It’s 10% of users using Steam Input, not all steam users.

Valve mentioned that daily controller use has jumped to 15% from around 5% since 2018, and that around 42% of these sessions use Steam Input.

“Hey, can you recommend a good free photoshop alternative?”

“DIE!”

Just like the good old Jraphics Interchange Format!

Plus as an added bonus we can have the ‘gif’ pronunciation disagreement!

This sounds awesome. I enjoyed TW:WH quite a bit; their model works very well for non-historically-accurate settings, and I’d love to see them do more of these.

Hopefully enough of our legacy survives that some future civilization’s archaeologists can sift through the vestiges of our history and learn an important lesson about the dangers of unfettered capitalism from the story of our downfall.

Feels too obvious, but… Diamond Heart, by Alan Walker?

Not once they walk by this display, they don’t. Immediate trip to HR, followed by immediate termination. Employees avoid the lingerie aisle at all costs.

You encounter the merchant where you can buy the MTX stuff in the first few hours of the game. You can’t even use the majority of them before reaching that point.

I would honestly bet money that they’d designed the game to not have microtransactions, then some executive at the 11th hour told them to find a way to include them, and they made them inconsequential as a sort of malicious compliance. Not that I think it’s OK to have them in the first place, it really soured me on the game initially. I think it’s considerably worse for including them, but they are completely meaningless.

I take this to mean you aren’t familiar with this fad, so allow me to blow your mind:

The problem is, what can they do with the blockchain that they can’t do without it?

If you’re thinking NFTs or a crypto replacement for in-game currency, what’s the benefit versus just using a normal marketplace to sell in-game assets? Yes, they technically exist outside the game, but their value is still intrinsically linked to the game. If the game goes offline, the currency and NFTs suddenly have no use and their value will plummet. You’ll also get people “investing” in the currency and fucking with the value who don’t even play the game. Further, you’re dealing with transaction fees every time they’re traded with crypto, in addition to whatever CCP is skimming off the top.

You mention wanting a secure, legit system, but they could build a marketplace for that that handled it using the existing currency, there’s no need to introduce a new, inefficient one to accomplish that.

Maybe I’m missing some really awesome use case; if so, can you clue me in?

Answered this below, but it was based on a quick google search and the estimate provided by an organization in my state that’s promoting heat pumps and other energy efficient appliance solutions. Based on what other folks are saying, it sounds like their estimate is just grossly high.

Can you show me where you’re getting those figures? I was basing my estimate on a quick google search of prices, and the estimate provided for air-source heat pumps here. (MassSave is an organization that promotes energy efficient and climate friendly appliance solutions in Massachusetts), which seems to suggest $22,000 is an average cost, which is in line with the other estimates I was finding. ($10-$20k to buy the unit and $15-$30k including installation.)

Edit: To be clear, I’m not trying to be contrary or argumentative; I’ve been looking into heat pumps as a possible option for us for years and if they’ve become justifiable from a cost perspective, I’d love to get those details.

The power company here keeps pushing heat pumps, but it frequently gets down below freezing and often below 0F during the winter, and my understanding is that heat pumps just can’t efficiently keep up with that, if at all, so supplementary heat is still needed. Is that no longer the case? “Every American” includes a lot of people in that same situation.

The article cites that it would save the average American $550 a year on utilities, so when you consider that it costs ~$15-30k to have a heat pump installed, we’re looking at a 27-55 year break-even point.

It makes sense for new construction but they seem to be advocating for retrofitting existing homes, and I just don’t see how they’re making the claim that it’s economically viable. It’d take some mega subsidies to make that possible for most people, I think.

I strongly suspect that we just prefer different sorts of games. I wouldn’t expect 1 hour per $1 from a modern AAA FPS, but I also wouldn’t buy them anyway for the most part, so that doesn’t really affect my purchasing habits at all (nor would I factor into their cost analysis as a result). All of the FPS games I’ve bought lately have been $10-$15 “boomer shooters”.

Halo is a great example, actually, because even though Halo 1 is a relatively short game (I guess normal by FPS standards but in general it does not take long to beat, even on a first playthrough), I got way more than 60 hours of playtime out of it. Easily hundreds. A game doesn’t have to have a long storyline or whatever to offer a lot of play time. Sometimes having replayability, post-game achievements that are fun to work towards, or compelling multiplayer, for example, is all it takes.

Part of it, I think, comes down to the sort of games I typically play… if I’m buying a AAA action game, it’s something something like Sekiro, and I’ll absolutely expect to get my hours : dollars value out of it. (Incidentally, I played Sekiro for 62 hours after buying it for ~$48, so that one worked out fine.)

And to be clear, I’m not here for useless padding, either. If I lose interest before reaching the end of a game, it doesn’t matter if there was 60 hours of content there - I’ll judge it against however much time I spent before getting bored and uninstalling it. I’m also not against short games… I often prefer short games, but I also won’t pay $60 for them; I’ll check the estimated playtime and wait for an appropriate sale. I’m absolutely not advocating for every game to be 60 hours long.

There’ve definitely been games that I didn’t get my 1 hour / $1 from, and were still happy to have played… Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons comes to mind. I paid $15 IIRC and it’s over in 3 hours, but that stuck with me for a really long time. That’s my equivalent to going to see a movie (which I also do incredibly infrequently); it’s a “waste” from a purely monetary perspective but sometimes that’s okay, and I’m willing to splurge. I’ve seen 5 movies in a theater in >10 years, for the record. I would not consider it a good use of money, generally speaking.)

Hours per dollar isn’t a great metric for all sorts of reasons

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, because I’ve been using that metric for many years to gauge how much I’ll spend on a game. If I’m only going to spend 20 hours on it, I’ll spend $20 or less. Part of that comes from the sort of games I play, but if I spent $60 on a game and finished it in 20 hours (‘Finished’ as in done playing the game, including whatever post-story content or multiplayer is engaging), I’d feel pretty bad about that purchase.

I have a difficult time with this announcement from Capcom specifically, because the only AAA games I’ve consistently gotten 300-1000+ hours from have been Monster Hunter games, and I really don’t want the enshitification to claim MHWilds. If it releases at $70 and without excessive microtransactions, I’ll have a really hard time not buying it at that price. On the other hand, if they do have those microtransactions and a $70 price tag, I’ll probably just ignore it, as much as I’ll hate doing so.

I consistently get far more hours of playtime per dollar spent with indie games I buy for $5-$15 than $60 AAA games. (I say $60, not $70, because I haven’t bought anything at $70, and don’t intend to start.)

If they want to charge $70 for games, maybe release them in a complete state and don’t include microtransactions and offer post-launch support for a decent period of time. Their ‘Video games haven’t changed price since the 90s! The price isn’t keeping up with inflation!’ argument is a crock of shit because in the 90s, you bought a game and that was that. There’d maybe be a $40 expansion a year later that roughly doubled the content in the game. There were no $60 games with $150+ of day 1 DLC.