I know the cards are worth a few cents each. Selling those is more trouble than it’s worth.

I meant the inventory gift games being worth something.

Wait, these are worth something? I have so many of them rotting in my inventory.

Most people call that “Windows.”

If only they supported Linux. Proton support out of the box is the biggest selling point for me.

60Hz has been the standard (at least in the US) since CRTs. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a 30Hz display.

Stellar Blade is a single player game.

This is completely incorrect. Their contract states that you can’t sell Steam keys for less elsewhere, which is entirely fair in my opinion. If your game is on multiple platforms or storefronts, you can sell it for whatever price you want there. The fact is that nobody does; they list it for the same everywhere and pocket the difference if someone buys on EGS.

If this was true, games would cost 18% less on EGS because they only take 12%. Shockingly enough, they cost the same.

Because support is missing from SteamVR, existing games, or both.

None of these features are usable in SteamVR, or if they are, aren’t supported by any games, like HDR.

Nature is healing.

What? I didn’t want you to list a bunch of things off the top of your head. I asked for one factual thing, and you instead you provided a bunch of assumptions. If you can’t provide actual facts maybe just don’t state guesses like they’re true?

I stopped reading when you implied that Facebook invented pancake optics. They have been used in cameras for decades. And while I agree they’re the way forward in the future, saying they let more light in is factually incorrect: they only let about 10-15% of the light through. This page has a good overview of why that is and how they work.

Buying up game developers to make them exclusives and selling hardware at a loss to stifle competitors is the only “benefit” their money has produced. This is a net negative for VR as a whole.

Like 90% of what a modern VR headset is made of has come from their money.

Like what? I can’t think of a single invention they pioneered that’s used in their own headsets, let alone everyone else’s.

The Switch is 7 years old this month.

Most games have a day one patch, but the game on the disc is usually playable without it.

“Could do”? I haven’t used Windows in a decade at least, but doesn’t it have ads in the start menu now?

I wish people would stop parroting this. For the vast, vast majority of games it isn’t true.

Declaring Game Pass profitable right after they reclassified every Xbox Live user as a Game Pass user smells like creative accounting to me.

It’s not even a question anymore. Even if every single subscriber is on the highest tier, they’re not even close to making back their third-party costs to run the service, let alone server costs, cannibalized first-party game sales, and whatever else they pay to run it.

This article could be about any year from the past 10 years. Why do people still believe these “promises”?

It’s much faster.

Most of those were preexisting contracts they needed to fulfill. You’re the one who’s arguing in bad faith.

Astroturfing is a very real thing that major companies participate in to sway public sentiment.

Games that are Epic exclusive aren’t cheaper either. This is a nonsense argument.

The suggestion here is that the type of game that can thrive on a subscription service is either a small one that benefits from better curation and visibility or a live-service one that can make up revenue on the backend by charging all the new players microtransactions (the new store shelves are inside the games themselves).

I’ve been saying this since Game Pass launched: it encourages scummy monetization. The kind of games that come to it are going to have more and more content locked away behind microtransactions to make up the money lost by not selling copies. It’s going to gradually become full of “free” to play garbage, and people will accept it because they didn’t pay for an individual game outright.

They won’t.

People who have never launched the game aren’t counted in these statistics.

This smells like desperation.

I said “generally.” There are a few publishers that ship empty discs, and some games that are completely broken without a day-one patch, but most still have a playable game on the disc, at least on PlayStation. On Xbox, for games that have backwards compatibility with One, they often couldn’t fit both game builds on one disc, so they made one version download-only instead of shipping two discs.

For PC games, no, they’re not actually on the disc. For console games, they generally are the full game, albeit sometimes buggy without the day-one patch.

Game Pass (especially when a game launches on it) encourages aggressive monetization, so that doesn’t fill me with confidence.

Now the lower deals are on the key reseller sites, because…no refunds.

Can we stop pretending that buying a developer and buying a publisher are even close to the same thing?

I still want Material back.