Oh wow, thanks for making me understand games and how software works. If only I knew earlier…

It only matters in the sense that you’re allowed to not purchase online games.

Otherwise we’re circling here.

Just because YOU don’t see why support on both sides hate fragmentation, doesn’t matter. They do nonetheless for very obvious reasons unless you are very alien to tech.

And yes, people do need guidance. If they’re not forced to update, they rarely do. And then they complain shit’s not working. People don’t read manuals, FAQs, guidelines and also they don’t update unless forced to (or strooongly motivated or just nagged to death). I’ve been in this industry for nearly 4 decades now. From all sides. The average Joe or Jane is the worst.

And yeah sure, it doesn’t matter at all for some games. You play the version you want and it’s all fine. But either you offer this option (which steam does BTW, as mentioned before) or you don’t. If you don’t, maaaany devs would be going to use another platform. Maybe fucking EPIC. That’d be grand.

It doesn’t matter if you prefer offline or not or that you CAN play solo, it is online coop. I never played it coop either, but that’s what it is and hence everyone has to have the same version. Simple as that.

Point with gog was that they do it better. Vastly so. Yet only a tiny fraction of devs choose them. Hence it begs the question whether it’s the platform’s fault per se.

If BL is “exactly the problem”. And GOG does it better. Why is it still steam’s fault? Use GOG then? Where is it the delivery-device’s fault? As BL2 offers online-coop, and is also the major selling point of that game, a fragmented market is impossible.

Gog does it, but Gog only offers a mere fraction of what Steam has. Also your example of BL2 is not on gog either. For that reason.

Sure, Valve could enforce that, but…as said…why? They already offer the option for different versions. If the devs don’t use that, they will have their reasons. The biggest one i mentioned before: Fragmentation and the resulting nightmare of customer-support. On steam’s AND the dev’s side. Look at the Android or Windows-market. Someone complaining “my windows sucks”, but still uses Windows Vista. Or people screaming for support because “my favourite app doesn’t work” and use android 10.

Don’t get me wrong, personally I’d value the freedom of choice. But the vast majority of people are clueless (and still use those devices) and need to be “guided”. Every system gets dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. That’s why apple does so well (besides the “brand”-shit ofc).

A total shame. I do love to quickly “crack” my steam games. To either just play offline or keep an oder Version.

Nice interview!

I was a major in the scene back then when they all rose. Razor, fairlight and the unknown nonames. A time where you could sell a warez-cd for 200 moneyz and it all was IRC, FTP and BBS. The days with phones lines bills >1000 bucks because you HAD to call this one foreign board 😁

I miss these days… It was all about fun, friends and fame. Same with competitive gaming.

Firewalls and especially sinkholes are VERY necessary, far beyond silly game telemetry.

They don’t allow this for a good reason. Imagine 1 million clueless gamers running an older version of their game because they’re too lazy too update. And, of course, then complain about a buggy game and the tech-support will drown even more and review would end up more badly. nothing worse than a fragmented game-world. how should online games work if every Joe and Jane got their “own” favorite version? the average user is a total clueless (pc-wise) person.

Also, you can install an older version. Just with more hassles. Also you could by GUI with many games IF the Dev wants you to be able to. Like a select few versions, if you’d prefer an older state. But, of course, only indie devs do that.

So it’s the fault of the delivery-device? Why didn’t you make a backup of an older version just in case? Besides, last time I checked, you can. With a bit more hassle. All not the case for a “live” online-game. Which borderlands wants to be.

Definately one of the more wiser purchase-guys :-) I went a lil nuts when inventory-gifts were a thing. You know, doing what the corporations all do: Exploit globalism to my advantage. But for many years I rarey buy anything anymore, only if i REALLY intend to play it. I’m old, not wise :-)

No it’s not. It’s just the usual “russia bad! mkay?”.

lol. But no, I would not use that term.

Noone is keeping anyone from doing it. Be my guest. Just don’t expect to get paid for a job rarely anyone needs anymore. Maybe blacksmith wasn’t the best example that came up, but hey I bet you’re driving a car (or a bike) and do not keep a horse at home, so…

LLMs are just a tool. It’s not the devil the doomsayers make it out to be. And it’s not the shining new golden age either.

Jobs might be killed, but jobs will be created. Does it suck when your jobs becomes obsolete? Yeah totally. Same as when blacksmiths became less popular. Should we still be “driving” horses to keep them?

Playing for an hour to see how shitty it is? Or actually bought to enjoy for manymany hours, as intended? Thought so 😁 For us peeps with way more than a few k games, 20% actually been played would be already the big numbers I’d guess.

Hmm sounds suspiciously like one of those sane people who buy a game and then have thousands of hours of fun with it. Get outta here 😁

As if your personal opinion would matter to me.

And what there is steam’s doing? Borderland’s a greedy IP from a greedy company. What do you expect?

That is what firewalls and sinkholes are for. Stupid telemetry.

Yet I never noticed such a “trend” in direct combination with steam. The whole industry goes to shit, but it’s not steam’s fault.