Most average phone users don’t give a shit about bezels, weight and stuff, they just buy whatever is put in front of them. If Apple came out with a new iPhone that was heavier, thicker bezelled, slower, people would still buy it because the truth is, they don’t compare anything or look into it besides “this is the latest”.

Speed is such a none issue, all mid-range phones are plenty fast enough for the very large majority of people. Buying flagship phones with the fastest SoCs is pointless to them, they will never get value from it - they just buy them because they are the latest “best shit you need” and they cost a lot more than a Fairphone.

Now the value of replacing a battery on the fly (whether broken or just for more juice) would actually be a lot higher, people used to do that in the past. The ability to repair the phone yourself wouldn’t really matter to most, as they usually just take their phones to a repair shop anyway, but the cost of the repair would be lower.

The Fairphone has a great mission, one that all phones should be going after. They are expensive for what you are getting in terms of specifications, yes, but the company isn’t large enough to make them any cheaper without sacrificing the point of them in the first place. It’s fine to not want one, but comparing them to flagship phones, the same way you would compare an S24 to an iPhone 15, is actually unfair. Not to say you can’t critise it, I think the software is the weak point and some issues were clearly highlighted, not unfixable though.

If price wasn’t a factor and you just handed them to average people to use, then they would most likely be satisfied and would find value in it.

Just shows the lack of knowledge LTT have really. They just dont understand Fairphone at all, or even how people use phones apparently…

The game could also just not have a battle pass. How are people already so indoctrinated into their existence? No paid games should have extra monetisation in.

Oh man I can see me putting some hours into this on Steam Deck!

No, dismissing because of shitty monetisation is great. It could not be implemented in the first place.

Buying a game without reading reviews is like buying a game with these shitty monetisation schemes.

I refuse to buy co-op games that have the online requirement/live service bullshit. It’s only done to sell you battle passes and shit.

I loved knocking out Mayrina’s brothers, then going in telling her I just knocked them out, only for her to scream “THEY’RE DEAD?!” at me. Man the fucking hag questline was the most boring tedious shit in Act 1 for me.

Just another lesson to wait months after a games release before even considering it.

Its because the branching story was an illusion. You think you have the choice of what to do, with all the dialogue options, but ultimately the choice is the games and the closer you get to the end of the game the more apparent it becomes as it hastily funnels you to the finale.

No I am referring to it’s second early access release. They are getting on top of it now with these huge patches, so that’s good, but it’s just stuff that should have existed anyway and bugs that shouldn’t have existed, they could have cooked it for another year. But releasing it does allow a lot more eyes on things, plus it’s getting paid for the QA instead of paying for it, but keeping it marked as early access until it’s cleaned up would have been nice.

Overall, good company. I wish they wouldn’t have released BG3 in that state though, the game was very clearly still early access. All game developers should follow their philosophy though and the industry would be a better place.

Game is boring. Ubisoft somehow eclipsing EA at shitting the bed in every aspect.

He was though, some people might have known his name from Metal Gear, but majority of people didnt. Then TGA and Death Stranding rolled around and suddenly we were told we should care.

Aha, yeah I realise my mistake now. I was tired so I will let myself off.

He takes no more ‘experimental swings’ than hundreds of indie developers. The only difference is, his studio has the money for the marketing campaigns.

I know right? He was suddenly hyped up so much, I guess it’s one way to sell games. I’d understand if it was Miyamoto or something, but the man made Metal Gear and not everyone has even heard of that.
He was heavily pushed with geoff keighley’s the game awards partnership he made.

People keep reading their tweets and clicking on the articles.

Mmm yeah, The Berlin Interpretation is way too specific, things like the graphics/grid etc. If some game fits more than half the factors, perhaps that should be considered ‘like’ enough? But I do understand why people can get anal about some games being categorised as Roguelike when they are infact not very similar at all.

I think it boils down to genre being misused in general, there’s games with large open spaces called Open World, when they are not really, games that are called MMO when they are not. RPG games that are not actually RPG etc etc etc. Rogue fans just made a bigger deal out of it.

It’s fine if a game is categorised more specifically, the problem is people getting upset that something is a Roguelite and not a Roguelike.
It doesn’t matter, no genre is better than the other, your game isn’t by default worse because it’s a Roguelite and isn’t by default better because it’s a Roguelike, it’s just a genre definition to help people find similar games.

I get that some might think they are too similar, but in that case we should just keep Roguelike and then define Roguelite games in a different way. At the moment a problem is games that have the ‘run’ gameplay, but nothing else like Rogue and then call themselves Roguelikes, but that’s like having a bonfire checkpoint system in a visual novel and calling it Soulslike.

Hades would be considered Roguelite, doesnt mean its a bad game, its great.

I agree with you, I hate gambling. It has ruined many lives.

But that doesn’t mean I cannot discuss the shit as it exists.

That shouldn’t be too hard to understand. I won’t engage with this further. Have a good one.

I’m not defending anyone, I’d rather you pay for your game and that is it, how it used to be before the 2010s rolled around. I despise micro/macrotransactions, battle passes, the cosmetic trend, FOMO content, I could rant about it all day and how fucked it is.

I was just picking my best of the worst. I see you don’t understand how CS skins work, so I’ll try to explain.

• Anyone can design a skin for a weapon and put this on the Steam Workshop.
• People then vote on their favourite skins, eventually Valve make a new case and look through skins to add them to the case,
• Everytime a key for that case is bought the creators get a cut.
• Everytime a creators skin is bought/sold between players, they get a cut.
• I can open the case with a key and hope I get a skin I want. Gambling.
• I can buy the exact skin I want directly off the Steam Market… and be done with it
• I can trade other players for an exact skin I want.
• I can sell that skin again on the Steam Market (Valve gets 15% cut, of which some goes to skin creator as prev. mentioned).
• I can trade that skin to friends/other players, for free or for something they own.

So I get a lot more freedom with my new cosmetic item vs another game:

• Skin made in-house.
• Buy skin from store.
• Maybe I can refund if they have the option, if they do it’s usually limited.
  Or
• Buy loot box
• I now have skin I cannot trade, sell or do anything with but use.

So yeah, I think Valve have the best of the worst predatory cosmetic systems out there. That’s not defending the practice, I’d MUCH rather the whole cosmetic trend fucked off along with the microtransactions and online systems in singleplayer games and the list could go on…

(Edit: Lmao at you editing and putting ‘for 50 cent’ in there)

Yeah, the reason why they make so much is because the skins have actual value, they also get 15% on any sale made through their community market. I fucking hate lootboxes, but I also hate skins costing as much as a game. MTX (micro or macro) are always going to be shit, until regulations catch up to all the predatory bullshit we are going to be stuck with one system or another and I’d rather take CS’s.
I mean I made a profit, if I sold up right now.

I have, it’s dry. It’s a ‘as wide as an ocean, as deep as a puddle’ kind of game.
The devs couldn’t even finish their previous game, it’s sketchy.

That game is an asset flip for sure. Just another AI scam game, of which we will see thousands and thousands of in the coming years. Developers history is just red flags all over.

Nintendo actually try something new with their consoles too, so that’s at least good.
Everyone should be moving to PC though, you actually have freedom there. I think Steam machines would do pretty good if they came out now.

Yes. Yes. Yes. The whale comment pisses me off, it might have been true initially, but these days all the average consumers spend money on this trash.

The only reason anyone wants to sell consoles is to get you locked in that ecosystem and sell you games. They don’t make a profit on the hardware, Xbox game pass is their headstart into purely game sales, well a subscription and cloud service that everyone is trying to jump on right now.

Would be missing out on too much revenue, they all come back to Steam every time they try their own stores (which MS did already).

Yeah, no thanks Paradox.

The GitHub DMCA report linked in that post seems fake to me. It’s unprofessionally written and has many mistakes and inconsistencies across it.

Just looks crappy quality and uncomfortable. The Steam Deck is premium quality at a more affordable price, the point these ‘competitors’ seem to be missing while rushing for higher numbers on their spec sheets.

Yeah, you buy the Deck for the piece of mind with Valve and their support. I wouldn’t buy any others just because it’s like they are cash grabs on a current trend the Deck set off and none of the companies making them have the best track record for product and customer support.

Don’t bother, this guy is just a troll. Look at all his other responses lmao.

Nobody is shilling. It’s completely up to the developers/publishers to sell DRM-free or not - CDPR aren’t the holy grail company you think they are.

every game you buy isn’t yours, it’s effectively an unlimited time rental that can be withdrawn for a multitude of reasons. GOG and the like actually sell you the game proper such that it’s yours to keep forever no matter what happens to GOG

This is mis-information - every game you buy on Steam is not DRM and thus is not subject to the ‘digital license’ approach.

Look, I like GOG, I will buy from there if I can’t get a DRM-free version on Steam and the deal is good, I own many GOG titles.
Steam 1000% needs to label what games have DRM or not and embrace that with a category.

True, Epic could have provided good competition, but instead of gaining the trust of potential users and building a feature rich store - they immediately went down the most anti-consumer route they could with exclusive deals and free game bait, all while pretending they are the good buys and Valve are an evil-mega corp. The pot calling the kettle black. So yeah, fuck Epic Games.

I mean it’s not technically a monopoly. Steam’s advantage is that Valve is a private company and can do what they like, it’s not without problems, but it does a great job where it needs to.

Steam also sells DRM-free games, so that’s just mis-information. You can copy the files anywhere and use them without Steam running, it’s entirely on the developers/publishers to make that decision. Cyberpunk 2077 is DRM-free on Steam, just like GOG. Steamworks just has an incredible feature set for developers to use, so for multiplayer games it’s unlikey to see DRM-free anymore as people would rather invite via a friendslist than sharing IPs directly, having to open ports etc.

So, what have we learnt for the next big release?

Yeah, it’s hard to throw all the blame on people when there’s so many engineered tactics to tempt people to buy stuff, but there’s got to be a point where you realise you don’t really need that special skin for pre-ordering, you won’t even use it and you won’t even be playing the game in a year. I’d like to see more regulations on it all, just to protect the people who struggle to protect themselves from predatory business tactics.

I love when people actually critique games, that’s how you get better games. Just refund and leave a non-aggressive negative review, let them know the concerns, blind fans are still going to call ‘hate’, but their claim has no foundation if you are just genuinely being a critic. People really settle for average and ‘rinse and repeat’ games, you can demand more, don’t bend over to these AAA companies.

Seriously though, stop buying games in the first week or two of them releasing, let the dust settle first, they aren’t going anywhere.