Make it a legally binding contract, otherwise don’t bother promising.

There’s one nearby where I used to live that was disguised like this but for a different reason. They bought the rights to build the tower from a church only under the condition that it was disguised like this.

The other thing is that there was simply fewer games back then so you either continue to play the good games you own or you don’t play games. I loved Ocarina of Time, but I’m not going to pretend it was God’s gift to mankind just because I played it tons in my youth. I played it tons in my youth because it was one of the best games that I owned, and even then I had plenty more options than I’m sure this person had on the Atari for good games

Currently playing through Rainworld for the first time, and “where the fuck do I go” has definitely crossed my mind more than a few times.

I will say I’ve mostly been enjoying just exploring, but it has been frustrating at times trying to figure out what to do or where to go when my little in-game helper suddenly decides to play coy at another crossroads.

Tbh I’m in the opposite position. Don’t recall why or how, but I had BoF4 despite not being familiar with the rest of the series and still adore it. I recall once having tried out BoF3 but I didn’t get very far, likely had something else grab my attention so I just dropped BoF3 before giving it a proper chance.

Seeing several of these comments saying several people preferred it over 4 is making me think about giving it another shot.

I had heard previously the tariff would be 145% so I guess this is referring to a total price of 245%.

To some extent I can understand since they’re expecting a certain ROI on the console which would include American sales, and therefore if American sales drop because of tariffs they need another way to make up that lost revenue.

That being said I feel like it would be a mistake to make that up by increasing the price of the console for other markets too. In my opinion if American sales drop then they should pivot their focus to other markets until American leadership stabilizes, i.e. stops being an active detriment to the American economy and all the international companies involved in it. Which likely won’t happen until trump/his administration is out of office.

Java is the original and Bedrock is the C++ adaptation that came about once Microsoft bought Minecraft. Microsoft couldn’t really justify getting rid of Java edition because that’s what the entire PC userbase was using at the time, and they’ve gotten very used to the features it allows for. Namely mods. However they still wanted to unify the casual playerbase and better monetize the game.

On the topic of monetization, Minecraft originally had this nasty little clause (for Microsoft) written in I forget either the ToS, EULA, or what, but it essentially guaranteed all future updates to the game for free. I believe it also made some other guarantees about no MTX, should never have to pay for servers, etc but those I’m less certain about. Around the time MS bought the game there was a lot of talk about how the only way they’d really be able to get out of that guarantee to the millions of players who already owned “Java edition” (just regular Minecraft back then) was to make a Minecraft 2.0 that didn’t have that clause. Their approach for that problem appears to have been bedrock edition which they maintain alongside Java edition. Because it’s not the version they bought, they can make changes to the legal agreements including charging for things Java Edition users have a guaranteed right to.

Those are the two main reasons I’m aware of for the two editions. I believe the majority of the PC playerbase is currently on Bedrock Edition so although they would have some backlash if they suddenly decided to axe it I think the majority of the playerbase would chug on like normal. Afaik the main reason they don’t is because anyone who purchased Minecraft before there was a “Java Edition” would have a legal claim to say Bedrock is clearly the same game under another title, they’re not getting future updates as guaranteed, and are entitled to either updates or compensation. And I can’t imagine MS is interested in litigiously pissing off millions of players.

I imagine Minecraft played a large part in popularizing the concept of a player hosted server for survival games. It’s possible that the reason this genre in specific has so many titles where you can do this is because players coming from or otherwise largely influenced by Minecraft see this as a requirement if not just the standard, so devs wanting to appeal to these players may also see it as a standard/requirement.

Worth mentioning that some of these earlier titles were built for IPX networking, which is no longer supported by modern operated systems. I get the impression OP is asking for games with LAN gaming supporting to get recommendations, so I feel it’s important to make sure they or others checking lists like this one understand they may need to go through some hoops to get some of these titles to work with a modern machine.

Recently upgraded to a 7800x3D, 64GB DDR5, and a 4070… which I’ve been using to get back into modded Minecraft recently.

Considering OP’s “KERPLOOIE SNOW” I’m pretty sure they’re aware of that and that was the joke.

If you compare it to Nintendo’s handheld line then it makes a lot more sense, especially considering the Switch Lite, and OLED Switch.

Gameboy, Gameboy Pocket, Gameboy Light, Gameboy Color

Gameboy Advance, Gameboy Advance SP, Gameboy Advance Micro

DS, DS Lite, DSi/XL

3DS/XL, 2DS, N3DS/XL, N2DS/XL

and now the Switch, Switch Lite, OLED Switch, and now the incremental hardware upgrade with the Switch 2

The Gameboy color, arguably the whole Advance line, DSi, arguably the whole 3DS line, and absolutely the N3DS/N2DS ones were definitely incremental upgrades.

Color obviously brought color and better hardware. Advance brought shoulder buttons and better hardware though no hardware changes within the advance line. DSi introduced the home screen and the online store to the DS line along with better hardware. 3DS brought better hardware and many advancements to the OS experience of the DSi. N3DS brought better hardware and a second joystick.

To me how Nintendo is treating the Switch 2 makes a lot more sense in comparison to the handheld consoles instead of home consoles.

Don’t forget the N3DS which actually was more powerful than the original and had the second, tiny analog stick.

Well don’t forget the DSi, New 3DS, or the Gameboy Color. This feels like pretty much the same as any of those.

I also did some napkin math on it and got a very different number. I don’t have the game so I saw people reporting the game is 150GB on PC. CDs can store up to 700MB of data, so (150 x 1024) / 700 ≈ 219.4 but we can round that up to 220. The standard CD is 1.2mm in thickness, so 220 x 1.2mm = 264mm which is a quarter of a meter.

I’m curious how my result differed from yours.

the new guy went to change his pants from long ones to short ones.

Wait so was he fired for wearing short pants, for leaving with the intention of changing his pants, or because (the reason I initially thought the glass was relevant) the new guy changed his pants within view of the boss’s son through the glass walls?

Great, you have a simple rule that’s wholely unrealistic and as poorly construed as pretty much everything else you’ve been saying so far. Such a rule could so easily be worked around that it may as well already exist for all that it would matter.

I’ll again reiterate that I agree with what you want to argue. I agree that I think Steam could probably take a smaller cut, still be profitable enough to stay in business at the same scale they are, afford more smaller businesses a better cut of the money they’re generating for themselves and for steam, and give the option to charge less to consumers. I agree that there are too many mega corporations, making way too much money, screwing too many of their clients, customers, and employees. I agree that too many executives are making genuinely fuck loads of money that are inhumanly excessive.

I’ll still say again though, that pretty much everything you’ve argued so far is wildly unrealistic, unfounded in reality, barely thought through at all, and comes across as the absurd ramblings of a middle schooler who passed an economics elective.

I’ll also point out the hypocrisy of you attacking Steam (and to your credit other distributors retail or otherwise) but defending the publishers that by your arguments simply must charge more or else they don’t make money back on their investment. Your argument defends AAA publishers such as EA churning out games year after year with the exact same code just different stats for sports games (FIFA, NBA, whatever the current football games are), games exploiting gambling addictions (pay to win, FOMO, loot boxes), and games exploiting the efforts and attention of children (Roblox).

Also “something must be broken in your brain for you to defend them instead of your own interests” is rich coming from the person who’s very visibly experiencing double-think seemingly genuinely arguing “of course publishers aren’t going to charge less for their titles on other digital marketplaces because if they need a $49 RoI on Steam then they’re going to charge the same $70 price on other platforms” at the same time as “well if Steam didn’t charge a 30% cut then you would pay $50 for an otherwise $70 title!” as if you don’t believe in your own argument that they would charge the same exact price on Steam as they do elsewhere.

It sounds to me like you’ve already started with the conclusion that 30% is too much considering you’re against all retailers taking 30%, seemingly without any regards to the context any of these retailers might have. How is it that you’ve determined that 30% is too much, and don’t forget that you’re the one who argued that other distributors are not relevant in this discussion.

Oh is that because Steam exists in isolation and can’t be compared to any other platform? If so, tell me what about Steam makes it an apples to oranges comparison with Epic, GOG, Origin, and Battle.Net? If they’re up for discussion then why is it that physical game distribution isn’t allowed to be talked about? If an average consumer is only really concerned about getting the game then why are some forms of getting their game not allowed for discussion? Why should retailers be exempt from this discussion?

You also didn’t seem to mind slashing their cut percentage in half, but how can we know that’s a feasible percentage if we’re not allowed to talk about other distributors and see if they’re able to make 15% work? If we’re not considering other distributors at all then who’s to say if 30% is unreasonable? Should it be increased or decreased and by how much?

Suppose we were instead talking about Nintendo selling games for too much, how would we decide it’s too much if we couldn’t compare it to other studios, distributors, or platforms that demonstrate they can still run a business and charge less?

Face it, talk about and comparison to any other distributor or distribution method is fully relevant and required if you want to have any meaningful discussion. You just don’t seem to want to discuss retailers because they’re hurting your weak argument.