Well that doesn’t look right but I’m not a boat physicist so I’ll just accept it at face value.

I’m convinced there’s almost nothing they could do to lose net subscribers. The average person seems perfectly fine with this stuff.

What is the distinction for the player? Both Counter-Strike and Control were funded by Valve and Epic, respectively. Both ended up with exclusivity. To the player, what different do the intro logos make?

It sounds like you’re trying to win by technicality.

That’s obviously bad. My comment was in response to the comment above about exclusives.

Valve purchased the rights to Counter-Strike in 2000, transitioning it from a community-made mod to a retail product. Similarly, Day of Defeat, initially a third-party Half-Life modification, was acquired by Valve, leading to a standalone retail release in 2003. In the case of Dota, Valve hired the mod’s lead developer and secured the intellectual property rights, culminating in the release of Dota 2 in 2013. These games remain exclusive to Steam.

I don’t share your frustrations. Games like Control, Alan Wake 2, and Ooblets might never have been made without Epic’s funding. The Ooblets developer in particular stated that Epic’s funding was crucial for their survival. I think exclusivity is a very fair and normal thing to request when funding a game. Valve does it and people are fine with that.

Probably true. Despite that, Russia has taught us that an insufficiently armed country will eventually be invaded. I don’t want that. Let’s make the prospect of invasion so catastrophically terrible that Putin won’t even consider it. MORE TANKS.

I agree. There is a lot of great content for reasonable prices and a lot of terrible content for high prices. It’s a thriving industry. We just need to be intentional about our purchasing decisions.

You even had the extra doesn’t in there. Perfection.

And then Einstein clapped.

That’s coherent. Unfortunately most people who use it today literally mean “someone who disagrees with me.” It really muddies the water because it’s often accompanied by threats of violence. The net effect is raising the temperature in the room on both sides, because it’s effectively dehumanising others who have perfectly valid political disagreements, and calling for their death.

The “tolerance paradox” is a handy tool with which to justify violence by those on both sides. If I’m just fighting intolerance, then my actions are justified. It’s a common rally cry used by authoritarians to stamp out diversity and democracy. To really hammer the point home, the Nazis were the first to employ it. By blaming their issues on the “intolerance” of foreign states, they justified a global war. It is obviously the inspiration for Popper’s 1945 work, The Open Society and Its Enemies. Russia is currently using this fallacy to justify the war in Ukraine, claiming that the West is “intolerant” of Russia, and they need to defend themselves against this intolerance.

Here is a full quote from Popper on the subject if anyone is interested.

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

Popper’s argument is laid bare here. Tolerate up to the point of violence. That is, if one physically attacks us, we no longer have the burden of tolerance. Popper is commonly misquoted and intentionally misused to justify violence, suppresion, and censorship against disagreement, and that is clearly not his argument.

They are not. They are apparently much less likely to be obese.

They kept jacking up the prices and making the streaming services worse so I finally pulled the plug and went offline. It’s a pain in the ass, to be honest, but once it’s all set up it’s really quite nice. The only long term issue is discoverability. I feel a bit like I’m stuck with the music I have now and discovering new music and listening to it is such a hassle that I just don’t do it. That said, I no longer pay for streaming, and I like what I have, so I’m not complaining.

I can strongly recommend Plexamp, which integrates well into an existing Plex setup.

Lidarr is a great complement to an existing Arr stack. And if you’re going to host your own music, you might as well look at Sonarr and Radarr, which are so great.

The operative word there is “entirely.” We have philosophy going back thousands of years playing with the subjective nature of reality. There is some truth to this. However most of human history has been an exercise in “might makes right,” and truth was whatever the person with the biggest club said it was. Then the Enlightenment happened and it was suddenly considered virtuous to observe, document, and publish objective reality. See the early days of the conflicts with the Church to understand how uncomfortable it can make those who enjoy subjective reality suddenly being confronted with the concept of objective reality.

It’s only relatively recently (post Enlightenment) that large portions of society decided it was a good idea to disregard objective reality in journalism, science, and politics, in favour of subjective or “lived” realities. We can in part thank postmodernism for escaping academic containment, but I think that’s only part of the slide. Whatever the cause, I think it behooves all of us to attempt to steer into objectivism as frequently and clearly as possible. Depending on the metric, Western society has arguably never been this polarised. If we can’t agree on the definition of words, we aren’t even speaking the same language anymore. Our North Star needs to be shared language so at the very least we can have valid arguments with each other. That is how we progress.

I agree. Games feel like they’re designed by committee now (very much likes movies, in fact). I recall SkillUp’s criticism of Veilguard’s writing as, “every interaction feels like HR is in the room.” This nails so many design choices today. Safe and vanilla is boring. There are of course people who believe that nothing should ever be remotely challenging or offensive to anyone ever, but I just don’t think they represent the majority of gamers. Attempting to please them at the expense of the much larger player-base is clearly not working.

Howard has reportedly been championing procedurally generated content for years or perhaps decades. We saw echoes of this in Starfield. The result is quite expected: boring and vanilla. Especially when contrasted with Bethesda’s previously great storytelling with intricate characters and hand-crafted experiences. We see once again with Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 how important that is. Yes, it’s time consuming and expensive, but it’s clearly loved by customers and critics.

Compounding this was Starfield’s mediocre writing. It took a clear and obvious dive from previous games. It felt incredibly safe. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of it was AI generated.

I’ll preface this by saying I am/was a Reddit user since its first year operating in 2005/2006.

The notion that reality is entirely subjective is relatively new and I believe has led to a myriad of consequences across society from social media to journalism to politics. Even if we will never arrive at a future in which we can all acknowledge what a spade is, we should absolutely continue to strive for that. Common understanding is the bedrock of liberal societies. We need it for science and democracy to function.

The “Redditquette” the user above explained was the notion that disagreement isn’t invalid. By this I am referring to the philosophical distinction between valid and invalid arguments. For example:

1. Every dog is a reptile.
2. Every reptile is cold-blooded.
3. Therefore, every dog is cold-blooded.

This argument is silly and easily disproved, but valid. Flat Earthers often make valid but easily disproved arguments, and there is much to gain in the world by people having valid discussions with one another. Especially from a curious and open position.

On the other hand, invalid arguments are those in whose conclusion is not proven by its premises. That is, even if all the premises are true, the conclusion could still be false. For example:

1. Being friendly is the easiest way to make friends quickly.
2. Alana has a lot of friends.
3. Therefore, Alana must be very friendly.

The argument tells us that being friendly is one way to make friends, but is that the only way? And does having a lot of friends necessarily mean that you are very friendly? Although Alana might be very friendly, the author hasn’t proven that she is. There is nothing to gain by engaging with this, other than to potentially educate someone about valid and invalid arguments. However this rarely works out well over the internet. This is an opinion masquerading as reason or fact. Trolling uses some variation of this.

Reddiquette was intended to encourage healthy discussion without immediately devolving into insults and death threats. It actually worked really fucking well, for many years. In the early days, the administrators would enforce Rediquette, as crazy as that sounds. They would give out warnings for people downvoting earnest comments and submissions. Some of the better moderated subreddits still maintain a shadow of this, but they don’t have the tools to see who is up/downvoting what.

Unfortunately there is some game theory in this. If the rules are “downvote what you don’t like,” then both sides of any debate must use this rule, or their comments will be permanently hidden, and their ideas will never propagate. The evidence is that this rule is quite devastating for online discourse, and I miss old Reddit.

I don’t think feature parity would entice anyone across. It would need to be much better than Steam to entice migration, and it’s hard to conceive how much work and money that would require.

Epic is the second largest online store by revenue, so you are objectively wrong by a wide margin. Users are spending a lot of money on the platform. Much of it goes to their flagship games like Fortnite. Similarly to how much of Steam’s revenue comes from their flagship games like Counter-Strike.