I don't like this. I understand they want to patch and balance online game modes with respect to fairness, but there's a point in which they sap any fun out of the game.

It's sad, really. Once something gets too fun. Too powerful. Too meta. Back to the chopping block, it seems. Everybody must suffer. If everything is managed to mediocrity; the entire game suffers.

@lonewolf1044: Oh yeah, I totally see. DirectTV and AT&T for instance are bundled together so people may get cell phone and internet with their TV and then that makes a lot more sense price-wise. That's kinda what makes Amazon such a good deal as some have pointed out here, because you get the Prime shipping and other goodies with it.

Here's a thought: Netflix should start diversifying after the $20, and have micro-channel, like Prime does and you can pay to watch certain channels. Like core Netflix originals for $10 to $15 a month plus $3 to $5 for channel add-ons, like horror, kids, sports, etc. That way people get the most out of it without overpaying on content they don't really watch. Hmm...

@cyrezeraser: 50... is still better than 200. People forget that with the right cable package, people were spending $135 to $250 a month. So, 5 streaming services for roughly $50 a month (Netflix, HBO, Hulu, Disney+, Amazon) with all the combined content, is still so much better. Barring sports channels., of course, but hulu does have a sports plan for not that much more...

We've had it good with cheap Netflix for so, so long. It's time the prices go up and up. Especially if they use that money to produce even more content. Like seriously. If Netflix were just a single TV channel, in standard cable packages that channel would have almost more content than all the other channels combined.

To me, $20 seems like miracle pricing.

@VooDooPC: I agree, it shows that yes, while gamers are technically the best source for a review (having really played the game, in mass aggregate), they aren't a reliable resource. Because you ask some of these guys that downvoted the game on Steam due to stuttering, if they think it's still overall, a good game, and they'd say yes. They only downvoted it to prove a point, to troll, in frustration, popular to do so... etc.

So I see both as separate: critics v. peoples. We should have 2 GOTY categories. A critics choice and a peoples choice. I think some places may do that?

Edit: that is to say, there are steam users that do try to be well-rounded. But there's always the masses that upvote/downvote for the most banal reasons. I may be one of those people, too.

@Pyrosa: this game was a real sleeper

@skyhighgam3r: This.

@Gelugon_baat: I don't think you entirely understand. Remember how the news media made a big deal out of the Gabby Petito and Brian Laundrie missing persons report? Same reason, there are many other missing persons, but not all of them are getting covered in the same way, especially with respect to people of color.

Journalism is a lot more than just a highlight machine, it is an incredible sword in which to wield, so unless something is incredibly newsworthy, I find it odd to highlight any old game, unless it's of some depth of newsworthiness.

Like I wouldn't write a piece on a random book I found on Amazon. But if it won, say, the Hugo award for best Sci-Fi, then I'd write an article on that. 😅

Umm Elden Ring??

Also, a SyFy TV show called Nightflyers??

Also, The Broasdway musical??

The HBO projects have names: Who Fears Death, Roadmarks, Wild Cards, and his prequels, also In the Lost Lands (not sure if HBO?)

@tbird7586: Umm, I didn't mean it like that. Imeant it in the way that Microsoft was first to say: "free upgrades to next gen for all games"

But even then... you also seemed to have forgotten the lies and reversals from the Don Mattrick era of Xbox One where they did this for a few years...

Sony pulling a Microsoft move? Nice