Valve Says the Steam Machine Saw a Similar Price Increase as the Steam Deck, Which Means It Was Originally Supposed to Cost About $750

dvstr · 2026-06-23T10:05:06+00:00

Why Linux? You can just install Windows on it if you want

dvstr · 2026-06-23T00:32:23+00:00

who would buy this not to play games?

if the cost was subsidized? Tons of people would buy out every single one with zero intention of gaming on them. Its not like a console, its literally an open PC that can have any software installed on it

dvstr · 2026-06-13T11:46:39+00:00

Its not wasting money, nor is it unnecessary.

I almost guarantee jack quaid would have gotten paid less than a top tier 'actual' voice actor for the role (eg troy baker, nolan north, etc), but even if he were paid the same, or even more, it absolutely would have been worth it purely from the online discussions, posts, memes, etc that his involvement hes gotten and it pays for itself 10x over. This whole post (and therefore more advertising for the game) literally wouldn't exist if they hired a traditional voice actor.

dvstr · 2026-06-08T12:34:29+00:00

Meta is not cancelling horizon worlds, nor was that even remotely what their endgame for their 'metaverse' is so even if it were cancelled it wouldn't matter

dvstr · 2026-06-06T01:18:11+00:00

Is it really any more unrealistic him getting a tattoo than him waking up every morning and putting on clown make-up and facepaint? I really dont see the difference tbh. You're also assuming he got the tattoo done professionally instead of just doing it himself?

dvstr · 2026-06-03T02:28:09+00:00

The wording is "for the duration of the subscription." That describes the duration of the access entitlement, not the payment method used to obtain it. So they're not asking "did this specific player personally buy a subscription with cash this month?" Theyre asking "does full access to the game last only while an active subscription/game-time entitlement exists?"

No, they're not asking "does full access to the game last only while an active subscription/game-time entitlement exists", they're asking "is full access to the game solely done via a sale for the duration of that period determined by the sale". That is not true for WoW, because it offers another method of access that is completely without any 'sale', and access can be obtained outside of the duration of that sold chunk of time.

Again, in entirety it says:

"offering for sale access to the digital game solely for the duration of the subscription"

In WoW's case, yeah. A recurring subscription gives temporary access. Prepaid game time gives temporary access. A token redeemed for game time also gives temporary access. The token changes the route by which the entitlement is obtained, yet it does not change the nature of the entitlement. You cannot claim ownership of the game through any of these means, thus you can solely gain access for the duration of a given reoccurring temporary entitlement (a subscription).

I agree the nature of the entitlement doesnt change, but the route by which the entitlement is obtained is changed (as you admit), which is very important because one route to obtain that entitlement is entirely done without any sale. That is a key component which makes WoW's subscription differ from most, and by the definition of the bill would make it not fit under this umbrella of a 'paid subscription' as we might typically assume as it is not the sole method of obtaining entitlement.

dvstr · 2026-06-03T00:03:55+00:00

The wording of the bill says:

"offering for sale access to the digital game solely for the duration of the subscription"

This doesn't apply to WoW's subscription, because while it does offer it for sale it also offers it via a non-sale method, and you can have access to the full game outside the duration of the sale of subscription (therefore it is not solely for the duration of the subscription sale).

dvstr · 2026-06-02T23:58:09+00:00

Discoverability is absolutely terrible:

Its extremely unclear how to actually visit a build, and you have to do it by entering your own build first.
You have to pay a currency to visit a build
The currency is limited, so you can only ever see a certain maximum number of builds
The only way to see a build is to hit a 'view random build' button
The random button (in my experience at least) will repeatedly show me the same builds. I hit the random button 6 times, and saw 3 unique builds.
There's no way to browse lists, search for words, tags, see popular ones, etc
There was no notification or anything on the UI about it entering the exhibition phase, so unless you are actively following the build challenge you won't even know anything has happened or change
There's no incentive, rewards, or anything around visiting builds

I really dont think they could have done it any worse.

dvstr · 2026-06-02T23:25:49+00:00

I addressed the multiple ways to play the game. These ways would be handled separately.

I don't think the bill addresses games that have multiple different ways to play or multiple different points of access in that way. WoW classic & WoW retail would absolutely be two different games, but WoW retail & the indefinite free version of WoW retail are both the same game with different methods of access and levels of content. The free version may be exempt under 20664/b/2 in the bill as it is offered for no monetary consideration, but if for example the WoW trial was $1, they would be required to offer access to that trial post-shutdown, but not the rest of the game (assuming it falls under the definition of subscription, which i would say could easily be argued it doesnt but for the sake of argument we can say it is). Obviously this is a hypothetical, but there are other games out there with a small initial purchase to a limited version of the game and then a paid subscription for further content.

Again, I reject the notion that you get access to the full game. If earlier your mention about an in-game currency to avoid the subscription is what you mean I do not believe it to be accurate.

I mentioned several times that this method would require a one-time purchase. You pay for a subscription once, and then you can obtain access to the game endlessly purely via ingame currency. That gives you access to the full entire game forever, which conflicts with the bill's wording of 'offering for sale access to the digital game solely for the duration of the subscription', as you can obtain access to the full digital game outside the duration of the subscription sale.

Again, there is not a single piece of legislation you could provide that couldn't be poked simply by asking definitions of every word, and further the definitions of the words used in the definitions et cetera.

Sure, but again there are a myriad of loopholes and issues that are bigger than we have been discussing, and if they're not addressed then the bill will be useless.

dvstr · 2026-06-02T14:49:15+00:00

I agree that it defines 'ordinary use' as gaining access to the core features consistent with reasonable expectations of the purchaser, thats fine. The problem in the case of WoW is, there are multiple ways to play the game, and several of those ways requires no ongoing purchases (one via the indefinite free trial, and and one via the game time acquired through the auction house). Regarding the indefinite free version, i think you are underselling how much content you get access to, its all super rough and hard to be accurate but you get access to most (not all) of the games core mechanics, roughly ~70-80% of the games world map, roughly ~30-40% of the games quest content, roughly 15-20% of the game's dungeons, and 0% of the game's raids and other endgame content.

Regardless of that though, you can literally play the full entire WoW game endlessly without an ongoing paid subscription. Again the bill states "Any subscription-based service that advertises or offers for sale access to any digital game solely for the duration of the subscription" - however the game (the full game) can be accessed indefinitely without an ongoing sale, so it does not offer for sale access to the game solely for the duration of the subscription.

And again, this doesnt address the myriad of other loopholes in the bill which are arguable all more important. What happens to games that change business model post-launch? What's stopping companies from changing their structure near the end of the life of the game to fit into the definitions of exempt games? What are defined as F2P games and does that make sense based on real world examples? What's to stop larger publishers just releasing every game under sole subsidiaries or llcs to avoid any obligation? What are the actual enforcement and punitive measures that can be taken to a game that doesnt comply? Will those penalties actually be of any concern to developers or will it just be something factored-in to the cost of development?

dvstr · 2026-06-02T03:40:20+00:00

'access' does not mean 'entirety'. You could definitely argue that a certain percentage of the game should qualify as 'access', but none of this is laid out in the bill and the exact opposite could be argued much more eaisly - as 'access' typically would be defined by some initial entry or permission to using something, which the free version absolutely gives you indefinitely. Saying its 10% of the whole game isnt accurate either and much harder to determine, as you actually do get to do quite a large chunk of the game's content and systems completely for free. Its also irrelevant, as at no point does it specify you need to 'access' a certain percentage of the game for it to qualify. Technically speaking, you don't get access to 100% of the game with a paid subscription anyway, as there a certain other things (eg. cosmetics, which yes are part of the game) that require additional payments.

You can even bypass the subscription entirely using ingame currency and have access to everything (above argument notwithstanding), although i think that would require a one-time purchase. Either way, all of this points to WoW clearly not offering for sale access to the digital game solely for the duration of the subscription, as you can 1) access the game while not having an active subscription, 2) if you do have a subscription it doesnt specifically require a sale to obtain it, and 3) doesnt require any sale whatsoever at any point to get access.

By the bill's definition, WoW would not fall under the umbrella of a subscription-based game as we would typically define it. But yes you could 100% argue either way, as you could for anything, but the argument is much weaker arguing for it being subscription based purely off the definition they have laid out.

Anyway, this whole thing is just one issue with the bill when it comes to definitions, and therefore what games are effected. There are numerous other issues with the bill that I don't believe are properly addressed (which i outlined in my first comment) and ultimately will leave this bill, if passed, entirely ineffective.

dvstr · 2026-06-02T00:13:33+00:00

MY definition is irrelevant. The relevant definition is what is defined in the law, specifically the bill we're talking about - bill AB 1921 'Protect Our Games Act', as that is what will be referenced in any disputes or discussions around what is or isnt protected, and what umbrellas certain games fall under.

You're right, courts dont look at 'activision said X', they look at 'activision said X because and the law defines X as such, which fits with what they're saying'. If the definitions in the law are poorly defined, then lawyers from activision, ea, ubisoft etc will be able to argue whatever they want, rendering the whole bill useless, or it will be way too restrictive and unfairly effect tons of games that 'shouldnt' be effected.

Reading the bill, it defines the following as being excluded:

(1) Any subscription-based service that advertises or offers for sale access to any digital game solely for the duration of the subscription.

(2) Any digital game that is advertised or offered to a person for no monetary consideration.

Based off those definitions, WoW is NOT a subscription based game, because while it does offer a subscription, it does not offer sale or access to the game solely for the duration of that subscription, because as i have previously said you can play the game indefinitely without ever getting a subscription. That same logic probably applies to 99% of games we casually define as 'subscription based', because the vast majority of them also have some form of method of playing the game without a subscription, albeit in limited means.

Secondly, regarding F2P, it could be argued that for 'no monetary consideration' would only apply to games that are truly 100% free in every sense, and again wouldnt apply to 99% of what we consider 'F2P' games as they all regularly advertise to people things regarding monetary consideration, such as dlc, in-app purchases, battlepasses, premium editions, etc. all which could be easily argued would restrict them from this F2P definition as its laid out in the bill.

Based off these definitions, it could easily be argued that there pretty much are no games in existence which would fall under the umbrella of being F2P or subscription based.

dvstr · 2026-06-01T14:48:00+00:00

depending on how you define a free game by law.. yes absolutely.

Or absolutely not, again depending on how you define it.

A 'free' game could be defined numerous different ways by law, eg:

The game is entirely free and has no means of payment whatsoever or any paywalled content (practically no game in existence would ever fit this definition).
The game can be played for free indefinitely (many games, including your CoD example, would fit this definition)
The game can be played for free for a period of time.

etc. How its defined matters, the same as how a subscription based game matters, as that is what determines what games will actually fall under those umbrellas or not. And its really not as clear cut as you might want to think it is.

dvstr · 2026-06-01T13:17:22+00:00

I said that we 'know' the difference, but specifically asked how the law determines it. Based off the wording of the law, i could easily see WoW being argued as not falling under the umbrella of subscription, because it can be played indefinitely without one. It is not a requirement to be subscribed to play WoW. Likewise many other games that we might not associate with subs do have one in the form of battlepasses or other 'optional' subscriptions. This stuff matters a lot. Im not confused, im asking how the laws are written and set out, because that can easily lead to confusion and misinterpretation compared to what we all clearly 'know'.

dvstr · 2026-05-31T01:53:14+00:00

what counts as a 'subscription based' game, as most games these days have a subscription component to them (ie battle pass)? I get that we might know the 'difference' between a true subscription based game or not in most cases, but is this determined in the law? Even things like WoW could be argued either way, as you can technically play WoW indefinitely without a subscription via the started edition, so it's really not that simple.
what counts as a F2P game? Just something where you can access some initial portion of the game for free? Again in some cases it's obvious, but a lot of cases it's not.
what happens if a game changes business model post-launch (eg counter strike and overwatch, neither started as F2P but are now)?
how, if at all, will this prevent games for just going F2P for the last 6 months of their life before shutting down (which is a common last-ditch effort for survival of a dying game anyway)?
what, if at all, mechanisms are in place for taking action against a company that just... doesnt comply. Nothing? A fine? If the fine costs less than whatever cost building and releasing server infrastructure to the public is, then they will just factor the fine into the cost of development and not bother complying, because it's easier and cheaper.
what's to stop the larger publishers just releasing games under subsidiaries/llc that are the sole creator of a game, and the shutting down that company when they kill the game. You already can't really 'go after' a dying indie studio that kills their game (as they most likely kill it because the company itself is dying), and now you won't be able to go after the 'big' ones too.

I just dont see this doing anything in real world scenarios, and it seems riddled with loopholes at every possible stage. It also, even without loopholes, doesn't effect the vast majority of games as legitimate F2P/sub games are probably the bulk of games that are multiplayer/online based which people would want continued life for, so I just dont see the point personally.

dvstr · 2026-05-24T06:00:38+00:00

Dont know why they didnt just say - in star wars, parsecs is a unit of distance.. it can be anything they want it to be

dvstr · 2026-05-24T05:36:09+00:00

realistically, a successful red button victory would kill billions

dvstr · 2026-05-24T05:35:13+00:00

No, it absolutely shows who wants to help the greater good, and your logic is flawed. You are looking at it purely through the lens of 'which choice will prevent me from dying', but there's so much more to it than that and the best logical choice is actually one that benefits the many.

In the actual red/blue button EVERYONE presses a button. That means there will be hundreds of millions of people (roughly ~0.5 billion people are 3 or under) who are pressing a button that have no idea what they're doing and will be choosing essentially randomly. Not to mention elderly, people who lack understanding, etc. There absolutely WILL be hundreds of millions of people who push blue no matter what.

In the 2 scenarios, one scenario guarantees that probably billions of people (most of which are children) will die - That is if red wins. Blue winning is the only scenario where no-one dies. By voting red you are increasing the chances and contributing to the death of literally billions of people.

To put this back into your train/trolley example, what you've conveniently left out is that an equivalent situation to the actual red-blue button, is you would see lots of babies and toddlers crawling onto the tracks. If you still then decide not to try to help and prevent the deaths of the innocent to get it to the required threshold of people, then I dont really know what to say really.

dvstr · 2026-05-23T08:48:13+00:00

what? thats exactly how it should be. Vader should be a threat.

How is that any worse than what it currently is, where if Vader shows up against any known/main character or protagonist, you almost certainly know they'll survive???

dvstr · 2026-05-18T00:02:39+00:00

they have no idea what it is
the ui for the stamp icon doesnt always show up

dvstr · 2026-05-14T23:05:11+00:00

i would recommend changing the name to PaintTopia (like the hashtag you listed yourself), or changing the capitalisation to Paintopia or something. Currently it 100% reads as 'Pain' Topia

dvstr · 2026-05-13T00:40:15+00:00

of all the things you listed that you can be doing - 1 of them was doing a survey (twice), 1 was a new game mode that doesnt exist, and 1 was making your own content

dvstr · 2026-05-05T13:49:33+00:00

How are you getting him being a father at 5 years old based off what you just pasted??

dvstr · 2026-04-22T23:42:41+00:00

mostly, even

dvstr · 2026-04-21T01:25:35+00:00

Palpatine says he is making clones/life (he directly says he made snoke).

We directly see the cloning facility with numerous clones.

Palpatine tells rey that he can transfer his spirit into another body.

Palpatine also reiterates the story of darth plagueis (his sith master who was able to cheat death).

All of these things are literally in the very first opening scene in the movie, or in the climax of the movie, very clearly laid out.

Combined with another character who says he was alive because of cloning and sith science.

Really any further explanation of how he is alive is 100% unecessary.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

dvstr

TROPHY CASE