kohlrak: Let's be clear, Steam and GOG differ in quantity, not in quality. Same with itch. Have you seen some of the new releases in the past month or so?
Sarafan: I disagree. Less in quantity means that that less bad games will get into sale. This doesn't automatically mean that more good games will be allowed to be sold here of course, because almost all games that get into sale here, get into sale on Steam as well. So these numbers are comparable. The curation process should however lead to a point where games on GOG have a higher average rating than games on Steam.
Different crowd rating the games so it's hardly comparable. That said, i'm curious if that's the case, regardless of the fact it's not fit for proper comparison. I'll maintain that the political nature of western platforms and reviers makes the reviews less indicative.
kohlrak: Of course, gog has some obvious politically derived biases, and biases based on corporate connections. This means GOG is not going to be a reliable arbiter.
The curation process is in its nature quite subjective, even if there are specified guidelines. We have to remember that games on GOG are curated by people not by machines. I don't think that GOG does a worse job than Steam. I haven't seen a trashy game on GOG for quite a while. It's not a problem to find one on Steam. For the sake of freedom of expression there should be a store which lets almost everything, but I don't want GOG to become one of them.
The most recent addition that got some eyes rolling. Mind you, I haven't even checked today's releases, yet. Still waiting for more reviews, here, meaning no one's buying it to even rate it.
kohlrak: But the point wasn't to talk about how great dlsite is. The point is to show you what's wrong with platforms like steam and gog. You see, the primary filter is by current popularity, and they do indeed move around on a daily basis, so by the time you're reading this, what you see vs what i see are different. Now GOG and steam have these features, as well, but they don't have a dedicated indie section (which is the default on dlsite, might i add, as professional games are thrown into a different section).
I don't think that an indie filter is necessary. Most of the games released on GOG are indie games. There are some AAA titles as well, but these are quite rare. What's the point of implementing such a system when most of the games would fall in this category?
Well, for starters, most of them are not indie titles like you say. That said, it's not the focus of my argument. The focus of my argument really says that such sections aren't as useful, because of cultural issues with reviews, which is useful as a primary filter.
kohlrak: When CP2077 and The Witcher are topping the sales, especually during major sales, do we honestly believe that? What about some ofthe other games?
I think that CP2077 and the Witcher series are popular enough that manual messing with the bestseller list is quite pointless. These games don't need an additional promotion that distorts the list on bigger sales. So yeah, I believe these are accurate. Right now CP2077 is on the bottom of the list on the main page while Witcher 3 isn't there at all.
Right now, but the The Witcher 3 always seems to reappear at the top despite how many years it's been out. Was really funny watching Huniepop 2 top it, though. I noticed that didn't last long, either.
patrikc: What's this now?
Cyberpunk, Baldur's Gate 3, BioShock Infinite, The Witcher series, Singularity, both F.E.A.R. games and probably others as well (I can't be bothered to look now) come with a warning. HuniePop, Leisure Suit Larry and Tonight We Riot don't, cuz reasons.
What about Fallout? Both 3 and New Vegas are apparently targeted at mature audiences. That doesn't apply to the classics though.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.? All of a sudden, Call of Pripyat is more adult-oriented than Shadow of Chernobyl or Clear Sky.
Seems legit. Fair enough? Alright then.
Looks like GOG managed to break a feature on arrival: our results aren't in agreement.
kohlrak: Pareto distribution is not strictly negative consequences. The original explanation was actually positive: that 80% of the wealth is created by 20% of the people. Then people realized that, at least as far as humans, it applies to just about everything. 20% of criminals will create 80% of crime, for example (didn't even check up on that). It's just that 20% of people will be good enough at whatever to make up 80% of the total (we seem to be reliving history with fatherhood starting to apply again, as well [a bit of an exaggeration, as it's still about 80:70 right now]). Better yet, it'll continue within those 20%s until you can't zoom in any further (you get below 10 people). It really makes sense when you start interviewing budding game deves, and you find most people are just stepping into something for about 1 hour tops and bail if it's unsuccessful (which is how people are with really anything).
Orkhepaj: strange how human behavior can follow a common trend
we should make decisions based on this like only 20% should vote 80% not
In the US, prior to the draft, only land owners could vote. Reason being, they had something to loose. Then came the draft to give all men the right to vote (since only they could be drafted, and it's unfair to force people to risk their lives when they can't vote), and then protests came and women got the right to vote (sans the draft signup requirements).
The thing to take note of with this is that human behaviors and other attributes will trend, but when you "zoom in" they stop doing so for different categories for eeach person. It appears that indeed free will exists, but it's a rare occurence. Zoom out based on racial, cultural, ideological, or any other grouping basis, and you'll start to see trends again, but you often won't on an individual level. As you can imagine, policy makers and scientists are hugely frustrated by this effect, because certain horrible things can easily be almost eradicated with genocide or something, however that would be inexcuseable because you don't kill 20 people because 19 of them are idiots, and you especially don't kill 20 people because 1 of them is, even if that problem is drugs, mass murder, terrorism, etc. This doesn't mean that hte policy makers haven't unfairly doing other things (often manifesting as going in the opposite direction: ie, christians are easily the most harmless people in society right now, but they're most likely to get hit with legislation or attacked by a mob, with Jews next on the list [there's a disproportionate amount of attacks on jews, though, but not social policy]). The sad thing is, the only real thing the data should convince us to do is actually try to find an empirical explanation for this behavior that can be managed in a responsible way other than targeting groups, because it's not like things that are dominant in the black community don't happen among whites even if it's not a trend for whites, for example (my "uneducated guess" is that the drug problem is tied to untreated mental and physical conditions [i just recently discovered that someone i know who has an addiction to weed, as controversial as such a notion is, had an underlying medical condition that he appears to be capable of living through, although most people don't, and his family history of addiction is unrelated]).
cryware: Yes... I did. I agree with you but we also need to keep in mind that -trust- begin somewhere.
Here in Christmas Island DOB is not illegal, but yes, a clever guy could start pulling the string thru social engineering...
Do you notice a response to my question did not happen? And as several people mentioned, DOB is sensitive info...
nightcraw1er.488: Trust should never start on the internet. Imagine the Wild West, ruled by opium den magnets, presided over by beelzebub. Well that somewhat close to how bad the internet is.
In terms of your question, some people have said they don’t get the warning when they have their bday set. I haven’t had the message and I have a fake day month. So it should be the same, perhaps it’s session based, not logging out and in to find out though.
I think the most recent pandemic demonstrated that, while trusting others is absolutely necessary, we should always practice a healthy level of skepticism. People like Fauci admitting they lied about masks so government could stockpile them, for example. Meanwhile, the reason they stated (doctors and nurses) were lucky to get any. No no, this is much broader than randoms on the internet. We like to think we can trust those in our society, but we cannot. Human beings on the whole are still "wild-west" but some moreso than others. We need to remember how thin yet manipulable society on the whole really is, which i think our recent political problems (hell, we had people hunting people of the other side, like animals, last year [was the minority, but damn]).
