I will say technologically my trials of both Google Stadia and Xbox Live Play Anywhere were both impressive and ran well for single player and co-op games. But the idea of actually paying an ongoing fee to play my games? Fuck that.

I kick myself every day for putting off replacing this 2017 build of mine… My 1080 weeps.

You might be right. But charging them $15 a month to stream their whizbang-5000 games is still an option. Especially for Microsoft and Sony. (And Amazon wants in on that too.)

I get that. I’m still chugging away in the 1080 got in 2017, already behind the curve.

Don’t even get me started on Facebook’s “everyone’s pivoting to Facebook video! Don’t be left behind!”… “Oh, we lied about your views repeatedly. Sorry.”

I like this take. More shit needs to be not funny.

And you may well be completely on point. I don’t recall hearing those specifics in articles I’ve read, but at the same time, some large outlets may not be familiar enough with the industry to recognize the importance of Steam keys to the argument.

Because I posted it elsewhere, in going to repost an example of the coverage of those lawsuits:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2g1md0l23o

The lawsuit - filed at the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London - alleges Valve “forces” game publishers to sign up to conditions which prevents them from selling their titles earlier or for less on rival platforms.

Also

It claims that as Valve requires users to buy all additional content through Steam, if they’ve bought the initial game through the platform it is essentially “locking in” users to continue making purchases there.

It was filed in 2024, and given approval to go to trial at the beginning of this year. It hasn’t happened yet.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2g1md0l23o

The lawsuit - filed at the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London - alleges Valve “forces” game publishers to sign up to conditions which prevents them from selling their titles earlier or for less on rival platforms.

Also

It claims that as Valve requires users to buy all additional content through Steam, if they’ve bought the initial game through the platform it is essentially “locking in” users to continue making purchases there.

It was filed in 2024, and given approval to go to trial at the beginning of this year. It hasn’t happened yet.

/Edit: The other person responding to this suggests that the “you can’t charge lower elsewhere” clause exists when you use certain Steam features. (Selling Steam keys, using Steam’s multiplayer backend.) And if that’s the case that seems pretty reasonable to me. (I hear they’re VERY kind about keys actually.) But I hope you’ll understand that when articles I see why the case don’t mention them, I don’t know that’s the case.

At the same time, I would almost understand outlets that don’t cover digital goods like this may not understand this, or may not see the importance of them. So maybe they’ve dropped the ball here.

I don’t have a strong hate for Valve, but I’m fairly certain that they often DO have contracts that demand their store gets the lowest price available from at least some game developers. So if you offer a game for lower on Epic, you also have to drop your price to match it on Steam. There may be “sales” caveats in there, but I do think that’s generally the rule in at least many cases.

In fact, I think they’ve been sued over that before. (Maybe they changed the policy after the lawsuit? I’m honestly not certain; sorry.) The argument went that if a developer could offer the game for $40 to everyone, then the storefronts could argue over their own markup, and maybe other storefronts would be willing to take less than Valve does. But as it is, Valve artificially keeps prices high on other storefronts with this approach to contracts.

If your experience is different I respect that, but I don’t think that’s universal.

And they’ll just hire more H-1B visa employees for more and more smaller roles, and they have them in an even tighter place than they could American workers. It’s not like they’re blind to the issue. It’s the plan.

I think saying that they “bribed the standards body” suggests the body was in on it. The actual allegation (I don’t know any facts, just these comments) seems to be that the body was subverted by other countries that were bribed by Microsoft. Being someone who doesn’t know the details there’s a worthwhile distinction there. Though that still opens questions about the board’s reaction, and I might read up on it all later.

Like was already said, I’m considering cancelling YouTube Premium too but our numbers won’t really matter. The reports of worsening Firefox compatibility almost some me in and I didn’t even notice.

I have a family plan with my brother and cousin on it. I know they’re cracking down on sharing with people who don’t live together, but if they cut them I’m done. I’ll figure it out. And I’m probably petty enough to comment about it on everyone’s videos that I follow. (Which also won’t really matter, but I’ll feel better voicing the discontent.)

This makes sense to me. A hybrid would be nice. Have a calendar or some art while it’s “off”. But then, that’s probably pretty expensive. (Not that I’ve looked, I’m just assuming.)

Honestly I think people would unironically that as an option.

Gaming is my big issue. But now that my quality gaming time with family has gone from Warzone to ARC Raiders, it’s a far less daunting concern. I’ll probably wait and see if DMZ 2 supports Linux, which sadly I doubt, and if that game will cost

I completely agree that huge teams aren’t needed. That said I think at least some of that is exactly because smaller studios full of expert talent were getting funded for several years, because those big studios weren’t making the games developers wanted to make. And those devs understood that “fun” wasn’t the same as “top of the line presentation”.

ARC Raiders’ Embark Studios has a lot of people from DICE. Clair Obscur: Expedition 33’s Sandfall Interactive has a lot of people from Ubisoft. Even Dispatch’s Ad Hoc is a lot of Telltale people (at least some of them by way of Ubisoft.) They knew a lot about their process, but their big companies weren’t making the games they were interested in. So they got funding elsewhere (and famously Ad Hpc’s funding dried up mid-development.)

I’m curious about Wikipedia’s sourcing here. Granted there’s the Balatros and Stardew Valleys of the world, and Helldivers did well. But do smaller games really make up half? Year after year the big ones are usually COD, two big sports game, a Nintendo game, another big fps, a big action game, and a few others.

Again I agree with you when it comes to good games. But man, those big ones are huge sellers. I just wish we had clear insight into sales. But that’s been a thing for a long time now.

Investment money is not as plentiful as it was several years ago. I’ve heard it in several interviews with developers or devs themselves. (Game Maker’s Notebook, Mike and Rami are Still Here, and a few devs on YouTube come to mind.)

I started the first one and really liked the little walking I did in the first hour and a half, but I just tapped out after that because of the ratio of cutscene to game. … I should play them.

I get it and was very skeptical at the time… But soon after I began to believe they’d stick around, and my annoyance at installing through multiple discs (and also putting discs in the tray to play a game) won out.

I bought and moved like 1 in late 2013 when it spiked just to play with it and see how it worked, out of curiosity about the tech. (And soon after, mined Dogecoin on Reddit when it started, and we all began tipping like crazy because it was fun and funny.) I made a few bucks off the BTC and kinda regretted not holding it longer. Then cut to a decade later… Sheesh. I may be more sour on the tech now, but damn I’m not so crazy as to not regret selling it.