Even crazier when you consider it’s been purchasable as an Early Access title for 3 years, so it staying in the top 10 after that is impressive.

Yeah, it had a solid visual look, the representation of a magical castle was well done and being able to travel in an out of places without a traditional loading screen was a good touch - definite loading moments, just hidden with transitions - you could go from the bottom of the map to the top, then into the castle,…

This is, I think, a key bridge that the article could have mentioned - for a fair amount of it in the Western gaming audience, the F2P gaming sphere served as a primer for the shift.

Yeah, I’m perfectly cool with Andromeda as a setting, but with more of the stylings of ME2, and the impactful decisions you can have within that game or those found on Rannoch or Tuchanka in ME3.

No anti-competitive practices...

And you’re then implying that the answer is no, because they offer different incentives for customers to buy from them rather than the other company?

As for allowing artists to monetize their work, I’m not sure how that’s a problem. It was entirely optional and artists knew the terms beforehand. Valve gave them an opportunity to make money on Steam and from Valve’s games. None of the other platforms offer that. If you don’t like the terms, there are plenty of…

Don’t know if you noticed, but I said “little competition” not “no competition.”

So two stores is “tons of competition.” Okay.

Do they compete? Or do they coexist, providing a specific service - DRM free games - that Steam does not, alongside a couple very popular first-party titles (that area also on Steam), while having a much, much smaller market share?

Steam - September 12, 2003. Started selling third-party titles in late 2005. By 2008, the big dogs like Ubisoft, Capcom, Activision, Sega, and even EA were partnered and selling on Steam.

Demonstrable fact - once Valve had it pointed out to them that they legally had to offer refunds to consumers in the EU under European Union law, they changed the EULA to a custom one for gamers in the EU that specifically acknowledged they had said legal right...but to actually purchase the game, they’ve have to…

Steam’s pseudo-monopoly hasn’t hurt consumers because Valve achieved it through pro-consumer practices and continued those practices even after gaining the dominant market share.

Confused what the “inside a simulation but doesn’t realize it” (which is what the ship in a bottle element of the Star Trek episode is about) has to do with anything regarding the upcoming expansions or story...or even the game itself?

Yeah, revealing the road map like this feels more like a response - they don’t have the trust that other narrative teams do (obvious one is Naoki Yoshida and his team in FFXIV) when they talk about moving a story forward into a new era or saga without revealing many details at all.

The game itself is a ton of fun - fast action with just slow enough TTK that you can have a chance to react and maybe get out of there (instead of getting dropped just cause you were spotted before spotting them), the destructible environment is a blast, fun game modes so far. Even as a building is literally crumbling…

Specific to Disney+Gameloft, is what I meant. This isn’t their first game together, but the others have been...yikes.

Let’s compare.

The most shocking thing is it’s somehow the least greedy of their offerings.

There’s also how those that did buy the Founder’s Packs got exactly what they were advertised to get - access upon the early access launch, the currency amount promised, and the various cosmetic items.