loobkoob

I don’t disagree, but gaming laptops are always overpriced. You’re paying a premium for the small form factor. (And I assume they also have the much less powerful RTX 4070 Mobile, which makes the value proposition even worse for laptops.)

An analogue would be: petrol stations stop being a thing as the world transitions to electric/hydrogen/whatever cars. You start working on a way to modify your car in some way to account for this - perhaps you plan on making your own biofuel, or manually converting it to a electric/hydrogen/whatever car. The manufacturer of your car hears about this, comes along to your house and repossesses your car and takes it to be crushed, despite it being something you own and that they should have no say in any more.

There certainly was some actual “ethics in video game journalism” discussion early on that I felt was legitimate, but that got drowned out pretty quickly by the misogynists (which, from what I gather, was the entire point - it seems the misogynists started the whole thing and used the “ethics in game journalism” thing as a front to try to legitimise their agenda).

I think the discussion about the personal relationships game journalists have with developers in general was a reasonable one to have. It unfortunately ended up just laser focusing on Zoe Quinn supposedly trading sex for good reviews, which was untrue, sexist and resulted in nasty personal attacks. But I think it was worth at least examining the fact that game journalists and game developers often have close relationships and move in the same circles, and that game journalism can often be a stepping stone to game development. Those are absolutely things that could influence someone’s reviews or articles, consciously or subconsciously.

And another conversation worth having was the fact that gaming outlets like IGN were/are funded by adverts from gaming companies. It makes sense, of course - the Venn diagram of IGN’s (or other gaming outlets’) readers and gaming companies’ target audience is almost a perfect circle, which makes the ad space valuable to the gaming companies. And because it’s valuable to gaming companies, it’s better for the outlets to sell the ad space to them for more money than to sell it to generic advertising platforms. But it does mean it seems valid to ask whether the outlets giving bad reviews or writing critical articles might cause their advertisers to pull out, and therefore they might avoid being too critical.

Now I don’t think the games industry is corrupt or running on cronyism, personally. And I certainly don’t believe it’s all run by a shadowy cabal of woke libruls who are trying to force black people, women (and worse, gasp black women shudder) into games. But I do feel it was worth asking about the relationships between journalists, developers, publishers and review outlets - and honestly, those are the kinds of things that both game journalists and people who read game journalism should constantly be re-evaluating. It’s always good to be aware of potential biases and influences.

The fact that the whole thing almost immediately got twisted into misogyny, death threats and a general hate campaign was both disappointing and horrifying. And the fact that it led to the alt-right, and that you can trace a line from it to Brexit and to Donald Trump becoming US president, is even worse.

Not that your suggestion is necessarily bad in general, but I don’t really think it’s necessary when it comes to Factorio. I think it should be clear from playing the demo whether 100+ more hours of that seems worth the asking price for someone. It’s probably the most representative demo I’ve ever played; the full game is just the demo but more. There are no surprises down the line. There are no random pivots to other genres, or the game trying to stick its fingers in too many pies. There’s no narrative to screw up. There’s no “oh, they clearly just spent all their time polishing the first hour of the game and the rest of it is a technical mess”. It’s the same gameplay loop from the demo for another 50 hours until you “win”.

… and then another 50 hours after that when you decide to optimise things. And then another 100 hours when you decide to make a train-themed base. And then another 700 hours when you discover some of the mods that exist…

Factorio’s demo absolutely convinced me to buy it.

Demos only really work well if the game is fantastic and able to convey that in a small slice of the game, though.

Even of that were true (which it may be), there are loot games and loot games. Personally, I want itemisation to make a meaningful difference to how my build feels to play and how it performs. I want to be able to have a unique/legendary item drop and think, “wow, I’m going to make a while new build around this”.

Games where the loot is just +1 damage or 7% extra armour, and where there’s no real depth to the loot, would be better off without loot, I think - I’d rather just see an armoury where I pick the weapon I want, and not have to deal with the loot scaling, enemy level scaling, etc. Save the looter aspects for games like Path Of Exile or Borderlands where loot is actually engaging and impactful.

I reckon the number of sales of the game was pretty irrelevant to them. They lived off investor money for years, and the fact that they released something makes it rather difficult for them to be sued for fraud. I suspect that’s why they never took pre-orders, too - it makes it more difficult for any “false advertisement” class action suits to get any traction if they weren’t accepting any money.

Here’s something that isn’t that widely known outside of developers/publishers: Steam holds any money from the sales of a game until the end of the following month - it makes refunds easier, it gives them time to deal with processing fees, etc. So The Day Before’s devs, who said they had to shut the studio because they’d run out of money and couldn’t afford to stay open because the game hadn’t sold well enough, wouldn’t have seen any money from the game until next week anyway. And they’d have known this - this wasn’t their first game.

I’m sure a lot of the people who said they were going to boycott it did boycott it. But a boycott was never going to work for this game. The IP alone meant it was going to sell 10M+ copies, even if it was absolutely terrible.

Not to defend Amazon, but my assumption there would be that they’re covering themselves for podcasts that include sponsored ad reads in the podcast (ie, not inserted by amazon themselves). If it’s anything other than that, it seems like misadvertising.

This is stupid. I have no love for Overwatch or Blizzard - I’ve been boycotting them for years, in fact. But there are far, far worse games on Steam than OW2. The fact that, to my knowledge, it runs properly, doesn’t have crypto miners built into it, and isn’t just made from stolen assets already puts it at like a 5/10 at minimum.

I’m all for consumers standing up for themselves and being critical or poor products, but I really wish people wouldn’t get caught up in these hate bandwagons.