Mama told me not to come.
She said, that ain’t the way to have fun.
Exactly! Some examples:
Set the precedent, then gradually expand scope.
Exactly. And once people sign a petition and see it actually get implemented increases the chance that they’ll get involved next time.
This petition is great because it’s:
Something like homeless doesn’t have as clear of direction on solutions. Likewise ads, since that runs afoul of how tons of businesses make money, but this could be leveraged to reduce/eliminate ads in games that you pay for.
If this petition actually goes somewhere, I sincerely believe we’ll see more petitions from people who otherwise wouldn’t speak out. Ross was one of those people, and if he sees success, he’ll inspire a bunch of other people like him to act. I think it’s fantastic.
You can accept them on internal networks, just have a file size limit and don’t extract them locally, but send to some cloud service for handling. You could even have it work with email attachments if you want.
Basically:
This makes a lot of sense.
It would be nice if multiple people reviewed each game, and then they discuss before publishing a review. That’s one thing I really like about Digital Foundry, though they focus way more on technical details than overall gaming experience, but it’s very fun to see what each reviewer has to say about a given title.
I’m not talking about my personal preference on rating, I’m talking about broad community reviews.
For example, Cyberpunk 2077 is a notorious example. It got generally favorable reviews from reviewers, and the public release was a completely broken pile of trash on console. Reviews didn’t even get the console release, yet still gave it a positive review because the experience on PC was decent. How can we trust reviewers if they don’t actually try the game? The terms of the review embargo alone should have pushed reviewers to give it net negative reviews since they’re not able to actually try the game.
For strict review differences, look at Starfield, which got 85% by Metacritic, and Steam reviews are more like 55-60%, and it got hit hard by independent reviewers shortly after launch. That’s a pretty big mismatch.
GTA V was pretty close to a perfect score, but actual reception was a bit lower (80% or so on Steam right now). That’s not a huge difference, and it could be due to frustration about not having a sequel for over a decade, but it does seem that some studios get more favorable reviews/more of a pass than others.
That said, a lot of the time reviews are pretty close to the eventual community response. It just seems that reviewers overhype certain games. I haven’t really seen much evidence where critics review a game much below where the community reception is, but I have seen cases where reviewer scores are quite a bit higher than the eventual community response.
Maybe there’s nothing suspicious going on, it just sometimes feels that way.
Are you talking from a regulatory standpoint or from an “I like indies so I’d give it a pass” standpoint?
Is that actually enforced? If so, what’s the explanation for reviewers giving suspiciously high reviews to AAA games?
But weren’t game reviews essentially ads paid by the publisher? Because that’s what it looks like from the outside, since the reviews are increasingly poor quality that largely focus on positives and ignore negatives. Some games that completely flopped due to technical issues got glowing reviews by journalists, probably because they were paid handsomely for that review.
I think game journalists should avoid advertisements as much as possible because once they rely on it, the temptation to allow their content to be colored by whatever attracts advertisers is too much. They should be solely focused on attracting readers, which means they need to be reader supported.
Um, that’s how it always should have been. That’s how journalism in general works, going back since pretty much the dawn of newspapers: readers pay for copy, and advertisements subsidize it.
Like the games industry, publications that cover video games have been rocked by a turbulent market since the highs of the COVID-19 pandemic. Media owners like IGN, Fandom, Gamer Network, and Valent have all cut jobs in the past year.
Is it turbulent though? This article goes over video game spending by year, and it has largely plateaued since 2019. There was a pretty big jump in 2020 due to the pandemic, but the market seems to have returned to a normalish trajectory and mobile revenue seems to be plateauing (I guess it’s saturated?).
I think what happened is that people are shifting where they get their information from. Instead of relying on game journalists, who seem to be paid by game devs (hence why any big game rarely gets below 7/10), they rely on social media, who theoretically aren’t paid by game devs (there’s plenty of astroturfing though). The business model where they’re not paid by game devs should always have been the case, since when people are deciding what games to buy, they clearly would prefer a less biased source.
IMO, games journalism should have multiple revenue streams, such as:
They can get very far before needing to run ads. Produce quality journalism and have some additional revenue streams and it’ll work out.
I don’t consume much gaming journalism because it’s largely BS that praises big AAAs and generally ignores indies unless they get viral. I want honest opinions about games, not some balance between sucking up to who pays the bills and mild criticism.
Are you an IT contractor or something?
AWS is the modern IBM.
That’s basically why we use it at work. I hate it, but that’s how things are.
Absolutely this. We are based out of one region, but also have a second region as a quick disaster recovery option, and we have people 24/7 who can manage the DR process. We’re not big enough to have live redundancy, but big enough that an hour of downtime would be a big deal.
Eh, GOG isn’t a nonprofit or anything, so there’s no guarantee they’ll use your money for the cause you want.
Go for it if you want, just remember that GOG is a for-profit entity at the end of the day and don’t owe you anything for your donation.
Why not just buy a game instead? That doesn’t provide as much money to GOG, but it also rewards game devs for providing DRM-free games.
No, if there’s nothing, it’s not using one of the big DRM systems.
There’s a good chance it doesn’t use any DRM, but the only way to know for sure is to install it and try to run it without Steam (rename Steam dir and Steam exe just in case). Some games use Steam DRM or otherwise rely on Steam, so this is to rule those out too.
Yeah, I didn’t have a Steam account until they came to Linux back in 2013 or so. Back then, I bought most of my games through Humble Bundle since most had Linux support, and the rest direct from the dev’s website (e.g. I bought Minecraft and Factorio around their public alpha/beta release). I played a few games through WINE, but not many since it was a pain.
Steam was a game changer, and they didn’t even have Proton yet, so I only bought Linux-native games through them. Being able to finally find games that supported Linux easily and keep them all on an account was amazing! And then they added Proton for the Steam Machine launch, and I could finally play many Windows games as well!
In that time, what has GOG done for me? Offline installers suddenly doesn’t sound as impressive, especially since they don’t come with a compatibility layer, so I’ll have to go mess with WINE directly again to use them for Windows games. With Steam, I can copy the installed files for most games and it’ll work without Steam running, so I can get 90% of the value GOG provides (my “installer” can be a tarball) with a small amount of effort, and also get all of the extra value Steam provides, so why pick GOG?
Here’s what would change my mind, in rough order of preference:
I mostly want some indication that GOG cares about Linux gamers. Valve has gone out of their way to support Linux, EGS has done the same to not support Linux, and GOG is somewhere in the middle. I like GOG’s principles here, I just need some level of actual support from them.
Firefox profiles are separate Firefox “accounts” with things like bookmarks, browsing history, etc. They’re entirely local, and they’re useful for keeping stuff separate.
This change is a redesign of how you interact with it, making it much easier. You probably weren’t aware about it because it’s hard to access, hence the reason for the redesign.
Whether it’s good or not is irrelevant. The fact is that it exists as the recommended way to install games, and it’s not available for my platform even years after it was released. What does that say about me and my platform? If I have an issue with a game, will they help? If they’re unwilling to support their flagship launcher, why would they help with a game?
Steam works on my platform and has for over 10 years, and they’re constantly making improvements specific to my platform. GOG has DRM free games. Is that enough reason to prefer GOG over Steam? Most of my Steam games are DRM-free, so my answer is no.
I’ve used minigalaxy in the past as well. There are solutions, sure.
I’m more rankled by GOG not even giving a nod to Linux users and going out of their way to court Windows users. I understand the economics here, but I would very much appreciate something from them. When they had a user voice (not sure if they still do? A quick search didn’t find it), the top requested feature was Galaxy support for Linux, and we’ve gotten nothing from them, except I guess a deal w/ the creator of Heroic for a referral revenue share on game sales (similar to sales through streamer links and whatnot). That’s it. That feels like a bit of a slap in the face.
Extra points if you bring some munchies to share.