It's certainly the option Google would prefer, which essentially always means it's unethical.

I'd gladly agree to pay more in exchange for a legally binding agreement that higher prices mean video games free of predatory monetization and reasonable pay and job security for the people making the games. But we both know that they have no intention of doing the right thing, no matter how high the box price. They're already raking in record profits while laying off huge chunks of their workforce and giving the c-suite ever-increasing annual bonuses.

They've perpetuated the lie that microtransactions were a necessity and the $60 price was unsustainable for such a long time that people actually believe it. Now they want to increase the box price while keeping the predatory monetization, having their cake and eating it too.

This. I genuinely believe that in the near future indie games will be the sole torch-bearer for what I would call "traditional gaming". Tighter, more focused experiences with no microtransactions or sanitized, inoffensive bloat. Games that are offline and don't require any server handshake to function. And as the technology available to them advances, it will enable indie devs to be more and more ambitious with their vision.

Sony and Nintendo are both terrible, hypocritical companies in their own right. That by no means absolves Microsoft of being who they are, and the pro-consumer tactic Xbox has employed for the past 5 or 6 years is definitely a calculated move and the result of them falling hard after the Don Mattrick era, but to say that Microsoft (and by that I assume you mean Xbox) is terrible for gaming is a bad take. The gaming landscape is better because Xbox exists. Competition and choice empower the consumer. If you think Sony wouldn't be an even shittier company without the competition Xbox provides, you really don't understand how these avaricious corporate conglomerates operate.

If only that was what he was saying. He doesn't care whether they're dependent on servers. The vast majority of physical games sold today are already nothing more than an entitlement and some of the game files, with the rest being downloaded after you insert the disc. He's only concerned with Gamestop getting their cut, both in new game sales and especially in their bread-and-butter trade-in market.

Imagine cracking a game that's already on gog lmao

The Series S is very frequently on sale for $50 off, sometimes more, and often comes with a bundled controller or game.

The Deck is only playable in Act 1. The frame rate in other acts struggles to reach 20 FPS, even on low settings. Also, the $400 deck you're referencing cannot even install the game unless you buy an accompanying microSD (which I can't imagine provides a good BG3 experience) or an SSD which you then crack open the steam deck to install (which will be too intimidating to most casual, non-tech people).

$450+ is a more accurate price point for playing BG3 on Steam Deck; 50% more than the Xbox MSRP, which is significantly discounted every few weeks. The Xbox will also offer a much more convenient experience to those who want to play the game on their TVs, and the game will look nicer on that hardware.

The Deck is an awesome little device, but you're overselling it here, and ignoring a lot of nuance.

Lucky, or in Elmo's case, born with a platinum spoon in his mouth thanks to daddy's apartheid emerald mines.

Well said on all points. I expected better of this community.

Did you know that 98.2% of statistics quoted by people online are simply pulled out of their ass? Did you know that people are less likely to be open about their sexuality when they'll face communal scorn and exclusion, or often physical harm, for openly expressing it?

The number of people that would identify as queer is certainly higher than 5%, and that doesn't even include all of the closeted or self-denying people that have been indoctrinated by religious bullshit or simply growing up in a conservative area.

That the number to which you default is 95% is a crystal clear example of the sort of heteronormativity they're referencing.

Your point is well-made, but I worry you're applying literal interpretation to rhetorical generalizing that require slightly deeper reading. For better or worse, humans like to make sweeping generalizations, and only in the most extreme instances do they legitimately believe they apply to everyone in that given population.

For example: The women tweeting about how "men suck" isn't thinking of every man that has ever existed; she knows men aren't a monolith; she has a picture in her mind of a particular type of man, one that has been a source of trauma for her and countless other women. If you know you aren't that type of man, then you know that her words aren't directed at you; the same principle, imo, applies to churches and religion.

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but on the whole religion is used as a tool of exclusion and oppression much more than it is used to promote compassion and progress. When people make generalizations about churches and religion, they're envisioning the regressive, bigoted zealot that has been the source of trauma for so many. The church you describe would not fall into that category, so try not to take such comments to heart.

A mistranslation of some milennia-old texts, published by a bunch of crusty old 17th-century white men is an interesting hill to die on, isn't it? Imagine what these self-righteous bigots would do to Jesus (a bold and prominent brown socialist) if they met him on the street.