Quoting: PenglingThe main problem I have with the Discovery Queue doesn't sound like it's even being addressed by these updates: It too often recommends random stuff "because it's popular", to the detriment of recommending stuff that matches what I actually play and have on my wishlist.

There's no point in recommending the latest all-singing-all-dancing DLC-and-microtransactions-riddled licensed sports or war game to a gal whose main gig is cutesy action games and stuff with a retro angle - it's not something that I would ever buy, and their (generally correct) statement that gaming tastes can change over time would never apply to that. :tongue:

Pretty much this. My taste in gaming seems to be very much not mainstream, despite me playing quite a number of mainstream games. Ok, what my friends play Steam doesn't know, because the only persons on my friends list are my immediate family. But even given that, I don't get why the queue still recommends me shooters, platformers and racing games when I have about zero minutes played in either of these genres and they do know THAT. If I wanted to see what's currently popular I can always look at the sales rankings. The point of the queue should be recommending me games I have a chance to like but so far do not own. But it rather seems to be "Look, this person doesn't play shooters yet, so let's try and sell her some shooters! Everyone likes shooters, right?"

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tfkWhy is OneShot native but unsupported?

Don't know about that particular game, but there are reasons other than Linux support why a game doesn't work on the Deck. Not all games can be played well on a screen that small, and not all offer controller support, just to name two of the more common ones. I am actually quite a bit surprised that so many of these 50 games work well on a device they weren't designed for. That's pretty amazing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Wow, for some reason I had not expected a native version of this game to happen, since most larger studios seemed to largely have given up on them in favor of Proton (or just not caring).

Great news! :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: arrjayzor

Quoting: RandomizedKirbyTree47Isn't ESO also on Stadia? Seems like an MMO is a good candidate for a game to play through streaming.

ESO is on Stadia. It runs well and supports cross play but it is limited in that you can't use add-ons and the fps is capped.

Which is quite a dealbreaker, IMHO. ESO is borderline unplayable without mods. Their default UI is -really- that bad, and their trading system is industry worst. Mods are quite needed to remedy some of the pain from that. The PC/NA server is getting a lot of console refugees, a lot of them state the lack of mods being the central reason for switching...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I know some people hate on Paradox's DLC-heavy business model, but what other publisher would still release updates for such an old game after all these years? Great to see them keeping this indie gem alive!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: KimyrielleThe problem with Russia is that it thinks it has a natural right to have a buffer of slave states in between them and the closest country they don't like.

Well there's some inflammatory rhetoric. But they were fine with countries like Finland who just weren't part of an anti-Russia military alliance. Are you wanting to claim that Finland has (until now when it's petitioning to join NATO, which will I suppose set it free) been a slave state of Russia?

Russia was fine with Finland...after it invaded it without provocation and stole quite a lot of land from it in 1939, that is. Literally with the argument that it needed a buffer zone. But ok...

What's next? Claiming that the post-WW2 regimes in Poland, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, East Germany and Czechoslovakia were somehow NOT slave states of Soviet Union/Russia and they were NOT primarily meant to be a buffer between the Soviet Union the the West?

So tell me, if Mexico joined, or even threatened to join, a Russian military alliance or the Shanghai Co-operation Organization, would the United States be shrugging and saying "Well, none of our business, is it?" Give me a break. The tanks would be rolling south before you could say "Monroe Doctrine". And you would be saying it was completely justified.

I am not happy with some of the things the West did and still does. It's funny how you preemptively accuse me of supporting an invasion of Mexico or any other nation, when you really don't know me well enough to make such a judgment. Your entire line of reasoning amounts to "But the US was bad, too!". Which I...never denied. But know what...it's a pretty weak defense before court to say "Ok, I stole that car, but I am not the only car thief on Earth". Which is essentially what you're defending/downplaying Russia's actions with.

PS: Thanks for accusing me to be clueless about international things. Not sure why you think my rhetoric would be inflammatory and what you're doing here is completely fine? I will bow out of this discussion, before Liam steps in. Have a nice day.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: Purple Library GuyAs a side note, consider natural gas. Russia has few pipelines through which to sell natural gas. The main one westward runs through Ukraine. So, the United States staged a coup in Ukraine, then mounted a sustained and increasingly massive pressure campaign to block the building and use of a new pipeline (Nordstream 2) that didn't run through any NATO countries, specifically and explicitly on the basis that the sale of Russian gas should be blocked because it's Russian. What was Russia supposed to think about this? That it's normal commerce? Of course it's an attempt at economic strangulation.

US policy was more geared towards Europe not buying -any- gas from Russia, no matter what pipeline it arrives through.

Uh, yes, that was kind of my point. As I say, what was Russia to make of this stance?

Quoting: KimyrielleTurns out it was the correct stance to have. You can't make yourself dependent on an unfriendly, aggressive nation.

Sure. At what point did the US start trying to cut off Russian trade in gas, and at what point did Russia start being unfriendly?

I would say that US/Russia relations always were of a competitive nature, maybe aside from the few years when Yeltzin was in power. Other than that, they have been trying to harm each other's interests for the better part of the past 100 years. I still fail to understand what point you're trying to make. Are you trying to say that unfriendly US trade actions are acceptable justification for Russia to invade a neighboring nation without any provocation and reduce it to rubble? From all I know, Ukraine did absolutely -nothing- to threaten Russia, except trying to join a defensive military alliance Russia's leadership doesn't like, because it's standing for values it despises, namely democracy and freedom. Even after the expansion, NATO never did anything worth mentioning to threaten Russia. No nukes in the new member states. No large troop deployments anywhere near them. When there were exercises in the region, Russia was typically invited to observe them. What of that constitutes a threat to them?

This "we were so mean to Russia" thing is just rubbish, IMHO. Russia in general and Putin in particular were salty about losing their Soviet Empire and they want it back, so they can be a big shiny world power again. Ukraine wanted to join the West instead. Russia sent the missiles and the tanks to prevent that from happening. It's about territorial expansion. That's really all there is to the story. No all things in life are super complicated...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: Purple Library GuyRussia is there because they fear NATO encircling and strangling them. They fear NATO encircling and strangling them because that is something NATO seems to be doing and it has been often stated as a goal by US and NATO leaders.

Load a world map into your paint application of choice. Paint all NATO nations (including Finland and Sweden if you want) blue and Russia red. And then tell me what part of this looks like "encirclement"... *rolls eyes*

Mmm . . . Paint all NATO nations today blue, and paint all NATO nations in 1991 blue, and tell me what the contrast looks like.

Sure, they now have more direct neighbors states that are NATO members, when back then it was only a small stretch of shared border with Norway (and another small stretch with Turkey if you count the Soviet Union). That doesn't equal "encirclement" by any stretch of imagination. My point was, by far the largest portion of Russia's borders is NOT shared with NATO members.
The problem with Russia is that it thinks it has a natural right to have a buffer of slave states in between them and the closest country they don't like. Like it used to enslave all of Eastern Europe with puppet regimes after WW2, to create a buffer in between them and the West. Thing is that no nation gets to pick its neighbors or who they're allied with. That's just not their business, and in particular it doesn't give them any right to invade them and reducing their cities to ash. There is no such thing as a "legitimate sphere of influence". A nation's legitimate interests end at its borders and what happens an inch behind that, is none of their business.

As a side note, consider natural gas. Russia has few pipelines through which to sell natural gas. The main one westward runs through Ukraine. So, the United States staged a coup in Ukraine, then mounted a sustained and increasingly massive pressure campaign to block the building and use of a new pipeline (Nordstream 2) that didn't run through any NATO countries, specifically and explicitly on the basis that the sale of Russian gas should be blocked because it's Russian. What was Russia supposed to think about this? That it's normal commerce? Of course it's an attempt at economic strangulation.

US policy was more geared towards Europe not buying -any- gas from Russia, no matter what pipeline it arrives through. Turns out it was the correct stance to have. You can't make yourself dependent on an unfriendly, aggressive nation. That's the #1 lesson for the West so far.

PS: I don't buy that we "staged" the Maidan revolution, at least not in a way anyone can make a reasonable claim it wouldn't have happened without us facilitating it. There is no conclusive evidence out there that anyone but the citizens of Ukraine started it. We certainly didn't -mind- it happening and I know we got somewhat involved -after- it started. That's more or less fair game. We're allowed to -welcome- a regime change in a another country. I am pretty sure Putin is happy to have Orban in charge of Hungary too, and not someone else.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library GuyRussia is there because they fear NATO encircling and strangling them. They fear NATO encircling and strangling them because that is something NATO seems to be doing and it has been often stated as a goal by US and NATO leaders.

Load a world map into your paint application of choice. Paint all NATO nations (including Finland and Sweden if you want) blue and Russia red. And then tell me what part of this looks like "encirclement"... *rolls eyes*

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: CerberonEuropeans continue to hurt themselves in hopes of hurting Russia.

So did the UK and France when they declared war on Nazi Germany. Doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do. For the exact same reasons. It's the nature of war that whatever you're doing, it's also hurting yourself. In the case of the sanctions, sure they will hurt the West, too. As long as it hurts Russia more (and it does), it's still a strategic win.

I agree with everything you say here except maybe the "and it does". From a brute strategic point of view, the US + entourage may have shot itself in the foot with this.

If you refer to the oil and coal embargo, I am inclined to agree with you. Prices for these commodities are sky-high right now, so even if we're buying less, Russia is still overall making more money, and there are still enough countries out there willing to buy from them. This has to be viewed as a long-term thing, rather than anything. Since we're apparently unwilling to ship enough heavy weapons to turn the tide of this war solidly in favor of Ukraine, this might go on for years to come, and eventually the sanctions -will- work.
What really hurt them and will continue doing so was the sanctions against their ruling elite. These people just love bragging with their wealth, but almost all go-to places for showing off wealth are now off-limits to them (Istanbul just isn't Zurich or Monaco) and some lost a few of their expensive toys on top of that. There seems to be considerable unrest among the elites that used to back Putin, and that's a good start.
As for the Ruble, yes, it's stable for now, among things because whoever's running Russia's central bank is doing a fairly great job at stabilizing it. But again, it's not sustainable. You can safely expect the Ruble to plummet, the question is just when. That's the general problem with sanctions - they absolutely work, but with a significant delay. Russia is a major country on a map, but its economy is actually quite small. Its GNP is about as large as Spain's, and (to quote Obama) they don't make anything except oil and weapons anyone would want to buy. They bought almost everything from us and they no longer can. China can not compensate all of that. I am pretty sure China is enjoying us and Russia bashing heads, but they're still happy to do business with us and they really don't want to lose the business anytime soon. In the end, Russia will feel the sanctions, and I'd guess they already do.

As for the future, yes, what you outlined is very likely going to happen. The world is going to split in two or more blocks once more. A US-led democratic and a China-led autocratic block, with Russia becoming China's main bootlicker as a bigger version of North Korea. And very little interaction and trade between these blocks. Been there, done that, got the "I have been born in the Cold War and seen it all" T-shirt. History repeats itself, again and again. It's a shame, but humanity will apparently never learn. I lost the last rest of faith in it a long while ago, so what can I say?

View this comment - View article - View full comments