I’m cautiously excited. Because if they do pull it off, it’s gonna be great. But just keep in mind that Cyberpunk 2077 looked like “the Cyberpunk 2077 CDPR pitched from the start” in the trailers. Until reviewers get their hands on copies, take everything with a pinch of salt.

My advice is work out where you draw the line, and don’t cross it.

I’m gonna be honest- if you’re buying games through Steam, you’re already giving money to a deeply unethical firm: Valve. Valve takes a 30% cut of all transactions on Steam. Valve is also the studio that introduced lootboxes and similarly predatory microtransactions to the western market, and continues to profit from them to this day.

Where I draw the line is when a studio drops below the already low bar set by the industry. When a studio sexually harasses an employee to the point of suicide. When most of the game’s development cycle is pure crunch. When a studio puts predatory microtransactions into a singleplayer game.

I also draw the line when a game (or any other work of media, for that matter) is directly giving money to bigoted scumbags. If a studio employs bigoted scumbags, that person is getting paid whether or not I buy the game. But if a studio is making a game based on the IP of a bigoted scumbag, they’re getting a cut of each sale. When a copy of that game is brought, they’re getting a bit of money they wouldn’t have got if the game wasn’t brought.

Reborn as a Vending Machine, I Now Wander the Dungeon. I think there’s an anime adaptation.

Stellaris. It’s been “that game” for me practically as long as I’ve been into gaming. I’ve got nearly 1000 hours on Steam alone.

Not gonna lie, if they make good on their promises (I’m still rather suspicious of CDPR after the absolute mess that was 2077’s launch), it might just tempt me to pick up 2077 and Phantom Liberty next time there’s a big Steam sale.

I feel the two big reasons are:

1. The average user of a site like Reddit probably hasn’t noticed any significant changes; or if they have, they just don’t see them as a problem. So they don’t have any significant incentive to emigrate to another site. On the other hand, people who are tech-savvy notice the changes; and decide they need to move.

2. To a lot of people, the Fediverse is just not as convenient as centralized sites. People who are more tech-savvy and/or use Linux, are willing to put up with a bit of inconvenience in exchange for using a site they see as better.

It’s also worth keeping in mind that right now, the Fediverse is still in its early days. Every site in its early days generally has a broadly similar userbase- people who are familiar with technology and willing to put up with some inconvenience because they see the potential.

I agree. All the Fediverse is to the Silicon Valley firms is the current buzzword. Like you said; if- and to me, it’s a question of if and not when- Fediverse integration gets built into Threads, it’s gonna be limited. My bet is that somehow they’re gonna make it so that Threads instances can only federate with other Threads instances.

And that’s if it exists at all. I feel there’s a considerable chance that Meta just throws away the Fediverse integration idea. Either it’s too much effort for too little profit, or some new buzzword comes along for them to chase.