I’m of the opinion that Rimworld DLCs don’t actually improve the base game, they simply build an extra layer of isolated complexity ontop of the base game. I like the base game but I didn’t really enjoy the DLCs (at least not the first 2) because they didn’t actually expand the base game. They felt like mods I paid for.

I don’t know how far you made it but if you make the biggest vehicle you can add planters inside the vehicle which significantly cuts down the need to restock. That said, in the end game the survival elements become so trivialize they end meaningless busywork even if you have planters.

Reminds me of the good old days of playing Colin McRae Racing 2.0. Even the red Mini Cooper makes an appearance. I just got all the right heart strings pulled, this is going on my wishlist to check it out when it releases.

The argument isn’t that only Steam gamers are hoarders. The argument is that game hoarders congregate on Steam. You can have hoarding gamers in the wild, and those wild hoarders may never touch Steam, but you’re guaranteed to find hoarding gamers on Steam. If you’re looking to sell games to hoarders you’re going to sell more when you do it where hoarders regularly visit.

It’s the same reason Epic is giving away free games. They’re trying to attract hoarders by giving them a free hoard and regularly inviting them into their shop. They won’t really attract hoarders who are entrenched on Steam but they will attract future hoarders who might not yet have a huge Steam library.

You literally said this changes from neglect to “a really bad choice”.

which in my opinion changes things drastically from someone making a poor choice with neglect or even an intent to kill, **to someone who just made a really bad choice without the expectation anything bad ** will come out of it.

As for the other argument. If someone leaves their children home alone for a week do you think that action becomes significantly less worse if they stock up the fridge before leaving the children to fend for themselves? I would argue it doesn’t matter because you’re still neglecting them. The same way I don’t think the AC matters because in both cases those children were still strapped into the car for over 2 hours without any supervision.

I don’t get why you’re trying to paint it as not neglect. This is not someone who made a really bad choice, this is someone who decided it’s okay for a 1 year old and a 2 year old to sit in a car for over 2 hours. Her leaving the AC on doesn’t change the fact that it was negligent behavior, deliberate negligent behavior. Even if the AC had worked the entire time the situation for the children would’ve still been insufferable.

I don’t really see it. AM isn’t in a good spot and it’s very unlikely they’ll suddenly become a top team next year. Newey can do his magic but it’s not going to fix the rest of the team.

Max isn’t going to waste his time in some midfield team, he’s going to a top team or he’s taking a sabbatical.

I get hating Fallout 3. I hate how it (and every subsequent Bethesda Fallout game) has done irreparable damage to the Fallout lore. I think its main story is pretty shit and the only reason it’s not a steaming pile of shit is because somehow Fallout 4 was able to surpass Fallout 3 in shittiness.

But you have to have your head pretty far up your ass if you think people wouldn’t actually enjoy it. It’s a good game (a bit dated by today’s standards), it’s just not a good Fallout game. And the people who love Fallout 3 don’t care about the reasons that make it a bad Fallout game.

Honestly, IMO the lack of D-pad was less of an issue than the lack of a second analog stick. The lack of a second stick made the controller almost impossible to use in any game that was designed with 2 sticks in mind. For example Nier Automata 9S hacking minigame was a horrible experience with the Steam controller.

It looks like a giant…

If you no longer ask for a team order that exists, you are no longer a racing driver.

Honestly I’d even prefer that because it diminishes the value of in game purchases and would be a step towards getting rid of them as well.

I think it mostly revolves around how you get 100 players together for a good game. The match making part.

This part is not really what the initiative is about. The initiative can’t guarantee you’ll be able to find 100 other people to play with. Even matchmaking (unless it’s somehow made integral to the game) is not really relevant to the initiative. What the initiative is concerned with is preservation of games. To give a specific example, if you’re able to organize 100 people to play the same game the initiative wants you to have the technical capability to set up the game for 100 people. And to give a more real life example, Anthem is shutting down at the start of 2026. That means if me and my 2 friends get nostalgic and want to play Anthem in 2027 we literally cannot, the game won’t run. But if what SKG wants to achieve would be a reality right now then EA would have to have a way for me to set up whatever is necessary for me and my 2 friends to play Anthem together, be it some kind of server binary or P2P solution or source code or whatever, doesn’t matter how the company wants to solve this as long as it works. That’s what SKG is about.

My initial question in this thread framed changing the game design, not networking stack. So it was about making it all local/same screen only. An absurd example on purpose.

SKG isn’t saying companies should make BR-s local/split screen. It’s only concerned with keeping games in a playable state. SKG doesn’t alter the game design unless the technical stack required to keep the game running is somehow integral to the design of the game. SKG deliberately leave the “how a game should be preserved” open so publishers/developers could preserve games how they see fit. If the publishers/developers want to rip out the multiplayer and replace it with local/split screen that’s how they’ve decided to preserve their game. That is not really criticism of SKG, that’s just a bad faith argument that can be made only because SKG isn’t as restrictive as people claim it to be.

And specifically in your example the design of a BR game does not need to change at all because the only thing preventing some BR-s from being preserved is the fact that you cannot set up your own servers.

What exactly is this dramatic change that you think would have to happen?

Never would’ve guessed that the year he’s (probably) NOT winning the championship is the year he shows just how insanely talented he is as a driver. I think this is the third time this year he’s snatched pole with a perfect lap.

Thank god RBR is shitting the bed because Max looks like he’s ready to repeat 2023. No disrespect towards Max but watching GPs to see who comes second isn’t all that exciting.

More than $5-$6. He’s making $300 income which implies the expenses are deducted. The actual price is $5-$6 + actual cost of whatever is in the vending machine

But even then it’s astronomically unlikely to be retroactively enforced. Old games will be grandfathered in and it would apply only to future game releases.

It’s probably the latter because the former implies not huffing AI paint and I just don’t believe anyone that high up making such a stupid statement isn’t huffing AI paint.

When Stop killing games initiative started one people wanted Pirate Software to support and promote the initiative so others would be more aware of the initiative. Instead of doing that Pirate Software decided to take a massive shit on the initiative essentially making the argument that it would actually end up killing games. Which would be somewhat acceptable position to take, if he hadn’t completely missed the point of the initiative, hadn’t made things never said in the initiative and hadn’t told everyone to eat his ass when people said he doesn’t understand the initiative. That was about 10 months ago when he was still somewhat well regarded in the gaming sphere.

But in the last 10 months he’s been surrounded by controversies that have slowly changed the public perception of him. I won’t get into all those controversies because there are just too many to explain.

So about 2 weeks ago Ross (the person spearheading the Stop killing games initiative) made a video where he decided to more or less vent his frustrations with Pirate Software because he effectively derailed the initiative. That got covered by MoistCritical who sided with Ross and said Pirate Software is talking out of his ass. Any normal person would’ve gone “Maybe I am wrong when everyone keeps telling me I’m wrong?” But Pirate Software literally said he is doubling down on his statements and he has been adamant that his interpretation of the initiative is correct, everyone else is wrong and he has done nothing wrong. Because he’s a narcissistic asshole he has fueled the drama, turned himself into the villain and ended up being the catalyst to having the initiative signed.

There is a chance but what is he convincing them of? That they should take a non-existent exclusivity deal with Steam? They already have the data that exclusivity with Epic does not work and Steam doesn’t do exclusivity deals.