As someone who has, in the past, moderated communities and had to deal with acceptable vs non-acceptable postings and submissions to their community, I think there's something being missed here.

A lot of submitters will submit something very against the rules, then when you ask them to remove it, submit something slightly against the rules, and they're doing that to figure out their limitations and where you actually draw all the lines. This will happen over and over, sometimes re-reviewing ten or twelve times. Oftentimes, they'll ask you for a point by point violation listing and will sealion your moderation and submission teams to death just trying to get the most past you.

In this case, I don't know if that's what the studio behind HORSES was doing, but I do know that a lot of places have decided that if you fail the first time for a set of specific reasons, you do not go to the front of the queue for re-reviews, and in some cases you may not even be allowed a re-review. What I also don't know is whether the scene described (young girl riding a naked woman like a horse) was actually what crossed the line, or even if the scene as described is what was actually submitted. We only have the studio's word on that, and they've insisted that Valve hasn't said why they were banned. And yet, they ALSO say they removed the scene and requested a re-review. That there is an inconsistency in their story, and digging any level deep shows a large number of these inconsistencies going back with this studio.

By no means do I think Valve is a "great company" or that they're doing wonderful things for the world, but I do think we're intentionally being misled here by the studio and I think their timelines of events do not mesh with how the flow of time in reality works.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The utterly stupid hat was so dumb for so many reasons. One, it immediately alienates a ton of people. I'm one such person. It's not about not liking Donald Trump, but it is about stating one of two possible positions:

1) You either are supporting Donald Trump and want to make it clear while also forwarding your game.

or

2) You are going for the meme format which means you have no respect for who have been hurt by this administration's actions, and thus, are disconnected from reality.

Neither of those are good looks... but the most important thing is...

If you're going to wear a hat that says "Make FPS's Great Again" you better heckin deliver, because it's going to take something phenomenal to make people look beyond the hat.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain ManThat's how people are justifying it, but the reality is, you are paying $30 to beta test a free to play game.

Yeah? GGG has almost always worked this way. They aren't saying anything different. I'm paying $30 to get 300 coins for MTX transactions and it's allowing me early access to their game. That's kinda how they've always operated. Had I supported them about $50 more over their lifetime, I would have gotten the early access for free as they gave it to a lot of POE1 players who had supported them.

None of this is new, or cloudy, or deceptive information. It's literally the way they've operated since the start of POE1 and how they generate funding.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain ManI can't believe there are people paying $30 for a game that will eventually be released for free.

There will almost certainly be new stash tabs or various micro transactions that'll make the game better, and the early access bundle comes with 300 of those coins to do just that, which is actually their current going rate for the coins outside of the bundle. So, in a sense, if you're going to get into POE2 you're going to need to spend this money at some time anyway.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I gotta admit, I wish people would stop referring to this branch as Stable in any way. From Nvidia's own site regarding the new Feature Branch:
What is a New Feature Branch Driver?
This driver provides early adopters and bleeding edge developers access to the latest driver features before they are integrated into the Production Branches.
Formerly known as Linux Short Lived Branch (SLB).

I have had mostly good but some showstopping bugs using this branch, and with Fedora and others going to pure Wayland only it's been a hellish experience for me. I get that Wayland is the future and I even love that future, but this branch isn't stable. It's nowhere close to stable, and otherwise stable distributions running this branch have caused headaches I haven't had in linux for years.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: rkfgI wonder if they are actually allowed to remove the platform support. It would mean that their customers are left without the product they paid them for. So that in turn would mean either a bunch of refunds or legal issues. Considering that Rust is a multiplayer-only game, stopping updating the game would mean roughly the same — the existing Linux players wouldn't be able to play anymore.

This statement must be clarified.

Sadly, they are allowed to do this. When you purchase a game, you are purchasing a revokable and permanent license to run the game. You are not actually purchasing the game itself, you're purchasing a license that can go away at any time.

Here's there EULA: https://rust.facepunch.com/legal/tos [External Link]

It sucks, but this is what happens when you play proprietary games. You don't own the game. You own a limited personal license to play it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Patola

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI had a good deal of fun with this game. One thing that bugged me back when I played it though was that you were given a certain percentage chance to hit, and I noticed (became particularly obvious with powerful units with high chance to hit and lots of attacks) that the actual results seemed to average way below the given stats. So like, someone with 60% chance to hit seemed to hit around 40% of the time. Got frustrating.

But this is an open source game. You can promptly check the code to see whether the statistics are done wrong, or you're just experiencing selection bias.

This is one of those stupid smug comments that one sees a lot of in open source circles. Sure, I'll learn to code so I can check one thing on one game I've spent a bit of time playing. It'll only take 50 times as much time as I'll ever put in playing the game, what's the big deal?

One of the reasons this is commonly given is an answer is that every few months someone accuses Wesnoth of cheating the numbers some how, and people get into a long thread and crack it open and show exactly how the calculation is done, and then those people get called liars in the threads. So people just encourage others to look for themselves now. It's not meant to be downtalking or learning to code, it's really clearly marked in code and described pretty well.

Also, a 60% chance to hit doesn't necessarily mean you will hit 6 out of 10 times. The amount of rolls it takes before it averages out can be really high before it statistically becomes abnormal. I think part of this is due to many games that implement a "to hit" percentage actually adding increases if you fail many times. Games like XCOM would add little modifiers on subsequent missed hits in order to "balance out bad luck." Wesnoth doesn't do that. Ever. It rolls the D100 or D-whatever and that's that.

View this comment - View article - View full comments