MudMan

I am mad about how dumb we all are, and how easiy swayed by simple narratives that reinforce our biases.

From the Baldur’s Gate 3 EULA:

This Pact shall remain in effect for as long as you use, operate or run the Game.

You may terminate the Pact at any time and for any reason by notifying Larian Studios that you intend to terminate the agreement. Upon termination all licenses granted to you in this Pact shall immediately terminate and you must immediately and permanently remove the Game from your device and destroy all copies of the Game in your possession.

This didn’t cause any stir when it came out. That makes sense, right? Nobody reads these things.

Except everybody in the press read this one, because it went viral for being written in character as a D&D document and having a bunch of jokes in it.

Admittedly this is meant to apply to refunds and things like refusing the privacy agreement, but that’s the point, it’s fairly standard boilerplate for that reason.

Not what it says.

It’s in the Baldur’s Gate 3 EULA.

Read the article.

What they’re saying is this is a relatively common temrination clause. It’s meant to apply to, say, refunds.

Wait, who wins between scissors and wax tablet? Does that count as stone?

The Youtube version will give you a transcript.

Monkey’s paw curling at its finest.

I’m gonna say if the OS of a public administration can run while not being updated that’s the OS’s fault and not fit for purpose.

Nothing keeping you from changing that if you manage the distro. But still.

Now that I’m done with my popcorn, I thought the video was fairly even handed.

No, it cannot.

They are confronting what is obvious, effective tools to undermine democracy with some weird experiment that is at best a niche effort to do online social engineering much more than it is social media.

Social media is a destructive force. By nature. Yes, Fedi as well.

You learn to manage in society, maybe. Like you do addiction and cancer and crime. The techno-optimism stuff is borderline delusional at this point.

Just going from the first couple of replies I’m going to go get the popcorn started to count how many people respond without watching the video first.

Cool. But that’s not the conversation we’re having an five-ish million people clearly don’t share that concern.

I don’t think I can agree. I mean, I’m sure being in Latin America and being at the tail end of support for less global products skews this a bit, but ultimately these are two big global publishers selling globally.

For what it’s worth, Steam is willing to sell me any currently available Steam Deck in my region with 3-5 day delivery. There currently isn’t any Switch 2 stock on Amazon or the local top specialty game retailer. Checking a couple other major retailers it sure seems to be sold out everywhere for now. You’d probably have a better shot at a physical retailer.

So I’m saying that Valve has stock of the Deck and has for ages, at least in the territories it supports through direct sales. Which is expected, the thing is not new anymore, but it suggests that if it needed to ramp up production it could, it just doesn’t have to.

You could argue that this is not apples to apples, and it may not be, but the difference is so large it may not matter. The Switch 1 by itself was about as large as all of Steam combined, let alone the Deck by itself. The Switch 2 did in weeks what took the Deck years to do, crucially at the same price point (the Switch 2 is cheaper than the OLED but more expensive than the LCD). Considering how much of the marketing and the community focused on the Deck being a Switch killer based on the performance advantage it had, I’m going to say they are close enough competitors and the gulf between them is large enough that whatever differences you want to account for are accounted for.

Which, again, doesn’t speak to the quality of either piece of hardware, but it does to the notion that the Deck has been a runaway success or that it has overwhelmed Valve’s expectations.

I forget what wave I was on. I know I wasn’t there day one, but it also wasn’t that long of a wait.

My best guess is Valve was making very few of these. It’s pretty impressive that Nintendo has been able to move this many consoles while keeping stock up, but Valve was clearly not operating at that volume for both cost reasons and to create some hype.

For the record, I do own both a Switch 2 and a Deck. It wasn’t that hard to get either, but the Switch 2 was available on day one in a way the Deck was not.

I am very glad it exists. I may have a problem with owning handhelds. I am the perfect mark for this stuff. I have multiple upcoming boutique handheld PCs I’m actively trying not to overspend on.

But they are competitors. If anything, they are about as similar as they’ve ever been, honestly.

I’m only reacting to they weird Valve mythmaking that presents them as being extremely successful in the meme up top. Yes, the Deck is a very popular PC handheld, it is supposed to account for half-ish of the entire segment and it’s been very well priced for what it is, but it isn’t a runaway hit in the large scheme of the game industry and game hardware manufacturing.

Weirdly so is Nintendo these days.

In any case I’m not sure what “percentage of units sold/manufactured” implies there. Everybody has some stock of their products. Selling through your stock isn’t much of a metric unless you’re doing limited runs on purpose. If Valve was selling these faster they’d manufacture them faster.

I mean…

Not to take anything away from the Steam Deck, it’s a very cool piece of hardware, but the Switch 2 beat its lifetime sales in what? Three weeks? I’m not even saying it’s better, but I think people should get a sense of the scope of PC handhelds in general compared to consoles and the Switch specifically. And I say that as the owner of multiple handhelds, the Deck included.

3 Km is what? A half hour walk? I’ve lived in multiple European countries in my life and never been that far from a supermarket.

I mean, I definitely have walked that much daily. My longest walk to work I can remember was maybe 40 minutes. In some places where I’d take public transportation for like 20-30 min I’ve walked for an hour when I felt like it instead.

For groceries I don’t think I’d take that with me that far walking unless it could go in my backpack. But seriously, if you don’t have a shop in that radius around you in Europe you need a car anyway because you’re out in the middle of nowhere.

But also, in European supermarkets you can normally get big grocery hauls delivered that far away. Just go there, buy your stuff, pay, book a delivery. Lots of old people who can’t carry heavy weights do it. They still go to the shop, though.

I guess it depends on where your line for “gross” happens to land. In my old age I tend to look at old arcades as being pretty gross. Certainly worse than I thought they were at the time.

I’m also not sure if I have a problem with Diablo IV. I think their incentive is for you not to run out of content and bounce all the way off before they can give you more, which is why they retuned it much more generously later. In this case the version of the game that people like more is also the one that did better for them financially. Is that more or less gross?

So I’m not sure I agree on whether the incentives matter. I think the experience I get matters. There is definitely a bad place there in the middle where you feel frustrated playing but won’t stop playing, and that’s a place where a bunch of the sloppier, grindier games make their money. And I’m not gonna stand here and say that all the upsells in games with a big live service don’t make the experience worse. They do, in my book.

But those impacts to the experience are what matters to me, not that they are made as part of a business proposition. Full games in boxes were also sold for money. Live games I enjoy are made for money, too.

I’m more concerned at how live games get to vacuum up all players and keep them on lockdown forever than I am about their moneymaking practices, to be honest. People are worried about the wrong set of incentives here, if you ask me.

That being said… man, do I wish people would put their money where their mouth is. It’s all well and good to complain about more expensive pay-up-front games or about overly intrusive microtransactions, but this conversation would be a lot smoother if people actively spending hundreds of hours on those weren’t currently spending like 70% of the time and 50% of all the money in gaming. Voting with one’s wallet rarely does much, in isolation, but there are absolutely tons of games out there. It’d be nice to see people flock towards the good ones, as per their own standards, and ideally spend some money on those.

Nah, they did it with Youtube videos.

But on the underlying point of “everybody is freaking out about AI things that good old big data had been doing for years with zero pushback” I very strongly agree.

Well, the missing context is that this is how a lot of gaming is tuned regardless. It’s pretty basic economy tuning to look at how long a task takes to complete and tune based on that (for games with grind, anyway, think RPGs).

So if you’re playing “Perfectly Fair Single Player RPG 3” there’s a more than fair chance that the developers looked at the expected completion time of a quest, plugged in that time into some spreadsheet and assigned XP and other rewards to the quest based on that, just to keep the XP curve of the game somewhat predictable. This is a big rabbit hole with a bunch of nuance, but for these purposes we can assume they at least started by doing that flat on all quests.

If you have a F2P game and you’re charging for things you can also grind I frankly don’t see a much better place to start.

Now, if your premise is that all design for engagement in F2P is gross because it’s servicing your business and all design for engagement in paid games is fine because that’s just seeking “fun”… well, I don’t know that gets fixed. I agree that pay-up-front games can benefit from getting the ugly matter of getting money from players out of the way early, but these days even those games are trying to upsell you into later content, sequels and other stuff, so the difference is rarely that stark.

I think there’s a conversation to be had about whether “good”, “fun” and “makes people want to engage more” should be seen as the same thing and, if not, what the difference is. It’s tricky and nuanced and I don’t know that you can expect every game to be on one end of that conversation. Sometimes a person just wants to click on a thing to make number go up, and that’s alright.

I mean, fair enough, on a technicality at least.

Sure. There can be more than one terrible driver endangering everybody on the road at the same time.

I’m constantly, endlessly disappointed at how hard it is for human brains to accept that two people disagreeing with each other can both be wrong.

I mean, the text say the guy honked for going “70 in a 50”.

If you take it at face value, the person posting is the asshole and a terrible driver endangering everybody on the road.