I was part of a campaign that was running for a few years that unfortunately ended abruptly before I could ever naturally reveal the several puns and references I packed into my character from the outset. The set up for the ones I remember are my character was a large, friendly paladin whose highest stat was in Charisma, who largely wanted a group of friends and his highest goal was to be called their pal, who wanted to be called by his last name by his friends, who was half angelic/celestial (can’t remember the name of the race), who had dark skin, a large muscular frame, bald head, and short facial hair, whose starting gift was his blessed chainmail, and whose name was Cronwier Aderb.

The references that I remember are that he was designed in the image of a meme with Terry Crews photoshopped as a paladin (stats also reflected this meme), his blessed chainmail was his Hole-y Armor, I remember there being something about his name reflecting a crown but I can’t remember the pun or reference, and lastly he wanted his friends to say “this is our pal, Aderb.” That last one I remember I specifically came up with after the DM asked if my character was going to be “like your dark souls character, another paladerp?”

Great, you have a simple rule that’s wholely unrealistic and as poorly construed as pretty much everything else you’ve been saying so far. Such a rule could so easily be worked around that it may as well already exist for all that it would matter.

I’ll again reiterate that I agree with what you want to argue. I agree that I think Steam could probably take a smaller cut, still be profitable enough to stay in business at the same scale they are, afford more smaller businesses a better cut of the money they’re generating for themselves and for steam, and give the option to charge less to consumers. I agree that there are too many mega corporations, making way too much money, screwing too many of their clients, customers, and employees. I agree that too many executives are making genuinely fuck loads of money that are inhumanly excessive.

I’ll still say again though, that pretty much everything you’ve argued so far is wildly unrealistic, unfounded in reality, barely thought through at all, and comes across as the absurd ramblings of a middle schooler who passed an economics elective.

I’ll also point out the hypocrisy of you attacking Steam (and to your credit other distributors retail or otherwise) but defending the publishers that by your arguments simply must charge more or else they don’t make money back on their investment. Your argument defends AAA publishers such as EA churning out games year after year with the exact same code just different stats for sports games (FIFA, NBA, whatever the current football games are), games exploiting gambling addictions (pay to win, FOMO, loot boxes), and games exploiting the efforts and attention of children (Roblox).

Also “something must be broken in your brain for you to defend them instead of your own interests” is rich coming from the person who’s very visibly experiencing double-think seemingly genuinely arguing “of course publishers aren’t going to charge less for their titles on other digital marketplaces because if they need a $49 RoI on Steam then they’re going to charge the same $70 price on other platforms” at the same time as “well if Steam didn’t charge a 30% cut then you would pay $50 for an otherwise $70 title!” as if you don’t believe in your own argument that they would charge the same exact price on Steam as they do elsewhere.

It sounds to me like you’ve already started with the conclusion that 30% is too much considering you’re against all retailers taking 30%, seemingly without any regards to the context any of these retailers might have. How is it that you’ve determined that 30% is too much, and don’t forget that you’re the one who argued that other distributors are not relevant in this discussion.

Oh is that because Steam exists in isolation and can’t be compared to any other platform? If so, tell me what about Steam makes it an apples to oranges comparison with Epic, GOG, Origin, and Battle.Net? If they’re up for discussion then why is it that physical game distribution isn’t allowed to be talked about? If an average consumer is only really concerned about getting the game then why are some forms of getting their game not allowed for discussion? Why should retailers be exempt from this discussion?

You also didn’t seem to mind slashing their cut percentage in half, but how can we know that’s a feasible percentage if we’re not allowed to talk about other distributors and see if they’re able to make 15% work? If we’re not considering other distributors at all then who’s to say if 30% is unreasonable? Should it be increased or decreased and by how much?

Suppose we were instead talking about Nintendo selling games for too much, how would we decide it’s too much if we couldn’t compare it to other studios, distributors, or platforms that demonstrate they can still run a business and charge less?

Face it, talk about and comparison to any other distributor or distribution method is fully relevant and required if you want to have any meaningful discussion. You just don’t seem to want to discuss retailers because they’re hurting your weak argument.

So companies made due with the same cut from retailers for decades, Steam comes along and offers the same cut with none of the other expenses associated with those retailers (thereby giving them a better RoI than the same retailers they made due with for decades) and suddenly Steam is the reason games are so expensive.

For all of your talk that Steam’s awful cut sets the bar for the price or else they won’t make their RoI on games sold there, you suddenly don’t seem to care very much about the very many retailers these AAA publishers still regularly sell through that cost them a significantly larger percentage per game sold than Steam does.

I find it absolutely wild that you seem to think Steam’s 30% cut is the sole reason AAA games cost $70. Have you ever looked into how much it costs to sell a game at a retail store? From what I’ve seen Steam takes roughly the same cut as most retailers do and then the publisher still has to produce the physical copies and distribute them. They would make the same amount on Steam if and only if they printed, burned, packaged, and distributed their physical copies for free, not to mention the promotional materials they’re sending out to retailers.

Everything I’m seeing indicates that compared to a physical copy (which is given for a majority of AAA games) a major publisher would earn far more money per copy on Steam than at GameStop, Target, Walmart, or any other retailer where they’re charging the same $70 price at. But Steam is the real problem that’s hurting their RoI, apparently.

I’ll agree I think Steam’s cut is high and they could earn a lot of favor by turning it down a bit, but your argument seeming to insinuate that their 30% cut is the sole reason games cost $70 is absolutely wild to me.

It’s possible they have more games in their library as they did say 300+ games they want to play, but yeah the numbers they gave don’t add up to hundreds of thousands. Unless they were taking phrases like “a $700 Demon Souls machine” very literally.

I haven’t played in a week or two but I’m pretty sure that certain stratagems can deform the terrain, like the 500kg.

Even in casual mode, you have a (hidden) rank which does go down the more you lose. If you keep getting demolished in the game then I’d recommend doing the training, playing against bots, and/or continuing to play in casual mode until your rank starts placing you with other players you can better contend with.

There’s also a distinct possibility you were against someone smurfing as some people like to do that either for content or just for kicks and giggles. The very lowest ranks are probably where the most egregious smurfs like to keep their ranks, so unfortunately you can have some of the widest swings in actual skill levels.

Unfortunately the devs don’t really seem to care much about the smurfing problem in the game because it’s been pretty rampant for a very long time and some of the changes they’ve made have actually made it even easier to get away with.

Why’s that?

I’m not saying I know this is an asshole because they drive a large, obnoxious vehicle every day. I’m saying I see people who drive large, obnoxious vehicles on a daily basis and as such it wouldn’t surprise me if this person also drove this large, obnoxious vehicle on a daily basis because I’ve seen others do it. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that this person does use this as more than a “toy” just as much as it’s possible that this is the only time it was ever on-road.

If this person drives this vehicle regularly in relatively urban areas (or really much anywhere except mostly on empty roads or off road) then I’d be disappointed and frustrated that their toy is something that has been modified in a way that makes it larger and more dangerous to both other drivers and pedestrians. That’s not to say I think they’re doing that specifically to be more dangerous to everyone else, but the net effect is still the same. Their modifications have made it harder to see others close to the car, made it easier for others to go under the vehicle in the event of an accident, and made it more likely to tumble in a crash.

That all being said, my experience with the type of people who install modifications like this to their vehicles would suggest they’re an asshole who’s either apathetic to the danger they cause others or like these modifications specifically because it pisses people off. Just as you said I don’t know from this single photo whether this person fits that mold and I’m not going to pretend I do, but I’m also not going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

You may feel comfortable introducing the possibility and almost insisting that their vehicle is a toy, but personally I’m against calling almost any car or truck a “toy”, much less one that has wheels that look taller than many people.

To a sensible person it wouldn’t be a daily driver. I’ve seen some people who are not sensible on my daily commute.

Eh, at least as far as the combat goes I liked doing the Net Runner thing: hacking cameras left and right and killing off enemies before they ever saw me. That being said I put the game down when it became too much of a chore to get much anything upgraded. My combat style may have been suboptimal but I had fun with it.

I also didn’t have any issues with bugs or graphical issues, but I also first played it pretty far into its life after they could fix plenty of things. Don’t remember exactly when it was, but it was after the anime was no longer super relevant but before that big 2.0 update. I also know I played using some mods, and I can’t remember if there was a mod that fixed a bunch of issues.

I’m the same boat except I was forced to use it because of work some time in the last 2 ish years.

From what I’ve heard Valve is already refunding most everyone who asks for a refund given this controversy.

One of my friends made the mistake of linking his PSN account right when he started playing Helldivers 2 then shortly found he was banned from the game. After he did some digging, he found his PSN account was banned for “suspicious activities” despite having not used it in over a year. After even more digging he eventually finds out it was because when they kept charging him for their premium service and he was trying to cancel it, they wouldn’t remove his payment information. He checked multiple times with them and they said they did.

Next payment period rolls around and they charge him for another year of service all the same. He tries to get it refunded, he talks to them about how they said they removed the payment info and it’s nothing but “well there’s nothing we can do about it now” type bullshit. So he goes to his bank and did a charge back on the annual fee, since they keep insisting it’s impossible. Wouldn’t ya know it suddenly it’s very easy to remove his payment info, cancel that premium service, and take care of everything.

All of this was done about a year prior, and he left his account untouched since fuck Sony and PlayStation at that point. I guess they waited until his account was active again being used for a game for them to suddenly realize they really don’t like his charge back and deactivate his account entirely, blocking access to everything linked to it, including Helldivers 2.

As far as my personal opinion on whether games such as any of the Soulsbourne titles should be made easier, I’m appreciative of the fact that they don’t have difficulty sliders in much any regard. If I beat Dark Souls 3, there isn’t a question about if I beat it on the easiest mode, anyone who’s gone through the entire experience knows what I also went through. While I agree that most of the FromSoft games are sorely lacking in accessibility options (even more so their older titles), Difficulty is only one of many accessibility options. I would rather they add other accessibility options so that players who struggle with the games as is can have an easier time getting the intended experience than reduce the intended experience down to allow for the lowest common denominator.

As an aside, many of the Soulsbourne games already have something in the way of “easier modes” via alternate weapons, different combat systems, and different play styles. Playing almost any of them primarily using ranged combat reduces the difficulty in most every encounter in the game outside of boss battles. Boss battles often have their own gimmick that you can exploit to make them easier to fight. Often the level design, nearby items (and descriptions), or enemy positions are used as clues to make finding these exploits easier.

As an example, the Taurus Demon in DS1 can be killed fairly easily by baiting him to where the skeleton archers are above the fight, then using a plunging attack on him several times in a row. The intended experience is that you would go into the arena, you may run directly towards the other side, spawn the Taurus demon once you run about halfway through the arena, and notice you’re being shot at from behind. You’ll likely die, but in the next fight against him you can try to take out the archers via your own ranged weapons, but doing so shows a cleverly hidden ladder that leads up to the archers. The ladder isn’t visible when entering the arena but the moment you turn around to look at the archers you can clearly see it next to the doorway you entered from. You can go up the ladder and easily dispatch the archers. I don’t remember if every following fight you have to run halfway through the arena to spawn him again or if you have to run halfway through only the first time, but regardless an observant player will notice after taking down the archers that the drop back down the ladder will look very similar to the plunging attack the game teaches you in the tutorial boss fight. If you make the connection and perform that attack on the Taurus Demon it’ll take out about 30% of his health depending on your class and weapon. Scramble around his legs (now that you’re on the same floor as him) back towards the ladder, climb up, and repeat a few more times for an easy victory. Alternatively you can wait up where the archers were for a few seconds and the Taurus Demon will jump up and fight you there. You now have an alternate wider arena better suited to strafing around him instead of the narrow bridge he spawns in on.

Other games would do things like give a prompt to lower the difficulty, reduce the health of enemies in the background after repeated failures, or give you optional power ups after X defeats. All of these reinforce the mentality that “what you’re doing is right, but you’re lacking the skill to do it” when often in Soulsbourne games that’s a harmful mentality to have as it’ll lead you to keep repeating a tactic or playstyle that’s demonstrably not working. In my opinion, that’s the core of what fans of harder games like myself want to keep experiencing and why so many are against “easier modes” because it subverts the intended experience we enjoy: recognizing what’s going wrong, correcting it to make things go right, and overcoming great challenges.

You’re presenting the two options as similar when I’m not entirely sure they are. You’ve explored making an easy game harder and a hard game easier, but let’s look at the other two results from your presented options: making an easy game easier and a hard game harder.

Making a hard game harder is often met with praise because the people who beat or otherwise enjoy the hard game already want and expect a challenge out of the game, so giving them more of that is almost what they expect already.

Making an easy game easier can be met with praise as much as it can be subject to criticism. The Pokemon series has long been critiqued for continually making every next installment easier and easier for the last several generations.

Obviously in your example of making a hard game easier there are people in favor of it but also people against it. The fact that we’re having a discussion about this controversy is proof enough that many people want it, but dedicated fans are often against it.

And just like in your example, I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone against allowing an easy game to have harder modes as long as it doesn’t negatively impact those playing the easier modes.

The trend I’m seeing amongst these 4 outcomes is usually that allowing the option for a harder mode than the game already allows is often agreed upon by the wider gaming community, but asking for easier modes is often controversial. The trend I’m also seeing is that this remains true regardless of if the game was considered easy or hard in the first place.

Your original post seems to imply that players and fans for hard games are being obstinate and resistant to allowing the same concessions that players and fans for easy games do, when you could use the other two results I brought up to make players for easy games seem just as obstinate. “Us players of hard games are allowing for harder games to be made, why do you fans of easy games seem to be having such a controversy over if easy games should be made easier?” or something to that effect.

In my opinion, the controversy isn’t whether hard games should be made easier, it’s whether games fans enjoy should be made easier.

It sounds like how you feel about Rebirth is pretty similar to how I felt about Remake having played the original several times. Not going to say you couldn’t or shouldn’t have enjoyed it, but there were a ton of story bits and minigames that frustrated the hell out of me.

Yes I both am aware and agree that that would be acting against archives and the like. EA making these games available on Steam however is not the same as Nintendo suing emulators.