this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
8 points (100.0% liked)

Games

17557 readers
774 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] focusforte@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I'm actually loving it πŸ˜…

[–] BitingChaos@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

They destroyed Overwatch 1 and gave us Overwatch 2.

I want to play Overwatch 1. :(

[–] GeekFTW@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

Don't worry, another year or two and they'll be selling us Overwatch Classicβ„’ for $15 a month.

[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Which one? The game was rebalanced so many times it was basically several different games. If they put in a 2-2-2 mode with the weaker open-queue tanks, I'd call that close-enough to Overwatch 1. Of course, that still would mean the new expensive monetization model. Like there's one skin in the free tier of the current battle-pass, and it's for Torb.

[–] adrian783@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

i miss 6 torb games, ow was good when quick play was just goofy

[–] Holyginz@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I remember fondly playing overwatch 1 with my friends and sinking in hundreds of hours. If they wanted to break into the steam market they should have done it with the first one. Not with their lackluster, phoned in sequel. This was just stupid of them.

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Let's be real, Overwatch 2 was an update patch that they tried to sell as a sequel.

[–] Mereo@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

An update patch that introduced the most amazing feature: monetization!

[–] Zoldyck@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] Blizzard@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How old are we talking about? For me peak Blizzard was Diablo 2 / StarCraft 1 & 2 / WarCraft 3. Of course D1 & WC2 also remember fondly.

[–] iMastari@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

For me it was Orcs and Humans.

[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Blackthorne and that one with the 3 dwarves

[–] Zardoz@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Guess that'll be the last time they put a game on steam

[–] Contend6248@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You poor soul, do you think they give one single fuck?

Blizzard is tone deaf, all they look at is the moneyflow

[–] r1veRRR@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How is everybody just now finding out how capitalism works? Any public company is LEGALLY REQUIRED to care only about shareholder profits. It is literally illegal for them to do anything else.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's a widespread belief my friend, that is just not true.

[–] r1veRRR@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's absolutely true in practice. CEOs have gotten sued for not acting in the shareholders best interests.

And in relation to the original comment I replied to, are you truly saying that companies, esp. public companies, are not, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, beholden to making money for the shareholders? Any "nice" company will make less money, will not compete well, will then fail or be bought out by the less nice, more profitable company.

Im not a lawyer, but I've looked into this misunderstanding before and it stems from what constitutes "breaking one's fiduciary duty to investors. While deliberately acting against the interests of investors is illegal, ive yet to hear of a lawsuit, let alone a successful one, brought by an investor for not making all of the money. Id be interested in hearing an investment oriented lawyers perspective since from what i understand, the full extent of fiduciary duty has not been tested that way in court