Goodeye8
@Goodeye8@piefed.social
- Comment on 15 hours ago:
Your point is very simple and understandable, but that doesn’t make it right. If your point was right it should be able to withstand the criticism I’m giving it, but it can’t. That’s why you think I’m confused and misinterpreting what you’re saying, because you don’t like me poking holes in your misguided belief.
- Comment on 23 hours ago:
I said the situation is crazy, not a specific person. I dont blame any individual, the strategies used over the years by these companies to sell skins and make consumers complacent are all very manipulative and effective. The people designing the systems and the ones doing the marketing have done a very, very good job.
Maybe you should’ve been clearer on what you meant considering your passive aggressive tone towards the consumer like “consumers keep sucking it up” (I don’t think this one need explaining) or calling them complacent (indirectly criticizing people for being too passive or indifferent) or saying we forgot cosmetics used to be free (implies we used to know better and now don’t).
You seem stuck on artists all being freelance, getting paid on some sort of commission. They are almost always salaried employees like anyone else at the development company.
First of all, whether they’re freelance or not shouldn’t matter to you considering you’re claiming they shouldn’t get paid either. And secondly I don’t think you understand how companies operate. People at companies work to generate revenue. Free cosmetics do not generate revenue and if they’re packaged with the game their contribution to the pricing is marginal thus the labor cost of making these assets would be disproportionate to their value and they don’t get made. The artists will get paid by they won’t be working of cosmetics. For artists to work on cosmetics there needs to be an incentive to work on them.
Weird analogy, paying for a game, something usually worked on for years, is a lot different than paying for a cosmetic change to something. It’s like going to the movies and paying the price of the ticket again to sit in a green chair instead of a red one and being told that’s completely normal and something you should do.
Is it? Last time I checked money goes off my account and I get something that costs no extra for the company (outside of making the thing).
Or are you drawing the difference at the amount of time it takes to make something? So a game made within a month should be free? A cosmetic that for some reasons took years to make should be paid? Or is it a matter of respect? That you respect game devs and their labor but you don’t respect artists and their labor?
As for your cinema analogy, some cinemas have higher quality chairs in the same theater and as a matter of fact, you do pay extra for them.
I agree, if skins were sold for $0.50, $1.00, max $5, then I would have less issue with them.
Are set starting to move the goal post here? Cosmetics costing less shouldn’t matter to you at all because your issue is that you have pay ANY amount for them.
I’d still have issue with the predatory practices used to sell them though. Some people are more susceptible to this than others, so I would rather it didnt exist at all.
Which is a completely different issue. I also have issues with predatory practices but the existence of predatory practices doesn’t mean cosmetics should be free.
You buy a game once, have all the content and are not pressured again to spend anything, that’s the ideal scenario, why would I compromise on that?
And if the game releases a DLC with new content are you not pressured to buy the DLC? Are you going to argue that DLC should also be free or are you going to draw another arbitrary line in the sand stating that game devs deserve the money but artists don’t?
Games should be a sustainable art form, not gross corporate projects to extract as much money as possible from consumers.
And how exactly is something sustainable when you give it away for free?
- Comment on 1 day ago:
No need to start throwing insults. It takes away from your argument
Pretty ironic considering you’re implying people who think it’s okay to pay for cosmetics are crazy.
Artists get paid either way, they are not paid on commission of skin sales. Any extra profit goes to the executives anyway, not to the artists. So that entire point is null.
Like I said before, the realistic alternative to paid cosmetics is no extra cosmetics. Artists get paid anyway but if their work is freely given away how does it justify them working on it? And if you strip away the capitalist BS it becomes even more apparent that the artists making the assets deserve to be compensated for their labor.
A skin is made one time and sold a potentially infinite amount of times for ridiculous prices.
A game is also made once and sold infinite amount of times. Why aren’t you complaining about having to pay for games?
Why would you ever want to advocate for a worse experience? It blows my mind, but that’s the situation we got ourselves into
I’m not, which is why I’m advocating for cosmetic items to be reasonably priced. You’re advocating for a worse experience where cosmetic items get made with minimal effort (if they even get made at all) because the labor is not going to pay off.
- Comment on 2 days ago:
Some of us actually understand that the quality of assets has significantly risen since the 00s and it takes artists significantly more time and effort to make high quality cosmetics. We’re talking about going from assets taking days to assets taking weeks. Is the cost of the game supposed to eat all that extra development time? Are artists supposed to work for free? The realistic alternative to paid cosmetics is no extra cosmetics because quality cosmetic items are too expensive to make. Is that what you want?
You’re free to be the old man yelling at the cloud but at least acknowledge that that is what you are.
- Comment on 2 days ago:
There are also free cosmetics that you can unlock through quests.
- Comment on 2 days ago:
Things being cosmetic does not justify the outlandish price. 20€ for a skin, emote and some trinkets is a stupid price.
- Comment on 2 days ago:
Maybe someone else on the IGN payroll will do a proper review because a big reason the review was ass is because the reviewer was also ass. He was literally pressing the “ESC” button at the bottom left with a mouse. IMO the biggest crime of this IGN review is that the reviewer still works at IGN.
- Comment on 2 days ago:
And worth pointing out that the Linux version of EAC (which is what Embark games use) runs in user space. It’s literally not kernel level anticheat on Linux.
- Comment on Fucking genetics 4 days ago:
If I wanted a ballsack on my face I’d go to grindr.
- Comment on Monster Hunter Wilds is getting outsold by its 4-year-old predecessor 4 days ago:
Yeah, World got rid of a lot of (what I would consider dated and obtuse) mechanics but I don’t really see how much more they could sand off. Like I would like clearer elemental resistances (because I think the ones in World didn’t really represent monster weaknesses accurately) and better weapon attack numbers, but beyond the two I don’t really see where you could make it less obtuse. IMO finding monster weak spots is part of learning to fight the monster and knowing what skills complement which weapon is part of learning your chosen weapon. The skill explanations probably need to be clearer but I don’t know if that has gotten better because I don’t really pay attention to what the skill says as most skills are the same from game to game.
- Comment on 'Valve does not get anywhere near enough criticism': DayZ creator Dean Hall says the 'gambling mechanics' of Valve's monetization strategy 'have absolutely no place' in videogames 6 days ago:
I’m not defending lootboxes but I will defend history. They weren’t the first one. The physical implementation of the same concept has been around for decades (gatchapon in the east, baseball cards in the west), the first digital implementation was in Maplestory about half a decade before Valve and the first implementation in a western game was in FIFA (whichever it was that contained the ultimate team) about a year before Valve made their implementation.
There’s plenty of blame to throw at Valve, but some of the lootbox blame, namely the one you’ve brought up, should be thrown at EA because EA was first in the western market and the industry would’ve gone down the lootbox route even if Valve hadn’t done anything.
- Comment on 'Valve does not get anywhere near enough criticism': DayZ creator Dean Hall says the 'gambling mechanics' of Valve's monetization strategy 'have absolutely no place' in videogames 6 days ago:
If you want to get specific it’s not praising the dealer for buying back the drugs. It’s praising the drug dealer for allowing the customers to sell those drugs to others while taking a small cut from every sale. But they still shouldn’t get any praise because they shouldn’t be doing that in the first place.
- Comment on ARC Raiders | Launch Trailer 6 days ago:
I played a few rounds during the playtest but I’ve been keeping my eye on it for some time. I don’t know what reviews you’ve read but the extraction shooter crowd is excited because ARC raiders gets so much right and is arguably better than the king of the genre, Escape from Tarkov. Tarkov goes for a different experience so people who enjoy Tarkov might not necessarily enjoy ARC, but there are objective things that make ARC better than Tarkov. For example the PvE enemies are not bullshit. They’re hard but you don’t need to pixel peek through a doorway to kill them. The audio is far better because you can actually use audio to locate people. Less useless loot due to the ability to recycle loot. The performance is more uniform (in Tarkov streets is still somewhat unplayable for some people). The only clear negative people have had with ARC raiders is the third person view but I would say that’s hardly a deal-breaker. The rest of the game is fantastic. I dig the art style. I dig the audio. I dig the ARC and I dig core gameplay loop. I’m seriously considering finding time to invest into playing ARC raiders because that’s how much I enjoyed the playtest.
But with all this praise it’s worth remembering that at the end of the day it is an extraction shooter and extraction shooters are not for everyone. If the entire concept of risking your gear to get loot doesn’t sound appealing then not amount of praise is going to make you enjoy ARC raiders.
- Comment on 'Valve does not get anywhere near enough criticism': DayZ creator Dean Hall says the 'gambling mechanics' of Valve's monetization strategy 'have absolutely no place' in videogames 6 days ago:
That’s like giving a drug dealer praise for not selling the harder drugs.
Valve doesn’t deserve praise for being slightly less shitty when they’re doing one the shittiest things in gaming.
- Comment on When was the last time you actually laughed while playing a game? 1 week ago:
Disco Elysium is definitely the most memorable one with the level of absurdity it throws in your face. Thinking about the “Dios Mio, a LIBERAL” still cracks me up.
- Comment on 1 week ago:
Bold of you to assume they know it’s space communism. If the boys is of any indication Star Trek needs to explicitly say “we’re space communism” for there to be a 50/50 chance of Republicans getting it.
- Comment on Ex-PlayStation boss says the games industry is "littered" with Fortnite clones and "people trying to do Overwatch with different skins," but keep dreaming if you're just trying to get "big sacks of money" 1 week ago:
Depends on how you define new. Battle Royale could be viewed as just an evolution of the arena shooter genre where you expand the map and the player count to the maximum with the “arena pickups” being randomized. Or it could be viewed as something new because it fundamentally plays differently. IMO taking things that have been done before and combining them into something that hasn’t been done before is still creating something new.
And if you want really fresh ideas, there’s always the indie scene. I will always point my finger at Noita and the absolutely insane wand/spellcrafting system which is probably the most wizarding experience you can have. You can literally create a wand that (and I’m significantly simplifying the process because honestly I have no idea how that actually works) summons a deer into a parallel world and then swaps your location with the deer making you teleport into a parallel world. And no, that is most likely not the intended use of any of the spells that go into that wand. The devs themselves were probably trying to figure out if that’s a feature or a bug.
- Comment on Counter Strike 2 update wipes nearly $2 billion off skin market value by making fancy knives and gloves easier to get [Eurogamer] 1 week ago:
Even F2P games drop off in player count as people come try it out and decide it’s not for them and never play again. CS being free does not explain the yearly upward trend in active player count.
- Comment on Krafton is now an 'AI-first company,' will spend $70 million on a GPU cluster to 'serve as the foundation for accelerating the implementation of agentic AI' 1 week ago:
I think it will go the way of the NFT. People who don’t understand tech will hype it beyond belief and then the actual developers will go “this is useless” and not use it.
Well, maybe not exactly like NFTs because NFTs were actually useless while AI looks like it might have some actual niche use.
- Comment on Counter Strike 2 update wipes nearly $2 billion off skin market value by making fancy knives and gloves easier to get [Eurogamer] 1 week ago:
Now you’ve completely pivoted away from your original point of Valve being lazy and not doing anything to whatever the fuck this is.
shrugs this is the self-fulfilling prophecy of this kind of game design, there are WAY more players that would have been interested in that kind of thing but they left a long time ago because they were ignored in favor of the toxic competitive playerbase.
I gave you examples of Valve trying different things from the start of CSGO, before the e-sports and competitive scene had fully cemented themselves as the central piece. These fictional players who supposedly left were never there to begin with or they were such an insignificant amount, compared to the people who enjoyed the competitive playlist, that they died out all on their own. And there’s no self-fulfilling game design that caused this, unless you want to walk back you understanding of keeping the competitive core as is.
It is optimizing for a local maximum, one which is a dead end and only appears to be the only way forward because the parameters have narrowed so far for what the game can be that there is no longer any room to get out of that rut because everybody else who didn’t fit on that local maximum has left and is no longer giving feedback on why they got bored and left.
Yes. Chess is so dead. Smash Bros Melee, a game that is completely abandoned by the devs and hasn’t received an update in 20 years is completely dead (spoiler, the melee competitive scene is very much alive despite the game receiving no updates and Nintendo being hostile towards the scene). What is happening to CS isn’t that it’s narrowing itself into some sort of a dead end, it’s the opposite. It’s found what makes it great and that has become the framework in which the game operates. The game doesn’t have to appease the player, the player will learn how to play the game because the game is fun.
Maybe you don’t know how Steam charts work but CS active player over the course of years is only trending upwards. We’ve gone from an average of 300k players in 2015 to an average of 1mil players in 2025. Real world data literally proves you wrong.
- Comment on Counter Strike 2 update wipes nearly $2 billion off skin market value by making fancy knives and gloves easier to get [Eurogamer] 1 week ago:
What I am saying that is not nearly enough, it is lazy, you don’t have to change the core game to add more aspects to it, more modes and more content that compliments the competitive core.
I think you have no idea what you’re talking about. They’ve tried that multiple times. They made gun game when CSGO released and nobody cares about gungame. They made some other game mode as well, which I don’t even remember what it was called because nobody cared about that either. They made a 2 man competitive mode called wingman and that at least got some attention because that was competitive, but largely people stuck with the 5v5. They added danger zone, a CS take on battle royales, and nobody cares about that either. They even tried gradually bringing new maps into the competitive map pool by adding them to the casual playlist and nobody played them. Even now the last regular update (which was literally today) added the retakes gamemode back and I doubt the core audience cares.
The reason you don’t see any other kind of content in CS is because the core audience doesn’t care about any other content. For the majority of the playerbase only the gamemode that exists is competitive and everything else is irrelevant. In fact the core audience is so anal about competitive game mode they start bitching when new maps get added. You’re complaining about something that isn’t even true because Valve does try different things, but you only hear about competitive, skins, boxes and other cosmetics because that’s all the core audience cares about.
- Comment on Sony accuses Tencent of playing a 'shell game' with its Horizon-like survival game, seeks a preliminary injunction against it 2 weeks ago:
But there’s no question about them copying the Horizon series. Whether they’re doing it as an IP infringement is up for the courts to decide. I also disagree with the Nintendo comparison because what Nintendo is doing far worse. Even though Nintendo is doing things in response to Palworld they’re trying to patent a rather generic mechanics, like summonings or calling mounts (in a specific way) which means their actions won’t just affect Palworld but also Cassette Beasts and maybe even Monster Hunter Stories.
Meanwhile Sony want to make sure someone isn’t making a not Horizon game. I can’t even make a realistic comparison to what couldn’t exist if Sony wins because I can’t think of another game that that slots exactly into what Horizon is. Fighting against robots is generic, ARC raiders does that. Tribals vs high tech is also pretty generic, that’s essentially Avatar. Post-apocalyptic worlds are also generic and you’d have to narrow it down to get specifically Horizon style post-apocalyptic which itself is also not unique as that’s essentially the same style The Last of Us uses (just to give the first example that came to mind). It’s only after you take all those individual generic components and mash them together do you get Horizon, and the original reveal of Light of Motiram.
Look at this from the other perspective. Why does Light of Motiram need the same kind of tribal aesthetic like the Horizon games? Why does Light of Motiram need robot enemies that imitate animals like Horizon games down to the same visual style of robots? Why does Light of Motiram need the same post-apocalyptic world like the Horizon games down to the same color palette? Each of those things are rather generic concepts and Light of Motiram could’ve made their own interpretation of each of those concepts. It could’ve been Na’Vi tribals fighting ARC robots in an TLOU world, but instead in those instances it chose to do exactly what Horizon does.
- Comment on Sony accuses Tencent of playing a 'shell game' with its Horizon-like survival game, seeks a preliminary injunction against it 2 weeks ago:
Okay? But if you’re not defending the other persons argument then what are you doing?
- Comment on Sony accuses Tencent of playing a 'shell game' with its Horizon-like survival game, seeks a preliminary injunction against it 2 weeks ago:
That was a random image from the trailer. You can stop the trailer at a random point and there’s like 90% chance you’re going to end up with an image that could easily be from the Horizon series. It’s also worth pointing out that the trailer has been removed from all official Lights of Motiram accounts along with a dozen images that looked like they were from the Horizon series.
I will also remind you that you said it would be absurd to take Sony seriously, which is not the same thing as stating “there’s no trademark violations here”. The latter is literally what the court has to make a decision on. The former is about whether there’s any basis to go to court which already means you think you know better than Sony lawyers and, if the court doesn’t instantly throw out the case, also better than the legal system. Maybe you are some godlike lawyer who knows better than everyone else, but if you are I think you can understand why I’m calling bullshit on that.
- Comment on Sony accuses Tencent of playing a 'shell game' with its Horizon-like survival game, seeks a preliminary injunction against it 2 weeks ago:
You’re going to tell me people won’t think this is Horizon?
That’s an image from the official reveal trailer.
- Comment on Sony accuses Tencent of playing a 'shell game' with its Horizon-like survival game, seeks a preliminary injunction against it 2 weeks ago:
Why wouldn’t they? I’m all for the fuck Sony train when they fuck up (like when they pushed PSN onto PC users and then blocked the sale of their games in countries that aren’t supported by PSN) but in this case Tencent is/was blatantly copying the Horizon IP.
- Comment on Necesse Version 1.0 | Launch Trailer 2 weeks ago:
Take it easy Ricky Gervais.
- Comment on Steam Next Fest is back for October 2025. What good demos have you found? 2 weeks ago:
It’s not a pure extraction shooter, but the general idea (that is kinda a core concept to the genre) is that if you die you lose whatever you took with you when you went outside your shelter. When you die the game respawns you at your shelter and in theory you should take another set of gear you’ve stashed in your shelter to go out again. Alternatively you can go out with nothing and do what is considered “zero to hero” as in you use whatever you find in the wild.
It’s a learning curve when you’ve never played extraction shooters because it requires you to think about your actions in a way you normally don’t need to think about. In most games you can just take any fight to see how it goes u because it if goes bad you just reload and nothing is lost. But because there’s no reloading in an extraction shooter you have to think about if it’s a fight you’re willing to take, if it’s a good idea to push forward or go back to store what you’ve found. There’s a constant question of risk vs reward.
I would recommend starting a new game every time you die until you feel comfortable with bringing back gear into your base and then restocking from your stash when you die. There should also be a trader somewhere in the first area who might be of help when you’re looking for specific gear.
- Comment on Steam Next Fest is back for October 2025. What good demos have you found? 2 weeks ago:
The game is somewhere between Stalker and Tarkov but I’d say it’s more Tarkov than Stalker. Stalker is more focused around mutants, anomalies and artifacts, none of which are in this game. The only things that separate this game from Tarkov is the lack of online component and no map timer. Tarkov is also moving towards a zoned open-world so I think the comparison with Tarkov is perfectly fine.
And the developer has mentioned both as inspiration:
In terms of other games, Road to Vostok takes inspiration from titles Stalker Anomaly, DayZ, Project Zomboid and Escape from Tarkov.
- Comment on What is the most overrated game gamers hype up? 2 weeks ago:
I remember finishing the story and going “That’s it?”. Even now when I try to remember what the actual plot was I have no fucking idea. And I didn’t really get into GTA Online because by the time I got around to it sharkcards were already ruining online and I just didn’t want anything to do with that.
But I have a hard time saying it’s overrated. There’s just nothing else like it in the world. Every other game that has tried to copy GTA has ended up being noticeably inferior to GTA.