Kinda meh list. No mobas, either LoL or Dota2. No racing games, NFS underground or NFS Most wanted should be on that list. Not even the OG Modern Warfare which should 100% be on any top 100 games of all time list. Too many games that were released in the last 5 years.

And it’s not like the list is that stacked you couldn’t fit those games in. Dave the diver? Really? I enjoyed Dave the Diver but I’d put Fez higher than Dave the Diver. Ghosts of Tsushima? Even they themselves say that game does nothing revolutionary or unique. You could throw out either Morrowind or Skyrim because they 90% overlap. Armored Core is there only because they love From. I love From but I don’t think that fits the 100 and I think Sekiro barely fits. I think you can also throw out Prey (2017) because you already have Deus Ex and the latter has been far more influential.

And no Terraria? I’m just going to stop. The more I think about the list the angrier I get about how bad that list is.

Typical market manipulation. If they had any real consideration of buying out the company we wouldn’t even know about it. Such discussions happen behind closed doors and don’t come public until the offer has to be put on the table (or it becomes old news and nobody cares if it gets public). It was all just to bring up the stock price, so the situation wouldn’t look that desperate.

There’s a whole FAQ which I’m sure also clarifies your problems with the initiative.

Well, for starters Xbox was dead on arrival, they had no system sellers lined up and the series S has held this generation Xbox back since the beginning. Sony on the other hand started off well, but then got the GaaS hard on and almost all of their gaas projects are failing hard. That’s why they barely have a library of exclusives.

Not to mention this generation has also been a technological flop (not just on the consoles side but also on the PC side). The next big thing to change gaming is ray tracing, but the tech is still too raw to fully utilize it. Because of that we’re largely getting the same tech as last gen, just higher fidelity.

And considering console exclusives started coming to PC I think there’s even less of a consumer pull towards consoles. A lot of PC gamers owned a console and now they don’t need one because the get to play their console games on PC at higher quality with better performance.

The next generation needs to be marvelous or I think console gaming, as we currently know it, will be dead.

No idea what you want to say in the first paragraph. I understand that you think it’s toxic to have a different opinion? Pretty sure that’s not what you meant.

I most likely misunderstood what you were saying so we had a miscommunication. I don’t think the miscommunication is particularly relevant so I’ll leave it at that.

There is a big difference between corporations and people. Bigotry against people cannot compare to bigotry against corporations. And then there’s a difference from that to an industry. Most notably there’s something called “industry standard” which (most often) the market leader sets and the competition copies in an attempt to catch up. To resist this means to potentialy lose money, something only few companies want or tolerate.

There is a difference between corporations and people, but the underlying fallacy is the same. If companies A, B and C are bad it doesn’t mean all the companies from D to Z are also bad. And industry standard doesn’t mean every company will follow the industry and industry standard doesn’t guarantee making money. We have a lot of examples of companies following the industry standard and flopping hard, and we have examples of companies that don’t follow the standard and are wildly successful.

I can recommend searching for Cory Doctorow’s idea of “Enshittification” to get an understanding why companies might use costumer favourable policies at their beginning which they revoke in favor of more money later. It’s what made Amazon big, or Facebook. I’m sure you won’t, but there might be readers of this dialogue that might be interested.

I’m well aware of enshittification and I completely fail to see how that’s relevant in this particular instance. In fact your entire premise of “they might add it later” makes no sense because literally the best time to have DRM is at launch when the potentially demand is the highest, and once your game is pirated the cat is out the bag and adding it later makes very little sense.

No, I don’t know Saber’s internal politics toward this, and no, I don’t share your chipper attitude towards their intentions.

That’s fine.

I do recognize they were nice to their customers, which is a good thing. But they were recently acquired by Beacon Interactive which doesn’t even have a wikipedia page. The future remains unclear. I don’t know where their path will take them, neither do you. You trust them at your own risk.

Beacon interactive was founded by the co-founder of Saber interactive for the purpose of buying out Saber from Embracer. That was literally the second result (the first one was a completely other company called Beacon Interactive Systems) on DDG if you searched for Beacon interactive. Google has the article a bit more downward as most suggestions are about that other company but in the top results are Saber interactive wiki page that has the exact same information. I can only assume that you did a search just to confirm your “company bad” bad and didn’t look any further because it took just a nudge more effort to find out that Saber interactive is effectively an independent company.

But I guess it doesn’t matter because you automatically assume company bad, so it’s not like that is going to change your mind.

It is incredibly toxic, do you think that I do that? Over a “Why the over specific denial”?

But you did. Everyone else was either optimistic or “yeah, whatever” about the statement, only you went “there must be something wrong with the statement”. You are literally the only person in this thread questioning if it’s genuine.

It’s a lived example of the “one bad apple spoils the bunch”. There are quite a few bad apples in the publisher space, some on the developer side. Do normal people just not recognize patterns in an industry? Are normal people apathetic about how an industry treats them?

This is how bigots talk. “Some black people are bad people so I will treat all black people as bad people”. “Some immigrants are bad people so all immigrants are bad”. “Some young folk are lazy so all young folk are lazy”. etc.

People notice patterns, as I pointed out with Ubisoft and Blizzard and EA. But people don’t make sweeping generalizations based on those patterns. Just because Ubisoft is shitty doesn’t mean we should be questioning everything Larian says. The problem isn’t skepticism, the problem is that you’re making huge generalizations to then be skeptical which leads you to make unfounded criticism.

I’m just going to repeat what I said. Normal people don’t go “but what if they’re lying” any time something is said. They do it when it’s the same entity doing the saying, like if Ubisoft said they’re going to try something different normal people wouldn’t believe then, but normal people don’t generalize everyone. Just because Ubisoft or EA or ActiBliz has told lies doesn’t mean EVERY developer tells lies. It’s incredibly toxic to think everyone is lying.

Actually I found it pretty disturbing that you’d make shit up just to throw a shade, so I’d consider the concern genuine even if poorly communicated.

Seriously, normal people don’t go “but what if they’re lying” any time something is said.

Have you considered taking therapy? Because you’re literally making up shit to hate on a game, it’s not healthy.

You mean the “at launch” part that the writer added to the article and isn’t a part of the official Saber statement? Something you’d know if you read the article past the introductory paragraph?

“Will this game have DRM?”

“No.”

“Why are you overly specific?”

In his mind Epic doesn’t need independence from Microsoft because Microsoft isn’t taking a cut of his Fortnite money. Microsoft is bad but Apple and Google take it to the next level. Imagine if Microsoft needed companies to verify their software and with that verification Microsoft can take a cut of every purchase done in that software. So if Steam was verified games sold in the steam software would cost more than opening up a steam website and buying from there. That is Google and Apple in a nutshell. That is actually the case with Twitch subs, they cost more in the Twitch app because of the fee Google adds.

But it’s broken and unplayable because the developer/publisher renders it unplayable and that’s where the initiative comes in. The initiative wants to make it so that if the developer/publisher wants to turn off their official services they don’t render the game unplayable.

You’re stating it like it’s somehow objective, but it’s not. Battlefield 3 and 4 have been delisted and it’s a matter of time until EA turns off services and those games are left for dead. Battlefield 4 still averages above 1k players a month. It’s clear that EA won’t see value in keeping the light on and will turn off the services in the near future, but do you think the players will go overnight from “I want to play this game” to “This game is worthless”. Don’t you think the people playing BF4 wouldn’t want to continue playing after EA shuts down the services keeping the game running?

I think it’s pretty obvious that there are two groups who decide if a game has value or not, the company and the customers. Right now after purchasing the game the customers no longer have a say whether a game has value or not. Only the company has a say and if the company says it’s not worth it then the people who bought it just have to suck it up. And that’s the idea behind the initiative, to make it so that the company isn’t the only one who gets to decide how long you get to use the product you’ve purchased.

I think if we expanded the idea of bricking software beyond gaming, if companies could destroy any piece of software they made, you’d also be in favor of this initiative. Imagine if Microsoft could brick Windows 10 when they’ve officially stopped supporting it. Or Nvidia effectively bricking their older cards by stopping official driver support. Would you then also argue that the software has lost value and it’s acceptable behavior?

I usually agree with Thor but on this one I probably couldn’t disagree more. Based on what he says I’d say his mindset is completely opposite to what his initiative wants to do. He essentially said he doesn’t see any value in (live service) games after they’ve reached their end of service and from that perspective I can understand how this movement is pointless or even potentially damaging. But that assumes that the (live service) game loses value after the company stops supporting it and I just don’t think that’s the case.

A lot of games continue live despite the company ending official support for them. If anyone remembers there’s a gem called Wildstar that was shut down in 2018. Despite the game being shut down and even trademark has expiring people are still running the game on private servers. People are putting in sweat and tears to make sure a game is preserved. Imagine how much easier it would be if Carbine or NcSoft had released proper tools for it. Even Vanilla WoW exists because private server did it first and Blizzard wanted to get some of that money.

And another point that Thor made how it’s not about preservation because you can’t preserve a moment in time. I think that’s a completely disingenuous argument because it feeds into FOMO. If you join WoW today you will never experience “the golden age of WoW”. Maybe another game you might be interested in is having a golden age right now, better buy into the hype. You can’t argue against preservation like this because it’s literally impossible to preserve a moment in time except in your memory so you have be at that exact place at that exact time to really experience that thing, that is FOMO at it’s purest form. That argument against preservation is an argument in favor of FOMO.

Thors points come for a belief that live service games don’t need to be preserved after official support has ended, and he views this initiative through that lens. Of course he will have issues with the initiative because he’s opposing the idea at a fundamental level. It’s like asking a racist how to be more tolerant with other races, the answer obviously is that you shouldn’t want to tolerate other races. And just like you would ignore a racist I think you should ignore what Thor has to say on this matter because anything he says is against the idea of preservation.

So is Twitter but that didn’t stop Twitter from becoming wildly popular. YouTube shorts are just tweets in a video format.

Because the biggest goal for Linux gaming is to get people gaming on Linux. You and me might not care that Sony games won’t run on Linux but there are people who want to play Sony games and they will either switch back to windows or not even try Linux. If we want Linux to grow we can’t just dismiss issues simply because they’re not an issue to us, dismissing issues others have is how we will have the year of the Linux for the next 10 years.

Support is kind of a catch 22. Companies have very little reason to support Linux because their customers don’t use Linux, but their customers don’t use Linux because companies don’t support Linux.

And that’s where Proton comes in to solve the catch. Proton is just a stepping stone for wider Linux adoption. The more people we get on Linux the more companies have to support Linux the less users need to depend on Proton.

I agree that native support is the way to go, but we’re nowhere near having the user base to even justify native support.

Just last month I was wondering how I would get Vortex working in Linux and decided my backlog is long enough to not bother. Guess it’s time to start another playthrough of New Vegas.

And how do you know it’s magnitudes higher if you haven’t seen any studies taking it into consideration?