It is a fun game - I bought it and have put a dozen hours or so into it, but it also really doesn’t capture the brilliance of Slay the Spire or the other more influential roguelike deckbuilders. In particular, a lot of it feels either clunky or repetitive. It is a good game, but just good rather than amazing.

Using your clones example, the Slay the Spire “clones” that give roguelike deckbuilders a bad name aren’t Inscryption or Monster Train or Balatro. Its things like Across the Obelisk and Wildfrost, that are good, but fail to capture what makes others great, and the numerous low-effort copies you’ve likely never heard of that viewed it as an easy way to make a good game without understanding it. Its not that Roguelike Deckbuilders are bad, obviously, its that lazy, or thoughtless use of the mechanics that is. A game isn’t one mechanic, and trying to treat it as such just results in a messy or bad game.

Its a crutch because its expected to hold the game up, rather than the game supporting its own weight. In your bullet hell example, dodging isn’t a crutch, it’s the foundational mechanic. A better example would be a slot machine system (something that is near-inherently engaging) being added to a bullet hell game, not because it fits but because its fun independently and helps distract from the fact that they haven’t put any effort into the core gameplay. The mechanic isn’t a crutch, its inclusion as a tacked-on addition is.

The mechanic itself isn’t the issue, but how it is implemented.

It depends on how (and where) its implemented is his point. It needs to be woven into the comvat system as it is in FromSoft, Batman, Ultrakill, or Cuphead, not tacked on because its easy or popular. Each of those uses parrying in a different way to enhance its combat. On the other hand, if you take these mechanics without the greater context or understanding of why it works, then it’ll tends to stand out as bad, or remain unused. Doom Eternal is an example that immediately comes to mind. The whole game is about fast paced combat, with a plethora of new mobility mechanics, that is, until you encounter one of the enemies you need to parry. Then, the game comes to a grinding halt while you wait for the enemy to take action, so you are able to react, completely opposite the rage-fueled persona and the mobility focus of every other mechanic. Compare that to Ultrakill, where parrying isn’t just a reactive way to mitigate damage, its a situational attack that allows you to keep moving and keep up your carnage.

Game mechanics work best when they’re cohesive. Parrying, due to its simplicity can be tacked on easily, breaking this cohesiveness if not given the same weight as the rest of the mechanics.

It wasn’t a shadow drop, but it was relatively light on PR. They had one big trailer six months before launch some gameplay videos, and of course the store page available.

Not requesting anything since my backlog is already long enough, but still wantted to say thanks for the giveaway!

Honestly, I like the weekly missions. Back in GO, when there was more discussion about the lack of willingness of players to learn/play new maps, this is one of the solutions I proposed. Its a good, non-invasive way to incentivize playing new and different maps.

I mean, in this case it was a complete technical overhaul. Graphically and technically, its much more flexable and more modern.

It is an Overwatch 2 situation in that it had most of its content removed compared to CS:GO though.

This seems like too much complexity, given how small (relatively) Valve is. Then again, Valve is always hard to predict. Basically all their projects are wild moon-shots in one way or another, half their stuff doesn’t make it to market, and they have a long history of fake leaks.

Mechanical complexity as in the amount of stuff to learn to “actually play” Minecraft, aside from the controls. For example, which resources are which, what crafts into what, and how to find and gather everything. Its easy enough to punch wood, but trying to figure out (and then remember) how to craft tools or farm food while also trying to remember how to position your fingers on the keyboard is a much bigger ask.

Its going to be a lot harder to play Deep Rock Galactic or Portal 2 together if she sticks with her current perfered movement method: click and drag with the mouse.

Is the US really that central to PC component manufacturing, or is this (mostly) just a US thing? Like, don’t get me wrong, I know a lot of these companies are US-based, but isn’t basically all the manufacturing and most of the distribution handled elsewhere?

The article doesn’t add anything, so here’s the direct link: https://www.fanatical.com/en/pick-and-mix/build-your-own-play-on-the-go-bundle

From what I’ve heard, its mostly people expecting the game to be more dynamic - more akin to Skyrim’s varied gameplay systems or Fallout: NV’s story and quests. They’re going in expecting something with heavy RPG focus and getting something more action focused.

“Aged poorly” was a bad choice of words. My point was more that the industry has moved on from them, and while some of the conventions are the same, its largely stuff that predates them. If you go back to retro RPGs when you’re used to Skyrim, Dark Souls, Final Fantasy, ect. you’ll be unfamiliar with much of how the game plays. Not much was carried over from these games specifically. I’d argue that the influential RPG, that would be the genre’s equivalent to Doom, would be D&D. While not a video game, thats the model everything referenced, and still references, moreso than even Doom. It’s what codified core mechanics like HP, classes, character stats, and more, in the same way Doom codified modern first-person mechanics, ammo management, and exploding barrels.

While they’re important, I think they’ve also aged poorly in many ways something like Doom has not. I’d compare their importance more to something like Pong or Galiga. Good games, that pushed the limits of the medium for their time, and are foundational, but more acted as a steping stone rather than something other games were widely inpired by or modeled after.

I can’t think of anything that really competes overall. It could be argued games like Pong, Pac-Man, Quake, Half-Life, WoW, ect. all were pivotal points in gaming, but I don’t think anything has had as direct and widespread influence as Doom.

Unfortunately, this is only the Travelers Tale-style games. None of the classic, unlicensed ones like Lego Island, Lego Racers, Legoland, Bionicle, ect.

That and its addition to gamepass. They’re just free, themed reskins. Nothing major, buts its extra free content for an already good game.

Honestly, I like the look of the leader/civilization changing and mixing. Looks like a lot of fun, in the “late-game rogue-like”, “Break the game by amassing synergies” type way. Its a different appreal than 5, but that just means I can enjoy both rather than picking one. That said, given the price, the DRM, and the reported buggyness, I’ll probably still be waiting a few years at least. At least that gives modders time to get to work.

I saw this posted a couple days ago which pretty succinctly summarizes the current state of the market.

Commented this a year ago, and its just as relevant today.

The disbling of lifesteal on Bristleback’s Bristleback feels like it destroys him as a hero. I have no idea how you’d make a viable core build for him now.

I was kinda suprised too. I know someone else was saying they’re popular in developing nations, because of better regional pricing, although I can’t confirm that. I also know that they were a popular choice for crypto grifts and similar shady and scammy games, since they had less moderation than Steam, so its possible some of the income also comes from stuff like that.

In comparison, spending on third-party titles declined by 18% to $255 million

Some key context from the article.

Basically, profit from Fortnite increased significantly, although the store itself isn’t doing great.

Given that its $255 million in customer spending, not revenue or profits, and Epic reportedly takes only 12% plus reduced fees on Unreal Engine effectively lowering it further, I can’t imagine its profitable. If we assume 10%, that leaves revenue of $25.5 mil, which doesn’t seem like it’d be anywhere near enough to cover exclusivity deals, and giveaways, nonetheless infrastructure and other factors.

Worth noting that Steam does not enforce the use of its DRM. Like Epic, its up to developers to add it.

As for installing games after the services ends, I’d be curious to know if any have specified what happens to game licences at that point. Obviously, if the licence is revoked, continuing to play it is piracy, but if these services close, are the licences revoked? I couldn’t find anything matching in the Steam or GOG terms of service.

I think the vast majority of users only use launchers to launch games. For that purpose, it does that perfectly fine.

Does it? Lets envision the minimum viable product for a game store. You have a very basic web interface and you download games or installers from it. Something like itch.io, or similar to GOG. Is using Epic’s launcher better than just downloading the installers from a browser? I’d argue not, given the hastle of creating a new account, installing the launcher with all its spyware and using it, rather than the bare minimum of just downloading an installer, running it, and then running the game directly.

I suspect that even if Epic invested billions into bringing their store up to feature parity with Steam, users still wouldn’t switch. They’d need to be leaps and bounds better, and that’s hard to comprehend in terms of features and cost.

Look at how other platforms have eaten into Steam’s control most successfully without resorting to anything too shady. Humble Bundle and Fanatical offer unique bundles with better deals. Itch.io works more closely with devs, esspecially smaller devs. GOG cut out a niche by specifically seeking out old games to licence or fix themselves, as well as by ensuring everything is DRM free.

None of these had even a fraction of the funding Epic did. Imagine if Epic spent their early years trying to replicate these practices rather than paying to remove stuff off other platforms. Instead of spending millions on exclusivity deals, they offered customers things like weekly discount bundles, a designated DRM free section on their store, or maybe a community games section with less moderation, meant for quick-and-easy publishing for new devs.

If that isn’t enough, and they aren’t busy spending ten or hundreds of millions on pissing off their potential customers, then they could also look at loyalty programs, better sales, or even just straight-up marketing for their platform and the games on it. Epic isn’t a small company and their store has been a major investment.

All of that is just easy, obvious stuff off the top of my head, none of which even affects the launcher. Implement even half of it, (without burning the bridge with your customers first) and I’m confident you’ll have a very strong competitor to Steam.

Okay, but any significant plans to make the launcher or store itself worth using?

Looks like the general consensus is that its not terrible, but is unfinished and not at all worth the price.

If you’re looking to get into Civ, I’d probably recommend either five for a more complete, and polished game, or six for a weirder and more experimental game.

“We’re not blocking competition, we’re just making sure no one else can get any money.”

A “profit all the things” CEO would be running the casino themselves. IE: Many of the big mobile games. Hell, I don’t play many modern triple-A titles, but it sounds like they’ve largely gone that route too.

Basically, Valve’s game, Counter Strike sells cosmetics for the game. They can be bought from through in-game lootboxes (a form of gambling itself, but not what’s being refrenced here) or, notably, from other players in an open market. Valve provides the infrastructure for managing this, but doesn’t charge players for its use or otherwise moderate it. For a comparison, when NFTs were popular and people were saying it was already a solved problem with fewer issues, markets like what Valve set up for Counter-Strike cosmetics were the existing, non-blockchain version.

Ultimately, as this is an open market, with free trading, this has significant benifits and significant downsides. On one hand, I can buy hundreds of $0.02 skins to use in the game without every touching the $3 lootboxes, or can trade items with friends or other players. On the other hand, this is an largely unregulated market. Valve controls the “wallets” but doesn’t have direct say over trade negotiations, and governments are either ignorant or intentionally looking away. This means scams, money launderers and illeagal or sketchy casinos can use Counter Strike Cosmetics as a currency or intermediary without having to fear oversight or law enforcement.

These casinos are the gambling being refered to here. Because they have have effectively no oversight, they can use every scheme in the book to abuse their players from rigging results, to ignoring normal casino legal payout rates, to advertising to children, to using bureaucracy to make receaving payouts as slow and difficult as possible. The casions advertise aggressively and are able to make millions and millions off this.

The reason Counter Strike, and to a lesser extent DotA benifit from this is because the items being used in this, are cosmetics in their games. As the only practical way to use these cosmetics (besides selling them) is in-game this encourages players to play the game. For example, if a player wins a jackpot in the casino, they might play a round of Counter Strike to show off their valuable new cosmetic item before the sell it. This adds to the games population and acts to advertising the costmetics in-game.

But why not just have the people who can pay reparations, can punish those running illegal casinos, and can do it without catching others in the crossfire do it?

It absolutely still can, but its not quite as enticing. For example, you open a lootbox, get all the slot machine animations (usually with misleading visuals to play up your odds) and then a glowing red “legendary” item. You don’t know how much its worth without looking it up, but you do still get the risk and payoff regardless. Even if you can’t resell if, it can still be enough for people to get addicted to. If anything, its worse in a lot of new ways because its usually harder to avoid (Ie, mobile or sports games where lootboxes are needed to play the game) and can’t be cashed out. The sunk cost without any way to cash out is often an intentional decision to to help keep users (esspecially those gambling) from leaving. You can see this esspecially in games that go to great lengths to show you your “earnings” at every turn. They’re known as anchor purchases if I remeber right.

I know, I was more expanding on your comment mocking the prevelence and acceptance of gambling by the industry as whole. That said, quite a few other the others do have external markets for selling accounts, often with rare items (from lootbox gambling) being a major factor in the value. I know my War Thunder account is worth well over a grand at this point, for example, because of some of the rare drops I have on it.

And the dark non-secret is that them and basically all the other top-grossing multiplayer games on the list are there because gambling is also their primary source of income.

What competition has such a rich gambling scene though. No other game I am aware of (Maybe TF2 but, still valve)

Most mobile games? Apex? Overwatch? Keep in mind, a lot of the CS gambling happens off-platform and Valve doesn’t collect any direct revenue from it, which is why Valve can’t directly intervene in a lot of it.

Age verification on the marketplace transactions is the more likely scenario, and again, no other game I know of has as much of a gambling community so I don’t really get why other publishers would leave if it doesn’t effect them.

This argument is specifically in the context of lootboxes as gambling on Steam. Think how much people will spend in lootboxes on your average free to play game. If they aren’t allowed to do this on Steam, games like Apex, CoD, PUBG, War Thunder, ect. won’t stay on Steam.

Ultimately, I think you’re missing the point of coffeezillas video, which is that a lot of people who were in the skin gambling community are actively or, started in it, as a minor. You are here trying to find all of these excuses for valve not to be held accountable for facilitating gambling to a minor.

This is exactly my point about Coffee’s argument being muddled in this video, making it hard to discuss. There are three parallel problem here that the video combines into one: third-party casinos, CS lootboxes, and lootboxes in the industry in general.

In terms of Valve shutting down illegal/third party casinos, they don’t have the means to impact this without also shutting down the entire market for everyone, innocent or guilty. Why should I, as someone who has never even bought a lootbox, nonetheless run an illegal casino be punished for their actions. Even then, casino owners aren’t held responsible, they’re just stopped. On the other hand, with government intervention, no one is caught in the crossfire and casino owners could actually be held responsible for their actions with fines or worse. Why wouldn’t this be the better option?

In terms of Valve selling lootboxes themselves, yes its immoral, but as Coffee said about the casinos, they’re competiting with other products doing the same and you can’t reasonably expect one side to just role over and accept their loss. Instead, you need to change the system so neither side can use tactics like this. Instead of asking Valve to regulate themselves, and expecting their competition to do the same, you change the law (or just actually enforce it) to ensure that noone gets away with it.

A) Valve should not stop casinos from profiting off vulnerable people, because they have already made money off those people and it would somehow be unfair to stop now, which to me sounds ridiculous.

My argument isn’t that Valve shouldn’t ban them if they have the means. Its that Valve cannot effectively ban them without penalising unrelated users just as much or more. The body that does have the means to do so without putting random users in the crossfire is the government.

You are using this as an argumentation that the government should ban them instead of Valve, but the end tesult would be the same. The casinos would walk away with the money, and the victims would be left to cry over it.

In a lot of these cases, even under current law, the government could be fining the individuals running these casinos. As they are run with effectively no oversight, many are blatently rigged, rely on false advertising, or use shoddy, under-the-table finances. That was what the first big crackdown was over - not the existance of these casinos, but the revelation of how rigged they were. As exemplified by the mob tactics being used by these casinos, they haven’t changed. Depending on the location, laws could also be implemented in ways that do go into effect in more aggressive ways, upto and including fining casinos for past actions if its really needed (and to be clear, I wouldn’t be opposed to fines like this being applied against Valve either.)

B) Poor Valve could not compete with their competition if they didn’t have the money they are gaining from their gambling-adjacent market, which to me sounds even more ridiculous. When Epic attempted to pry open the market using one of the biggest and most successful games ever as a leverage, they largely failed because the Steam user base was too entrenched. Steam is literally printing money right now and they don’t need the CS skin money to compete with anyone.

When talking about CS, we’re talking about an individual product, and one that is competing with other products where lootboxes and other manipulative tactics are already the norm. As you said, this isn’t about Steam. Valve is still a buisness, and their products are still a part of the market. They’re not going to just spend money to run a game they lose money on. Even if they do stop selling lootboxes, that doesn’t fix much because you’ve got thousands of other companies also trying to hook the same addicts on their gambling products. Instead, you need to impose limitations industry-wide, to ensure one product can’t get ahead by just being more abusive. Since we obviously aren’t going to have Valve, EA, Ubisoft, Epic, ect. all come together and agree to stop putting gambling in their games, we need a higher power to do so, that being the government.

And saying Valve is morally earning money while the competition does not, its not a fair thing to say.

This was arguing in the hypothetical that Valve stopped acting immoraly. I’m not trying to argue that Valve is in the right here. I’m arguing that they are a player in this game as well, along with their competition, and so shouldn’t be singled out as the ones required to change or to enforce new laws.

Valve could give gamblers 2 weeks to take their skins off the sites and then block API access to these casinos

This just gives the casinos warning so they can pull the rug more cleanly, and have more time to spin up a replacement casino.

or just shut down the API completely.

Then this punishes every other user for the actions of a tiny, tiny minority. Even ignoring users using the open market for legitimate and fair buisness, said market provides a way to obtain skins without relying on Valve to set prices or distribute skins. As such, unless Valve also removes their own lootboxes at the same time, it means that users can only interact with skins through gambling.

The one solution that would address all of this at once and wouldn’t substantially affect unrelated users would be governments implementing laws against unregulated gambling. Unlike Valve, they can address the whole industry at once, and aren’t punished for trying to enforce said laws.

You can’t do anything about the money the casinos have already made, but you can stop them by making further money.

Valve makes literally billions and can invest to their heart’s content. They are not a small indie dev.

So if I understand this right, and I don’t think I am, you’re arguing that valve should just disable the entire CS skin trading and marketing system, current victims and other users be damned, and should stop expecting to make money on their products because they have enough money as it is? That sounds like a ridiculous argument, so please clairify what I’m misunderstanding here.

Edit: fixed typos, and changed phrasing to sound less combative

It’s not his place to provide a solution: he is a journalist exposing a problem. Do you have such expectations for all journalists talking about any topic?

It wouldn’t be his place to provide a solution if he was arguing that the practice is a problem and prehaps pushing for further study. It is his place because throughout the video, he tries to argue that solving the problem is not only possible, but easy - and yet, despite supposedly being easy, his best solution is to basically propose that the industry self-regulate. That is the main issue I have with this video.

Valve could shut down the entire gambling market today and nothing would change to their market position.

And how would they do this without screwing over normal users and victums of the casinos in the process? They can’t get money from these casinos, nor collect casino records to redistribute scammed money. All they can do is disable trading or their marketplace, effectively seizing the poker chips (or metals balls, following Coffee’s pachinko comparison) but doing nothing about the money casinos have taken from victims nor preventing the casinos from either walking away or re-investing in a new casino. To prevent new ones from popping up, you could disable all trading and marketing, but now you’re punishing 132 million users for the acts of a couple thousand.

They could have some sort of account-level check to make sure that minors don’t spend their steam gift cards on CS skins

They could, but A) this is just one game on their platform, and B) this would leave them directly competiting against those who don’t regulate themselves and can make and reinvest significantly more. This is exactly the situation that Coffee argued was systematic and needed to be adressed further up the chain previously.

they’d rather use the gambling loophole of “akshually, it’s not gambling as defined by law”. Then they lie through their teeth by saying that they “don’t have any data” supporting the claim that the gambling aspect of the game has profited them by leading to more interest in their games, which is bullshit.

Again, exactly like their competition. The recent talk of Balatro’s PEGI rating being a prime example, with the industry self-regulation body declaring that virtual slot machines and loot boxes aren’t gambling but featuring poker hands was.

PC players, and Lemmy users in particular, have a huge double standard for Valve.

This is the problem I have with this video. Valve is being held to a different standard, and told to self-regulate while others in this very series are having blame redirected away from them because its unreasonable to expect them to self-regulate.