• 3 Posts
  • 450 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: January 8th, 2025

help-circle




  • Food for thought:

    Regarding prices, PC gaming has a MUCH higher up-front cost but MASSIVELY lower ongoing costs. A gaming PC, especially these days, is going to cost as much as or more than two or three consoles. However, console games are damned expensive and never get any cheaper. PC games often come in bundles that can make them cheaper. Humble Monthly is ~$1 per game most months. Indie games are often released at <$20 and get cheaper if you want to wait. PC games generally get cheaper if you wait. Epic has a free game every week, and steam parapetetically has games go free or into steep discount too. There are also many great FOSS games, all priced as free, most with the option to kick back a bit of cash if you like them. Modding is also generally free, and can turn one game into effectively 50. (e.g. Minecraft is one game. Modpacks turn it into almost a completely new game. TFC based modpacks affectively do it all over again. And a few others do it again. One copy of MC effectively becomes multiple games, possibly dozens.) All that means to get 100 games, you could be looking at a difference between paying ~$6,000 for console games and paying less, but possibly even literally nothing for the PC, depending on what games. It will basically never be more expensive for the PC version, though.

    Consoles only win out in two places. 1. You will never get a PC as capable as a console for the price of a console. (At least not unless Valve does something truly amazing with the Steam Machine) so the upfront cost is far lower. And 2. Consoles let you hit the power button and spin up more or less straight into the game. If you are a child, or have one, having access to the system outside of games can break your ability to play games, so a console is locked down to prevent that. That’s not to say they will run perfectly, just that you/your kid won’t be the reason things are breaking.














  • And that kind of knee-jerk avoidance of anything uncomfortable is at the core of reactionary thinking. If it makes you uncomfortable to be near something a child molester has touched, will you abandon their victims? The home they lived in? The clothes which they owned once but that others could use? The sidewalk they walked along to get to the scene of their crimes? Shall we all expel the things that make us uncomfortable? Some people are made uncomfortable by foreigners, and people who look different. Don’t tell me ‘but that’s different.’ It’s not. It’s the same reactionary childishness, and it might make you uncomfortable to acknowledge it, but that’s why we can’t use discomfort as a measure.


  • That makes an assumption that it is one’s moral responsibility to dispose of work made by someone who did something wrong. That’s pure circular argument. As for supporting someone evil, that might apply if you bought it after you found out what they were doing, but it is absurd to complain about something someone did with no way of knowing what it might go toward. It is also absurd to require people to investigate every facet of every possible person they could interact with. If you are walking down the street and meet someone running a hotdog cart, will you hold off on the purchase until you can run a background check? What if they’re actually ‘evil?’ *furious eyebrow wiggles* This kind of purity policing is silly, like placing the burden of climate change on the person who didn’t separate their recycling.