“However, remember that is live on, and I would assume it’s not a fantastic living either.”

True, but they were still involved with the development of those games then. Probably the best case here is Rocket League. Since Epic owns it now and are presumably going to continue development on it, it would be more excusable for them to make it exclusive going forward.

“So when Sony bags a sick exclusive everyone applauds”

I agree with everything you’ve said here, but it doesn’t really change anything. My main argument is that Steam isn’t “anti-consumer,” but manufactured exclusivity is.(Arguably, exclusivity in general is, but it’s more excusable when the company itself owns and was involved in the production of the product.) If…

I agree to some extent, but I’d also say that nothing about a monopoly makes it *inherently* anti-consumer. It certainly holds a risk of becoming anti-consumer, but it can be pro-consumer under the right circumstances. Having everything in one place and for a low price is pretty much the ideal from a consumer…

I feel like you misunderstood something I said. I was talking about Steam’s position in the market.

I was meaning to imply something more along the lines of developers being able to make their games available both on Steam *and* elsewhere, but it’s still true either way. And sure, it could be argued that Steam has too much power, but there’s nothing inherently forcing anyone to use them. They just happen to be the…

“Steam/Valve has an effective platform monopoly - but that isn’t anti-consumer...?”

Letting it make a deck would be one track to take, but the other would be to make it capable of taking any random deck you give it and using it to its maximum potential against any opponent. (Meaning literally any random deck, not just specific ones like the researchers here.) It wouldn’t necessarily win every time…

So should this be the next AI game challenge now that they’ve mastered Go?

Not if it’s some random obscure thing that nobody bothered to save or required server-based resources to run.

I guess I could have said “it would be impossible to legitimately get a copy,” but still, not everything gets pirated (you really think every game on Steam has been?), and you shouldn’t rely on that always being an option, either. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are a lot more restrictive laws made in the coming…

Hmm...I like most of the “new” shots better, but there were one or two “old” shots that looked better to me.

But to be clear, I agree with you that this particular game seems problematic, at least based on how Fahey described it. That being said, I’m against censorship of any kind, so I’d say it still has the right to exist. Complaining to Sony and Nintendo seems a bit much, especially when it has an ESRB rating already, and…

I was replying to someone talking about a different game...

It was rated T by the ESRB. I don’t believe there was a problem. (In any kind of objective sense, anyway.)

It was rated T by the ESRB. I don’t believe that there was actual nudity.

That’s your pick for a Pokémon that looks creepy? That doesn’t look creepy at all. It looks cute.

So...why is Hulu getting a bunch of seemingly random season finales? They aren’t even the most recent seasons, or at least not in a bunch of cases.

I wouldn’t debate that it could fit in with Netflix’s kids’ stuff (though Netflix does have some great kids’ shows like Voltron, Trollhunters, 3Below, The Dragon Prince, She-Ra, and Hilda), but the same would go for pretty much any other kids’ network, too. Maybe it wasn’t the intention, but singling out Netflix kind…