Unfortunately I've got most of those except the ones I don't really want. Now if they did this with DLC . . .

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I think "suffering simulator" is probably fair enough for a game with "trauma" right in the name.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 14You can always hit F11 to hide the browser borders. :)

That's such a core browser feature for me that the main reason I still use Firefox over Chrome is I like the F11 behaviour better.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Ehvis

Quoting: ShmerlIt's not out on GOG yet?

Hmm:

For technical reasons the release of The Longing on GOG.com will be slightly delayed, we promise it'll be less than 400 days.

Might be related to whatever is needed to prevent "cheating". They have mentioned measures to prevent the most obvious cheating (which would be changing your computer time/date) so that people wouldn't get spoiled before their 400 days. But such a measure undoubtedly requires online access and would resemble DRM. Not entirely sure what they plan to do to get around this since gog is usually pretty strict.

Why would anyone even buy a game like this just to . . . never mind, some people would.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Lu Bu . . . that name takes me back. My grandfather was into Chinese poetry, history and art. He'd taught himself to read Chinese and he had scrapbooks full of stuff, including his translations of classic Chinese poetry. I remember when I was a kid, he would sometimes tell me stuff about Chinese history; I mostly don't remember any of it, but I remember him saying something about Lu Bu being a pretty tough guy.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: dubigrasuI hate myself for not liking these type of games (basically everything strategy). I would've been so spoiled by Feral and these ports.
I keep buying them, but just for support, not my pleasure. I'm looking for example at XCOM games, I can clearly see they're good quality/fun games and I'm sure I'm missing a lot by not playing them, but just can't get into it and I really tried.

People have different tastes. I can't for the life of me get into FPS . . . OK, I haven't really tried hard. But anyway, if it was me I wouldn't be generously buying the games just to show support, so kudos.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlWill they release their games for normal desktop Linux too, or they'll remain Stadia exclusive? In general, exclusivity is a bad thing.

From what they said, it sounds to me like they're trying to put together stuff that will take advantage of powerful servers to do games that would not run on a normal desktop, as some here have speculated would theoretically be possible. So they'd be exclusives not just in fact but by design. Well, until desktop power catches up . . .

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The description makes it sound really interesting. I hope it does well, so it's in a spirit of constructive criticism that I note they should consider fixing the grammar of the last bit of their teaser; "Became to fade" is not correct or normal usage.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Patola

I will never understand the Chinese government and why they do things like this

It's obvious, isn't it? They are a dictatorship

Well, they're an oligarchy. Although the current leader is centralizing things a bit more, the basic principle of Chinese government seems to be rule by the HR department. Please note that I'm not generally a fan of HR departments, so it's not like that's a compliment. But it comes naturally to China; it's a bit like an updated version of the old Chinese rule by a bureaucracy made of everyone who did well on the civil service exam (whether by talent or corruption). So like, the "Communist" party basically headhunt anyone who seems to them like the best & brightest & most conformist.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 14

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: 14The fact that Facebook gave money to OBS does not take away any of your money to donate somewhere of your choosing.

Yeah, after the wealthiest people and companies spent their billions, I'm still free to decide where to put my ten bucks. Cool.

Reminds me of the quote: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

I do not understand the point you're making. I mean, I get the point, but it's not applicable. A rich entity donated money somewhere, and that somehow makes it pointless for anyone that's not rich to donate anywhere...? You might as well just stop going to work if you can't earn the same amount of money as the richest corporations in the world with that logic.

So, the OP was Facebook donating money, and that makes you angry. It's sounding to me like you wish you could control Facebook's money yourself. Or, maybe your solution would be that nobody is allowed to earn lots of money or not allowed to donate. What is your ideal here?

The problem with charity as a major part of how things get done is complex but significant. Charity is OK, but it should be an edge case, not a main event. There are several basic problems with it.

1. Dealing with major social problems via the actions of private charities is very ineffective. It simply doesn't get the job done; it tends to amount to treating cancer with 500 bandaids. It's useful to the individuals helped, compared to nothing, but it has no impact on the overall situations giving rise to individuals needing help. Public sector action is much more effective. If you want to reduce poverty, increasing taxation to fund social programs or Keynesian economic policies is far more effective than hoping people will donate some of their untaxed income to food banks.

2. The amount of charity people can give does not scale linearly with their income. Middle class people and below spend most of their income on getting by; the total surplus left over for entertainment and other frills, including charitable donations, is small. Rich people spend very little of their income on necessities; almost everything is "left over". So they don't just have more money overall, a much bigger proportion of that larger amount of money is disposable. This is even more the case today, with such low taxes on the rich, on investment income, and on corporations. Thus, the donations of the wealthy or corporations can be disproportionately large.

3. Even if that doesn't result in those big actors contributing most of the money, it does tend to result in their taking over the charities involved. Small donations don't come with opinions about policy attached; large numbers of small donations are basically "background". But big donations very often come with quid pro quo attached; the big donors want the organization to prioritize particular things. So for instance, if you look at the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, they give major donations to health initiatives in the Third World. They also have very big investments in pharmaceutical companies. So when they donate to an organization, they want the org to prioritize initiatives that will buy expensive pharmaceuticals over initiatives that will buy mosquito netting. Even if the mosquito netting would be far, far cheaper and more effective. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is also invested in various companies involved in private provision of education. Not surprisingly, it donates to and is involved in organizations that push for "charter" schools and, in general, privatization of education. So it's ratfucking the public education system in the name of charity. More generally, if you look at universities who get donations from alumni, the wealthy alumni with major donations tend to steer the priorities of the universities--they donate to business schools and chairs in economics, not to chairs in ecology or the humanities, let alone labour studies.
So if you hollow out public systems and "replace" them with charitable donations, what you get is wealthy people setting the policy approaches of the charities, and the policy approaches will favour generation of profits for the wealthy donors over actual efficient aid to needy recipients.

4. And then, they expect us to be grateful. And with media backing, they can often pull that off.

View this comment - View article - View full comments