Goodeye8

When Stop killing games initiative started one people wanted Pirate Software to support and promote the initiative so others would be more aware of the initiative. Instead of doing that Pirate Software decided to take a massive shit on the initiative essentially making the argument that it would actually end up killing games. Which would be somewhat acceptable position to take, if he hadn’t completely missed the point of the initiative, hadn’t made things never said in the initiative and hadn’t told everyone to eat his ass when people said he doesn’t understand the initiative. That was about 10 months ago when he was still somewhat well regarded in the gaming sphere.

But in the last 10 months he’s been surrounded by controversies that have slowly changed the public perception of him. I won’t get into all those controversies because there are just too many to explain.

So about 2 weeks ago Ross (the person spearheading the Stop killing games initiative) made a video where he decided to more or less vent his frustrations with Pirate Software because he effectively derailed the initiative. That got covered by MoistCritical who sided with Ross and said Pirate Software is talking out of his ass. Any normal person would’ve gone “Maybe I am wrong when everyone keeps telling me I’m wrong?” But Pirate Software literally said he is doubling down on his statements and he has been adamant that his interpretation of the initiative is correct, everyone else is wrong and he has done nothing wrong. Because he’s a narcissistic asshole he has fueled the drama, turned himself into the villain and ended up being the catalyst to having the initiative signed.

There is a chance but what is he convincing them of? That they should take a non-existent exclusivity deal with Steam? They already have the data that exclusivity with Epic does not work and Steam doesn’t do exclusivity deals.

That’s what I mean by artificial exclusivity. There are games where the developer or publisher decided it’s the only platform they will release on but that kind of “exclusivity” is not at all the same as Epic paying developers or publishers to not release on Steam. Valve/Steam doesn’t prevent those games being released elsewhere, the developers/publishers themselves don’t want to.

I could understand smaller (I’m talking literal solo devs or studios with less than 10 people) choosing to be exclusively on Steam. Supporting other platforms can have huge overhead costs for them. But for a studio the size of Gearbox there’s no benefit to being exclusively on Steam. They have enough support staff to manage multiple stores. There maybe be suits wondering if it’s worth being exclusively on Epic but there are no suits sitting around wondering whether to be exclusively on Steam or not, the answer is obviously not.

Why are people taking this even remotely seriously? This is Pitchford doing marketing for BL4. BL3 already showed people don’t want Epic exclusivity and there’s no such thing as Steam exclusivity. They can choose to release exclusively on Steam but that’s just artificial exclusivity because nothing about Steam prevents them from releasing on Epic or GOG.

It’s a pointless poll made by Pitchford either to keep BL4 in the media cycle or to just shit stir, possibly both.

Yeah, I had plenty of time and money for gaming and other hobbies before having little mischievous halflings. Now at least two thirds of my free time goes into them instead of me. Would I love more me time, absolutely. But I also love them and I feel incredibly privileged to have the time that I can spend on them and I can’t fathom not wanting to spend time with them.

But this is more about letting potential future parents know that children are a fucking huge commitment and you better have your own life sorted because you won’t have time to fix your shit later. Kids are post-campaign content. You finish your main story and then if you’re looking for some challenging content, you get kids. Don’t get kids during your main story because then they become your main story.

There are two point I’m going to make. First is that I think it’s something the developer shouldn’t have to decide in the first place. They wanted to make a game with gruesome scenes and that’s the game they made. The only reason they’re making it less gruesome is because they want their game to reach a wider audience which is why they’re porting to console but they can’t release their game on console because consoles are a locked down platform and the platform owners are exerting power they shouldn’t have to force the developers to compromise on their vision. It’s absolute bullshit that Sony/MS get a say in how a game should be made.

The second point is that the developers did have to decide this, so it should be obvious why consumers are annoyed. They bought the product when it had one vision, and now the vision they were presented with is getting altered for reasons not at all related to their experience of the game and they’re not even given an option to retain the previous vision. Imagine if your favorite game was changed for some completely bullshit reason? Would you not get pissed?

Let me give a different perspective. The developers had an original vision of brutality and gore. The developers wanted to expand their game to different platforms. The platform holders said “Compromise on your vision and you can put the game on our platform”.

Do you think that’s okay?

I think you meant bombing posthumous terrorists. Clearly the US has no problem with that.

That’s like saying you boycot Nestle but won’t stop using any of their subsidiary products unless you accidentally find out that a brand not named Nestle is actually owned by Nestle.

You had a bridge to sell to anyone with the naivete to believe it’s the only place AI was used. What about your naivity of believing that other games are not using AI, unless of course you stumble on the information about AI usage? Seems hypocritical to criticize others for giving the benefit of doubt while giving the benefit of doubt to all other developers simply because you don’t know any better?

Got it, you’re fine with AI usage as long as you don’t know about it.

So do you just not play video games at all? Because the way you’ve just presented yourself you’re not against using AI in games, you’re against any use of AI.

How can you be sure that in any game AI wasn’t used to generate some sort of an internal document or asset that would never be in the final product but was integral to the creation of the final product? Clearly you don’t write every dev and ask if they use AI in any capacity, so what do you do?

My point is that I think you’re taking a stance where you’re unwilling to compromise on the use of AI, but only if you’re aware that AI was used.

Toto will 100% kick Russell if he can get Verstappen. If you can pick up one of the best drivers in F1 history, you pick them up.

why pay more for a driver that loses to McLarens anyway but has won titles in a car that was just way better

First of all 2026 is brand new regulations which means McLaren might not be as dominant next year as they are this year. And secondly they currently have a driver who can’t even fight the McLarens and they would be buying the driver who at least can put up a fight with a weaker car.

Russell can win those WDCs as well.

If Russell stays at Merc he’s going to get a year or two (depending on how long it takes for Kimi to get comfortable) to go for the WDC (if Merc nail the regulations and get a car as dominant as the current McLaren). Because when Kimi is Ready Russell will become the Lando Norris of Merc, good enough to help win the WCC but not good enough to win the WDC.

How much more specific do I need to be when I explicitly say “USB-C headphones”? What do you think USB-C stands for?

You could’ve done a single web search yo find that you can buy wired headphones that go straight into the USB-C port.No dongle required. But you’re too busy foaming from the mouth like a rabid dog to even understand what I said.

Why aren’t you complaining about the removal of a keyboard? Or the removal of SD card slots? Or the removal or the IR light? Or the notification light? or something else that used to be there but isn’t now. Why is the 3.5mm port so special it deserves constant complaining about almost A DECADE LATER? Why must you be these grumpy old men who can’t fucking move on with the times.

I don’t really care if the port is there or not, I’m just fed up with the constant whining about it. It’s gone, the ship has sailed. The majority are more than happy to use wireless headphones, 3.5mm is a niche in the mobile space. There are alternatives if you really like wired headphones. What makes 3.5mm such fucking hill to die on? Nothing. It’s just petty conservatism of people unwilling to move on with the times.

You know you’ve got not argument when you have to compare a $700 dollar phone to a $5 dongle for your argument to even make sense.

First of all, I seriously doubt any $700 phone without a 3.5mm port is going to have a decent DAC, because there’s no reason for it. In those phones the DAC is used primarily for phone calls. If those phones had a a 3.5mm port and they were flagship phones then maybe they would have higher quality DACs in them, but then they’d also cost more. And secondly, I wasn’t talking about some cheap $5 dongle, I specifically said quality headphones.

Then maybe don’t make examples of something I never talked about? I think I’ve been very clear that I’m talking about replacing 3.5mm headphones with a USB-C headphones. I wasn’t talking about replacing a 3.5mm in/out cable with some kind of a USB-C in, 3.5mm out cable. Such a cable would have to contain a DAC and if it’s going to contain a DAC you might as well buy a USB hub with a 3.5mm out port so you can continue using your 3.5mm in/out cable while you also charge your phone. See how that’s a completely different scenario with a completely different solution?

You have headphones on in your car, listening to music, while you’re driving? I hope you’ve checked your local laws because that is illegal in quite a few countries. It’s also a very niche example as most people would use the car stereo instead of headphones.

How often do you charge your phone and listen to music at the same time? And is that really something you cannot compromise on?

Okay? Literally nothing you said applies to USB-C headphones. Except for this part:

The simplicity of simply plugging them in and it just works is something really abstract to alternatives.

Fair enough, feel free to buy USB-C headphones then.

Edit: Time for the real reply.

I never have to charge my wired headphone.

But you still have to charge your phone. When I charge my phone I also charge my headphones. Most wireless headphones notify you in advance when they’re running low, in my experience enough in advance to not run out before charging again. And finally, charging even once a day is still less overhead than having to manage wires every single time you use the headphones.

Nor do I have to buy new batteries or new headphones when they die

Yeah, you only buy new headphones when the wire gets damaged because that one time you didn’t take good enough care of the wire. I personally had to buy a new set of headphones every year because I’m bad with wires. I’d either store them poorly because I was in a hurry or they’d get stuck on something and get yanked. My first BT headphones lasted me 5 years before starting to have noticeable battery issues and then I still used them for another 3 years before the battery was so dead it wouldn’t live my daily commute.

overall my response boils down to “just use wired then” because the arguments are silly personal preference arguments and the wider consumer market has already decided that wireless is better. But if you want wired nothing is stopping you from getting USB-C wired headphones.