.
Absolutely digitally purchasing games is better than digging up optical media for DRM checks. Absolutely it's better to have worldwide digital launches where you just... get the game the second it launches instead of running around after it like a crazy person.
But we do live in a DRM dystopia where we own nothing and are supposed to like it, the tens of thousands of dollars dumped into my Steam account will go away the moment a Steam moderator decides they don't like me and they will certainly evaporate after I'm gone, and many, many games are now lost media like we just started making TV but haven't invented video tapes yet.
All those things get to be true at the same time. I was kinda joking with my original post just to remind people that Steam was far from controversial and beloved at launch, but since we're talking about it... yeah, hell yeah, we gave up on basic ownership for the sake of convenience and Steam was absolutely part of that process.
Not every game on Steam has DRM. There are plenty of indie games on there where you can download it, copy the files away and play them offline. And for what it’s worth: Gabe Newell did promise that if Steam ever shuts down they’ll offer you all your games as downloads (though so far they have been solid).
I’ve never heard of a legitimate Steam account getting banned. You might be thinking of VAC bans (where your account is flagged as a cheater), which can force you out of multiplayer servers. But losing your entire Steam library? Unheard of so far if you don’t mess up on purpose (like trading stolen items, excessive account sharing, using a stolen credit card, doing chargebacks, etc.).
Right. See, you think that list of bannable reasons at the end is making this sound less dystopian and DRM-abusive and stuff?
It's kinda doing the opposite.
Don't get me wrong, most of those are scummy (not sure about the account sharing one, though), but in real life you at best get fined or banned from a store or something. Nobody comes into your house and sets your 20 year old game collection on fire for being a bit of a dick.
Which, hey, whatever, I don't expect my Steam account to get banned any time soon. But the EULA is very clear that none of those games are a thing that I own and I don't get to give them away and people don't get to inherit them eventually and if they DO decide I'm a scumbag those games are gone.
And that sounded quaint and hypothetical in the early 2000s, but dude, that account is a significant share of my assets by now. If I had bought all those games physically I could live on reselling them for months.
Go and do a chargeback on literally any other service on this planet and see what happens, whatever account it is will get nuked from orbit.
Reselling didn’t even work back in the day with physical copies. The CD key was often only good for x activations, then at some point you had to call a support line. It’s a dubious argument.
Yes, pay to license a game that doesn’t belong to you isn’t great, but I’m confident that at least in the EU Valve wouldn’t get away with taking access away from an entire game library. Especially for random TOS violations.
But we haven’t had a single legitimate case so far, so discussing what might or could happen is moot.
"Service" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. As is the narrow band of time and games you're referring to that required online activations at all. For a long chunk of PC gaming even games with a CD key only performed an offline algorithmic check on the key.
So yeah, if you breach the EULA in a service you get banned. If you own a thing you don't get it destroyed for a separate infraction, though. Which is my point.
And honestly, I seriously doubt that they wouldn't get away with an account ban in the EU. There are many ways in which the EU does good stuff to curb abuses of so-called "services", including dragging Steam kicking and screaming into having a semi-functional return policy, but EULA-based infractions driving account bans hasn't historically been one of their pet peeves, and there are absolutely examples of people losing access to large libraries out there.
and there are absolutely examples of people losing access to large libraries out there.
Do you have an example? I’d love to read it. I only find people who lost their account (like forgetting their credentials), who got hacked or did illegal things (stolen credit cards, scamming, selling stolen items).
I can’t find someone legitimate so far who lost all access to their Steam account for ToS reasons.
I'd argue the "illegal things" fit my definition because, again, you do not lose access to legitimately purchased things for doing those things in the physical world.
Likewise for banned bought-and-sold accounts, of which there are some examples online. Selling things or telling someone your credentials is not illegal, the only basis to remove access to the account on that would be the EULA.
At least it's digital rights control now instead of your rights depending on a fragile piece of plastic and aluminum.
What good is legally owning a game if I lose access to it just because it physically broke? I'd still have to buy it again (or pirate it) if anything happened to the disk, so IMO, it's a wash.
We give up legal rights in exchange for extra short term safety and convenience. And if Steam or the developer ever takes it away from me, I can always just go pirate it to get it back.
If I punched you in the dick, would you say, "At least you didn't kick me in the dick (with shoes!)"?
What good is legally "owning" a game if you can never sell it, and what good is games never breaking if you can't buy and run them from a yard sale for a quarter?
My point is that owning games was never any good because there was always some severe limitation on your legal rights since the game itself is a piece of software and there's no universal way to guarantee your ownership of a piece of software.
The disk could always break. If there was any online component, they could always take down the servers. Or if the game was broken from the start or became broken at any point, they could always just never provide the necessary update to make it playable.
I've never really been one to sell my games because I'm always wanting to go back and play them later, so I can't really offer any input on that fact.
I just prefer the system that gives me at least a paper thin guarantee over the one that's less convenient and has absolutely no guarantee.
If there was any online component, they could always take down the servers. Or if the game was broken from the start or became broken at any point, they could always just never provide the necessary update to make it playable.
Digital only just makes those problems apply to all games.
I've never really been one to sell my games because I'm always wanting to go back and play them later, so I can't really offer any input on that fact.
I like playing a collection too, and I was able to acquire it because other people where able to sell/give away theirs
I just prefer the system that gives me at least a paper thin guarantee over the one that's less convenient and has absolutely no guarantee.
Being able to physically hold everything needed to play the game was our guarantee.
A guarantee the publisher would never ever be able to take what we had just paid $60 (or less, secondhand) away from us.
Owning over a 1000 copies of physical games sounds like a nightmare in managing the space and searching for titles to me. And when I look at the market prices of old retro games and then the counterfeits I’m not too upset about the move towards digital.
Tell you what, we used to have 6 games and we were happy.
And when I look at the market prices of old retro games and then the counterfeits
I'm with you there, but maybe the prices are going up because new physical games aren't being released any more, so I can contort my way to blame that on digital gaming, too.
As for 3rd party repros I like those; they fill a niche. Heck, someone should make ...pros of games that never got physical releases.
Tell you what, we used to have 6 games and we were happy.
I am happy with the much wider variety of titles I have available. Only area where I still liked physical was consoles, but it was only because I was only buying it for exclusives which ended up being like maybe 10 over the lifetime.
But, if it were my main I’d go for digital too, but with console releases on PC I don’t even bother with consoles anymore.
I’m with you there, but maybe the prices are going up because new physical games aren’t being released any more, so I can contort my way to blame that on digital gaming, too.
I guess you can go ask consoles why they stopped making games after each new generation, and why Nintendo limited their supply of physical games even before digital compared to Sony to keep their prices from dropping.
For me games have been the cheapest they’ve been with stuff like humble bundles and being able to buy old games through direct channels as opposed to used sellers a decade later. Being able to buy something like KOTOR or system shock is cool to me over having to buy some used copy sold by a reseller that might not even be legit.
Everyone saw the current landscape coming, and there was no way around it if we wanted online distribution. I hate DRM as much as the next guy, and love my physical collection, but it wasn't Valve and Steam that ushered in this BS. You can avoid steam, and a large amount of DRM if you genuinely care about. There was pushback years later and even Apple allowed you to DRM-less options.
After years of MPAA and RIAA BS piracy claims from cd & dvd ripping and declining physical sales, every company and their mom was looking into DRM to allay the fears of copyright holders and enable digital distribution. It was going to happen regardless of Steam. Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Philips, etc were all launching the same shit. Apple launched the iTunes store months before with complete DRM and people ate that up. Companies new years before people would adopt it if the benefits of digital distribution outweighed the inconvenience, and they were right.
Shit like Denuvo was going to happen regardless, as despite the push back on some of the invasive DRM, some companies remain unconvinced. They do it even on top of Steam.
No, wait, it literally WAS Steam. I mean, it wasn't just Steam, but those guys were there at ground level. Valve is ultimately an offshoot of Microsoft, it's not like becoming the main app store on home PCs by introducing structured DRM, sales and download management software wasn't part of their plan.
So let's be clear about what we're talking about here. Denuvo? Yep, that sort of DRM predates Steam. License limits and online activation? That's contemporary to Steam and it's the problem Steam is trying to solve. Online app stores built around DRM? Steam is as early on that race as it gets, and it's absolutely built for that purpose.
I like it as a piece of software, too, it's well made, but why whitewash it?
Plus, I have to point out that you seem to be arguing two opposite things at once. Is DRM inevitable? Well, since you seem to be correctly arguing that DRM-free alternatives do exist and seem to be financially viable... I'm gonna say no?
My argument is that it was inevitable at the time, and everyone saw it coming. It was going to happen regardless of whether Valve created steam or not.
You literally state this:
Turns out it DID make everything a nightmarish hellscape of big brother-esque remote digital rights control where you never own anything you buy. Those 20 year old veterans ruined it all.
I don't think any of that is true. You can avoid most of the shitty DRM today and the big brother-esque remote DRM. People who adopted it then, didn't usher this in.
But they did it. They made it work. Somebody else might have, I suppose, but it was literally them. EA was trying hard to push online activations and failing miserably. Download managers paired with DRM were a dime a dozen and were not making a dent. It was Steam.
They took the most anticipated game in the PC landscape and acquired the most played mod, bundled them together with their trojan horse of a DRM-cum-online store and forced the entire PC community to buy into it or be unable to play the big stuff.
That´s what they actually did in the real world. I remember, I was there.
So given that Steam absolutely counts as "shitty DRM" in my book, I'm not sure your representation fits reality. Like I said above, I buy DRM-free games whenever possible and my Steam account is still growing way faster than my GOG account despite prioritizing GOG.
Eh, I joined knowing full well that I was trading permanent ownership and the risk of losing access if steam failed for the convenience of installing and updating without needing to do every game separately. I wasn't in the habit of trading in games anyway, and if I get an average amount of enjoyment across games then that works out whether I uninstall from steam or throw a box in the trash.
After using it for two decades steam is still the best decision I have made for gaming even of there is still a risk that they could go belly up or remove my games at will with no recourse. The few games I lost access to were online multi-player where the servers shut down, and physicsl media would not have avoided that. On the upside many games that would have lost support over time have always been available to install and run without needing to store physical media, and a combination of sales for lowered prices and a game just being available have made the platform my reliable go to.
Competitors like GoG that offer DRM free versions are another great avenue for people! I even have a couple of games from then, but convenience and consistent reliability has been the reason that I load a game in steam nearly every day even if just for a quick round. Basically the opposite of a hellscape in my experience, but then again I have had mostly reliable internet during that time.
On a side note, I have no idea what steam levels are or whar any of the steam perks stuff is. I just use it for launching games.
When it was released, Steam was absolute shit, which is something people tend to forget or ignore.
It has certainly come a long way, but it’s still a “Games as a Service” where you don’t really own anything.
Then again, my account is 18 y.o.
You might disagree with the Steam DRM wrapper in principle, but in practice it's laughably easy to bypass (by design). The difference between a DRM-free game and a game solely running Steam DRM is five minutes of effort, at that point does DRM even matter?
The Steam DRM wrapper is an important part of Steam platform because it verifies game ownership and ensures that Steamworks features work properly by launching Steam before launching the game.
The Steam DRM wrapper by itself is not an anti-piracy solution. The Steam DRM wrapper protects against extremely casual piracy (i.e. copying all game files to another computer) and has some obfuscation, but it is easily removed by a motivated attacker.
We suggest enhancing the value of legitimate copies of your game by using Steamworks features which won't work on non-legitimate copies (e.g. online multiplayer, achievements, leaderboards, trading cards, etc.).
It matters because it's there. If it was meant to not be DRM it... wouldn't be DRM. That copy is very much designed to justify the fact that Steam allows games to publish with double or even triple DRM solutions under the Steam platform.
In practice, the DRM matters because it discourages keeping a backup of fully owned game files. On GOG it's trivial to backup offline installers, which are provided explicitly (and I do keep a backup of games I only own on GOG, by the way). Steam explicitly limits your access to your games and how you use them, presumably to support a secure microtransaction environment within the Steam platform. That'd be the "ensures the Steamworks features work" bit in that text.
That's extremely nontrivial for Steam, for the record. Disputing the ability to drive separate MTX under Steam is why several major publishers ended up withdrawing for a bit until they realized it's not commercially viable and Steam is effectively a quasi-monopoly on the PC platform.
There are different types of DRM. Your original post was that Steam "forces always online DRM" and "you never own anything you buy". This doesn't really apply to Steam DRM. You don't need to be always-online and it is not for anti-piracy. It sounds more like you are describing Denuvo which is another thing entirely. Comparing Steam DRM to Denuvo is like comparing the Wright flyer to a fighter jet.
I don't like DRM either but at the end of the day I can just run Steamless so I don't really care. Streaming services like Netflix have the same thing but it all can be pirated anyway so no big deal. It would be different if Steam actually implemented effective DRM, but it doesn't.
That copy is very much designed to justify the fact that Steam allows games to publish with double or even triple DRM solutions under the Steam platform.
Steam allows it, but they actually officially discourage the use of third party DRM
Anti-tamper / DRM: In general we don't recommend use of such solutions across any PC platforms, as they may impact disk usage and overall performance. Getting them fully functional in the Wine environment can take some time and add significant latency to getting your title supported.
In regards to Valve discouraging it, once third party DRM is removed later (because all publishers do it due to subscription cost.) the performance and quality of the game improves on Windows and even more so on Linux.
Look, Valve people speak a very specific way. It takes a while to wrap your head around what they mean.
The quote you're giving me is Valve-speak for "we were cool with your double-dipping DRM back when it was free for us but we now would prefer you don't add it to your game because it makes it harder for us to sell your games on Steam Deck where we control the whole platform".
And yes, those things do apply to Steam. You absolutely don't own your Steam games. Those go away with your account, unless you're actively extracting and repackaging those files for backup. This is itself a breach of Steam's EULA and not a service they provide. It is absolutely a piracy mitigation tool and, while there is a "Offline Mode" you are not allowed or able to install or play your games without online verification as a general rule.
The notion that multiple people here are questioning the fact that Steam's DRM is, in fact, DRM because it's crackable is kind of shocking. It's a testament to their PR, for sure, but also to their ability to do long term moves due to being a private company. It didn't take a genius to understand that the real piracy dampener for PC gaming was availability, price and convenience rather than technically profiicent DRM, but it did take a competent CEO with no shareholders in his way to deploy that strategy.
But that doesn't mean it's not DRM or games-as-a-service. It absolutely is. Valve invented or perfected DRM, online distribution, battlepasses, monetized UGC and, technically NFTs. The branding exercise required to do that and still be perceived as a fan-favorite, user-first company should get a TON more credit than it does in marketing schools worldwide.
The quote you're giving me is Valve-speak for "we were cool with your double-dipping DRM back when it was free for us but we now would prefer you don't add it to your game because it makes it harder for us to sell your games
Sounds good to me.
on Steam Deck where we control the whole platform".
Ah yes, the closed platform known as the Steam Deck. So closed that Valve gives you the tools to remove Steam from it entirely if you so wish.
You absolutely don't own your Steam games. Those go away with your account, unless you're actively extracting and repackaging those files for backup.
So then backup your games. Who cares if it's against the EULA, big bad evil Valve will not find out and even if they did they would not stop you. If Valve wanted to actually stop you from doing that, they could and they would.
It is absolutely a piracy mitigation tool
What is? Steam or Steam DRM? These are two completely different things. Steam DRM is not piracy mitigation tool.
you are not allowed or able to install or play your games without online verification as a general rule.
So basically you want Steam to provide you the installer in addition to the game yourself, that's a valid criticism. The other one not so much, I play Steam games offline literally all the time.
The notion that multiple people here are questioning the fact that Steam's DRM is, in fact, DRM
You are just putting words in my mouth, I never implied that at all.
It's a testament to their PR, for sure
...what PR? lol, Valve isn't exactly known for it's constant customer-facing communication... All of my links came from Steamworks documentation for developers.
It didn't take a genius to understand that the real piracy dampener for PC gaming was availability, price and convenience rather than technically profiicent DRM
Yeah no shit, you think? It's almost like "piracy is a service issue"...
Valve invented or perfected DRM
Valve invented or perfected DRM
Valve invented or perfected DRM
The branding exercise required to do that and still be perceived as a fan-favorite, user-first company should get a TON more credit than it does in marketing schools worldwide.
You are talking about a company that revealed CS2 by shadow-dropping three YouTube videos and proceed to not give any updates for three months. Marketing geniuses indeed, lmao.
I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Steam DRM does not effect me negatively in any way, you are doing a pretty bad job justifying why I should hate it with every fiber of my being like you seem to.
I don’t inherently disagree with what you’re saying, but online DRM would have happened anyway sooner or later, and online isn’t always online.
But most importantly, I’d rather a billion times have Valve rolling in that Steam money than any other publisher on the videogame market: the industry would be just that much worse, with unexisting indie devs and no Proton.
I mean... would it? Indie devs not only existed before Steam, but typically have a hugely contentions relationship with them. I haven't forgotten all the growing pains about races to the bottom through sales, arguments about curation and the entire Greenlight fiasco.
I'd give them credit for pushing indie devs enough to get Nintendo to stop being annoying to work with, but that was Microsoft pushing Sony which in turn pushed Nintendo. Steam is background noise in that process.
Valve solved the issue of PC piracy in the way Netflix solved the issue of TV and movie piracy: by creating a convenient service people liked to use that is significantly more hassle free than digging through shady websites. If they hadn't figured it out, the next-in-line big store that happened was GOG, which is coincidentally a DRM-free storefront that grew as a reaction to Steam. I don't know what the CD Projekt Deck would have looked like, but we at least would have gotten a third sequel of a game series, so there's that.
I don’t see a situation where digital distribution of games would have led to a space where games having no DRM would have been mainstream. Even with DRM companies continue to associate PC with piracy.
There was also the whole Sony rootkit after all with music CDs, so I’m just not seeing this whole argument of this space could have been different if it weren’t for valve. Not even sure PC gaming would have been as big as it is now if it weren’t for Valve and it really would have been a situation of PC gaming being dead and for niche titles as opposed to just some clickbait headline.
But those things can be true at the same time. Yes, PC gaming was in a rough spot before Steam solved DRM and digital distribution. Absolutely physical PC games were struggling with no alternative and Microsoft sure wasn't figuring that out.
But Steam's success was to transition PC gaming to an all-DRM-all-the-time quasi monopoly built around removing PC game ownership from the table altogether.
I'm just as fine with both of those statements. In the real world things rarely are complete positives or negatives, despite our cultural need to take sides on stuff. This entire thread started with a tongue-in-cheek joke about how controversial Steam was at launch, which is an undeniable fact. People get weirdly defensive about it, though.
The biggest difference between Steam and others is that people tend to recognize Apple's weirdness about the App Store or the downsides of Spotify or Netflix, all of which pulled off similar moves. Steam, though, still manages to present itself as a bit of a plucky upstart that is with you on this thing against the big bad publishers, which is kind of nuts.
I just don’t see the level of influence as you do when it comes to DRM. DRM is something that was going to be in place and had been in the works, and if it wasn’t it would be due to the market not existing to begin with. Epic or any other company deciding to not bother to try to enter digital distribution on a massive scale rivaling consoles for decades is a reflection of how little value companies saw in the PC space despite progress in digital distribution. One even music and movies were quicker to recognize.
But your timeline is wrong there. DRM already existed, it was all over the place on PC games. Digital distribution was barely there.
Steam's innovation was to wrap the DRM into a full-on digital distribution platform. This is a good couple of years before Microsoft put one of those on the Xbox 360, and many years before they made full price games available on it. It's before the Apple App Store. Before World of Warcraft (although in fairness after EverQuest). Before Netflix. Before Spotify. It's before anybody was tying your digital "purchases" to a persistent account.
There's no reflection of PC value on other publishers not having their own take on Steam, Valve simply came first, before anybody else on any market or any platform. They were not the first to point out that curbing rampant piracy was as much about making the commercial alternative more convenient as well as more secure, but they were the first ones to implement it (poorly) and to improve fast enough to actually realize that idea.
They invented games as a service. Ground up. Day one. They are the prototype for digital distribution worldwide.
With the Switch 2 rumours and 8 Deluxe ending it’s DLC soon I imagine it won’t be long before MK9, maybe even a launch title for the Switch 2 depending on when it launches
True Mario kart 8 is peak Mario kart. I feel like they’re either going to keep adding content to it or do something new with the franchise like double dash did.
This is the mobile game rather than one for console. There could be one for Switch 2, but they haven’t even finished the DLC pass for 8 yet so it’s likely a ways off.
Ugh. A part of me wants to give AMD a chance for my next upgrade and push back against Nvidia’s near-monopoly of GPUs but I really don’t want to deal with how everything kinda-sorta works on Radeons.
I’ve exclusively been on AMD since like 2015 and my GPUs “kinda-sorta working” has not been my experience at all lol. Literally have never had brand-specific problems. The only brand-specific issues I’ve had were trying to get my laptop with an Nvidia GPU to work properly under Linux.
I have a suspicion that developers do less testing, optimization, and bugfixing for AMD cards due to reduced market share and that’s why more of these brand-specific coding errors slip through for them. It’s unfortunate but I can’t deny I’ve seen some weird bugs in my time.
Oh of course. I don’t actually blame AMD for those kinds of bugs. But it’s the reality as a user, at least in my experience… but it’s been like stupid long time since I’ve used a machine with an AMD card.
Some games are built specifically for AMD from the ground up and have been optimized like crazy. Depends on the game and the devs mostly. And let’s not forget that if devs want it to run well on PS5 and Xbox Series x/s, then they better have good AMD optimization.
How can an AMD sponsored game that litteraly runs better on all AMD GPU vs their NVIDIA counterpart, doesn't embark any tech that may unfavor AMD GPU can be less QA-ed on AMD GPUs because of market share?
This game IS better optimized on AMD. It has FSR2 enabled by default on all graphics presets. That particular take especially doesn't work for this game.
I’ve been red only in my rig for over a decade and the only problems I’ve had are that I play the same games as everyone else perfectly fine and I have more money in my wallet due to not spending as much on parts. That and the bulldozer generation CPUs heated my house like crazy, there’s no denying that lol
Ugh… the last part is still happening? Like are the new CPUs also so hot or whatever would somebody call it?
I am tempted to build a new PC all AMD for costs alone although the AM4 probably won’t last as long as the Am3 did sadly. But the summer is already terrible with my Intel… no need for more heat.
No bulldozer chips have been gone for like 6-7 years. They last two ryzen generations have been far more energy/heat efficient than intel. Ryzen is the better choice by far right now
Current Intel is worse than current AMD for CPU heat and Nvidia is currently cooler than AMD on GPU. Also we’re on AM5. AM4 lived for a relatively long time, no indication that AM5 won’t be a long runner as well. Intel changes socket more often as well so for longevity AMD is almost always the best, except at the tail end of a socket.
Huh. Didn’t even know they replaced am4 until this comment 😂 my am4 ryzen 5 paired with an rx6700xt still does everything I want it to do. And if it starts slacking I have plenty of upgrading left to do.
Seems like a no-brainer to have a custom campaign system given the number of people who’ve picked this one up. You think they’d want to capitalize on their success regardless of how tired they are
Really depends on the game. A linear story game is not going to be very long. Then there’s sandbox games where you can have hundreds to thousands of hours.
I get what you are saying. I think it also depends on how the game is divided up. If it’s just one continuous romp with autosave points it can feel like it’s dragging on but if there’s clearcut levels and checkpoints I feel like it helps divide up a game into digestible chunks.
I feel like that’s not really present with a lot of open world or sandbox games
Expected it when I saw it was 39.99€ fully expected it. My brother and I had a lot of fun on the 2nd, we might get the 40€, but it’ll need to be really good for both of us to get the DLC, we rarely do that
games
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.