Goodeye8 @ Goodeye8 @piefed.social

Posts

1

Comments

63

Joined

1 mo. ago

Found the guy who would use a flathead screwdriver to regulate a demon core.

As evident from Australia, Canada and the US, every government does not care. There's no guarantee that the EU commission will care either, but because we've (hopefully) met their pretty significant requirement they have to care enough to address it. And in an ideal society they would have to care because the government is for the people and enough people have voiced their concern.

Also considering there's at least one prominent EU parliament politician showing public support it's bound to get a bit more political attention than just a simple "No" that we've seen so far.

Well, if you had been here since the start you'd know that Ross started SKG by having multiple petitions around the globe. The EU initiative is one the last (if not the last) petition he pushed for. For Australia and Canada the ship already sailed, Australia said no and Canada gave a roundabout no. Ross didn't even try in the US because the US is such a lost cause there's nothing to even petition for. I don't remember what happened with Brazil but it was on Ross's radar. Most other countries would simply be too small to have an impact on the global scale. Which is why the last two bastions left are the UK and the EU, because the haven't said outright "No" yet and they're big enough to influence the market. The rest of the world has to wait because the other influential parts of the world have already failed.

As for a boycott, you're free to start organizing one. I see that as a lost cause. If we can barely get 1 million Europeans to do the bare minimum of signing one petition I don't see how you're going to get 10+ million people across the globe to do more than the bare minimum for who knows how long. Boycotts don't work because 99% of gamers do not give a fuck. I've seen different groups of people boycott Ubisoft for 20 years now and I personally had boycotted them for about a decade, it had no impact as Ubisoft made even more profits despite the different boycotts. Modern Warfare 2 boycott had no impact on the removal of dedicated servers. People even boycotted Valve when Steam launched and that did nothing. Boycotts have only had very limited consumer rights successes in individual games, like EA removing pay to win mechanics from Battlefront 2. Meanwhile Australia ended up made Steam to offer refunds to everyone and Belgium and Netherlands restrictions on lootboxes has noticeably reduced their usage in games.

You're free to prove to me wrong but government actions end up being far more successful than boycotts.

Okay, so what more should we do? Boycott somehow?

What even is your point? Besides "I don't like this thing so I'm going to shit on it"? You've made no actual arguments against the initiative. All you've said is that it doesn't work (technically you haven't even said this, at best you've implied) and I could just as easily say that about your boycott "solution" as well.

You have no point. You're just shit stirring. That's why you're a bad faith troll.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that Ross had people prepared to meet with the representatives and present the initiative in case it does go through in the EU. Because it's not like he could do it himself considering he's not an EU citizen.

Countries probably have something in place that would easily verify a person but it would still take extra effort to make that something work with the system is managing the initiative counting.

It's simply cheaper to collect all the votes and then do the verification rather than develop integration to verify in real time.

There probably isn't a central database to verify against so the solution would be to come up with a distributed system where each country implements its own verification process and then implement a standardized messaging structure that all countries would have to use. It would be a significant development effort to make something like that and it probably wouldn't pay off to if it was made just for citizens initiative. Considering in the last 5 years there has been only 4 (5 if we also count SKG) initiatives that have passed 1 mil it's probably cheaper to collect all the signatures and then have each country verify the dataset that relates to their country.

I don't know how far you made it but if you make the biggest vehicle you can add planters inside the vehicle which significantly cuts down the need to restock. That said, in the end game the survival elements become so trivialize they end meaningless busywork even if you have planters.

Reminds me of the good old days of playing Colin McRae Racing 2.0. Even the red Mini Cooper makes an appearance. I just got all the right heart strings pulled, this is going on my wishlist to check it out when it releases.

The argument isn't that only Steam gamers are hoarders. The argument is that game hoarders congregate on Steam. You can have hoarding gamers in the wild, and those wild hoarders may never touch Steam, but you're guaranteed to find hoarding gamers on Steam. If you're looking to sell games to hoarders you're going to sell more when you do it where hoarders regularly visit.

It's the same reason Epic is giving away free games. They're trying to attract hoarders by giving them a free hoard and regularly inviting them into their shop. They won't really attract hoarders who are entrenched on Steam but they will attract future hoarders who might not yet have a huge Steam library.

You literally said this changes from neglect to "a really bad choice".

which in my opinion changes things drastically from someone making a poor choice with neglect or even an intent to kill, **to someone who just made a really bad choice without the expectation anything bad ** will come out of it.

As for the other argument. If someone leaves their children home alone for a week do you think that action becomes significantly less worse if they stock up the fridge before leaving the children to fend for themselves? I would argue it doesn't matter because you're still neglecting them. The same way I don't think the AC matters because in both cases those children were still strapped into the car for over 2 hours without any supervision.

I don't get why you're trying to paint it as not neglect. This is not someone who made a really bad choice, this is someone who decided it's okay for a 1 year old and a 2 year old to sit in a car for over 2 hours. Her leaving the AC on doesn't change the fact that it was negligent behavior, deliberate negligent behavior. Even if the AC had worked the entire time the situation for the children would've still been insufferable.

I don't really see it. AM isn't in a good spot and it's very unlikely they'll suddenly become a top team next year. Newey can do his magic but it's not going to fix the rest of the team.

Max isn't going to waste his time in some midfield team, he's going to a top team or he's taking a sabbatical.

I get hating Fallout 3. I hate how it (and every subsequent Bethesda Fallout game) has done irreparable damage to the Fallout lore. I think its main story is pretty shit and the only reason it's not a steaming pile of shit is because somehow Fallout 4 was able to surpass Fallout 3 in shittiness.

But you have to have your head pretty far up your ass if you think people wouldn't actually enjoy it. It's a good game (a bit dated by today's standards), it's just not a good Fallout game. And the people who love Fallout 3 don't care about the reasons that make it a bad Fallout game.

Honestly, IMO the lack of D-pad was less of an issue than the lack of a second analog stick. The lack of a second stick made the controller almost impossible to use in any game that was designed with 2 sticks in mind. For example Nier Automata 9S hacking minigame was a horrible experience with the Steam controller.

It looks like a giant...

If you no longer ask for a team order that exists, you are no longer a racing driver.

Honestly I'd even prefer that because it diminishes the value of in game purchases and would be a step towards getting rid of them as well.

I think it mostly revolves around how you get 100 players together for a good game. The match making part.

This part is not really what the initiative is about. The initiative can't guarantee you'll be able to find 100 other people to play with. Even matchmaking (unless it's somehow made integral to the game) is not really relevant to the initiative. What the initiative is concerned with is preservation of games. To give a specific example, if you're able to organize 100 people to play the same game the initiative wants you to have the technical capability to set up the game for 100 people. And to give a more real life example, Anthem is shutting down at the start of 2026. That means if me and my 2 friends get nostalgic and want to play Anthem in 2027 we literally cannot, the game won't run. But if what SKG wants to achieve would be a reality right now then EA would have to have a way for me to set up whatever is necessary for me and my 2 friends to play Anthem together, be it some kind of server binary or P2P solution or source code or whatever, doesn't matter how the company wants to solve this as long as it works. That's what SKG is about.

My initial question in this thread framed changing the game design, not networking stack. So it was about making it all local/same screen only. An absurd example on purpose.

SKG isn't saying companies should make BR-s local/split screen. It's only concerned with keeping games in a playable state. SKG doesn't alter the game design unless the technical stack required to keep the game running is somehow integral to the design of the game. SKG deliberately leave the "how a game should be preserved" open so publishers/developers could preserve games how they see fit. If the publishers/developers want to rip out the multiplayer and replace it with local/split screen that's how they've decided to preserve their game. That is not really criticism of SKG, that's just a bad faith argument that can be made only because SKG isn't as restrictive as people claim it to be.

And specifically in your example the design of a BR game does not need to change at all because the only thing preventing some BR-s from being preserved is the fact that you cannot set up your own servers.