Erm, most games? You’re better off asking which games people might remember 20 years from now. You ask me what games released in 2004 off the to of my head I could only remember Halo 2, Half-life 2 and Doom 3 (and this one I remember because of Half-life 2). I’m 100% certain I’m forgetting some huge release from 2004. But that’s the thing, only the really memorable games will be remembered.

I could probably mention 20-30 games from the 00s (maybe 50-60 because some series released a lot of games in that time frame. For example Half-life 2, episode 1 and episode 2 make up 3 games, but I remember all of them because of Half-life 2), but over a decade thousands of games were released. The vast majority of games will be forgotten.

20 years from now maybe some old man like myself remembers Space Marine 2, but it will get wiped from the collective memory.

So all subscription games are gambling? What about Fallout 76? It’s not gambling if you just buy the game but if you buy the subscription the game becomes gambling despite the game fundamentally stays the same and the subscription doesn’t add any RNG to the game?

In that case aren’t most games gambling? You fight a boss and you die. You have failed and you lose progress of the boss fight which means the failed fight was a waste of time. Gambling.

My actual point is that despite us having a relatively good intuition on what is gambling, defining what gambling really is is pretty hard. Be too broad and you will end up marking non-gambling things as gambling, be too narrow and you get things like lootboxes that definitely feel like gambling but don’t actually fit most legal definitions of gambling.

Your definition is so broad it encompasses almost all games and as such is useless when you want to use it to regulate gambling on games.

Kinda hard to make a solid catalogue when you follow the live service trend and your projects flop one after another.

I agree the genre isn’t exactly for me, but I don’t think that’s really relevant. Stardew Valley and Sims more or less fall in the same genre and I loved Stardew Valley and could see the appeal of Sims. I don’t have an issue with those games being on the list but New Horizons just felt shallow. Outside of collecting things for the Museum there really wasn’t anything that engaging. I remember also checking if I’m just playing it wrong and the sentiment from the AC vets was that the gameplay of New Leaf is better.

I did a quick check to see New Horizon is still in the same state as I remember and some people are claiming the 2.0 update made the game better so I guess I’ll give it another shot one day. Maybe my opinion is dated because I haven’t really played since 1.3 update.

I’m going to give my probably controversial opinion. I don’t think Animal Crossing New Horizons should be on that list and the main reason it got critical acclaim is because it released at the height of Covid. Had it released any other time people would’ve seen that it’s a shallow game where in long term it’s mostly a repetition of the same menial actions. There’s nothing wrong with repetition, but having to check the store every day isn’t exactly the peak of compelling gameplay.

Feel free to correct me but nobody got a majority so 2 of the 3 largest coalitions would have to come to an agreement to get a majority. Macrons coalition could align with the left and Macron could appoint a prime minister without the opposition blocking it. So how exactly are Macrons hands tied? Does he have no control over the coalition he himself created?

Maybe she was taught the “when mommy and daddy really love each other” way of getting pregnant.

If you come from Windows Mint is an excellent starting point. People shit on it because it doesn’t have all the fancy bells and whistles you get with more latest releases, but on the flip side it’s super reliable and as a new user that reliability is worth more than all the bells and whistles.

At no point did I say Ukraine shouldn’t get what it needs to end the war. What I said is that we shouldn’t let Ukraine get away with the same things Russia is doing. If for example Ukraine would gas the Russian front line we shouldn’t be “well Russia did it first”. Chemical warfare is not acceptable. Turning a blind eye towards atrocities is how we got Isreal.

The other guy is pretty much saying it would be okay if Ukraine dirty bombed Moscow because he is literally implying we should kill all Russians.

Go learn history. This “we must show them” mentality is how after WW1 Nazis got into a position of power. And no, we didn’t kill all of them. Some were sent to the Hague, most were picked up by the US (unsurprisingly US now has a fascism problem) and the rest (the wider population) got collectively guilted out of nazism. Oh and we made sure Nazi and Fascist are so bad words that actual Nazis and Fascists use them in a derogatory way to not associate themselves with that word.

The idea that we should ruthlessly kill Russians because Putin is a horrible person is Lemmygrad level of idiotic.

You missed the point. The point the other guy made is that for the past 50+ countries have turned a blind eye to Isreal not playing by the rules and that has let Israel become more and more ruthless to a point where they’re the ones effectively committing genocide. Maybe Ukraine won’t turn out like Israel but is it really the door we want to open?

Just because Russia is getting increasing more violent and inhumane doesn’t mean Ukraine should follow the same path. Nobody is saying Ukraine shouldn’t defend itself (or fight on Russian soil), we’re just saying we shouldn’t turn a blind eye if Ukraine starts shelling humanitarian corridors, chopping off legs of prisoners, gas striking the front etc.

Yeah, I’m not continuing this discussion with you. You won’t even check if you’re talking out of your ass. The division 2 released simultaneously on Uplay and EGS

His question was not clear to me which is why I stated I didn’t understand what he was asking. And then expanded what I meant by exclusivity to see if that answered his question. And while I didn’t have time to go find the sources especially since finding the source for the other publisher IMO isn’t worth the effort (mainly because searching the web for anything very has become next to impossible unless you know exactly what you’re looking for). The Ubisoft one however is really simple, anyone with basic googling skills could find it.

If anyone is here in bad faith it’s you. You instantly assumed I’m being disingenuous and come attacking me without even doing a basic check to see if you have anything to attack.

I’m not sure what you’re asking so I’ll just expand on what Epic did. Epic made a deal with Ubisoft where Ubisoft releases their game on their store and on EGS but not on Steam despite all previous Ubisoft titles being on Steam. I remember there being another smaller publisher who made a deal with EGS and released their game on other storefronts (I think it was EGS and GOG but it also could’ve been the MS store) but not on Steam. I would consider that exclusivity targeting specifically Steam.

I’m not saying you should, I’m saying it doesn’t make them villains or a bad company.

I think it does. Instead of competing they chose to try and force customers to use their platform by buying exclusivity that specifically targets Steam. From the perspective of the customer they took the worst possible approach and, along with how Sweeney has talked about people like us, treated customers like a cattle to be herded, as if we couldn’t think for ourselves and would throw ourselves into EGS if our games went there.

But the end goal of EGS wasn’t just to make them more money, they offer every developer more money when they publish there.

That is the PR they sold that the money goes into the hands of the developer. That is true only if the developer is also self publishing. Actually that extra money goes into the hands of the publisher and then it’s up to the publisher to decide if the developers get any more money. And once again, from the customers perspective, we barely get anything out of that goal. Games don’t get cheaper for us, we don’t really get more games because of it. The publishers simply get more money per sale. They don’t even get more money (except for the exclusivity money that Epic threw their way) because you sell significantly more copies on Steam because unlike Epic Steam doesn’t treat its customers like cattle.

The underlying motivation for creating EGS in the first place was the recognition that Valve does not need to be taking a 30% cut of every game sale to provide the services they provide.

So to prove that Valve doesn’t need to take a higher cut they make a store where they take fraction of the cut Steam would take but also offer a fraction of the services Steam offers? I think that would be an argument if they offered at least half of what Steam offers but they don’t even do that. They made a barebones store for a barebones cut, that doesn’t show anything.

Reminds me of Creeper world except faster paced and more dynamic.

We already know lowering the cut doesn’t make us pay less. All it does is put more money into the pockets of the publisher.

And I very much doubt Valve’s cut is a reason indie game can’t be profitable. There are asset flips going up on Steam on a daily basis. If asset flipping wasn’t profitable we wouldn’t see them propping up like mushrooms after rain. When asset flips are more profitable than an indie game there’s something wrong with that game.

If you have proof then post it. Don’t be a fucking asshole and waste everyone’s time by regurgitating the same “Do your own research” flat earther argument. In case it’s not clear, the burden of proof is on the one making the statement. You said there’s proof, show the proof.

Otherwise I could say “A study found that @idiocracy@lemmy.zip is a moron”. Now there’s proof you’re a moron. If you want that proof go find it yourself. And don’t even think about blaming me for whatever reason.