PlugMonkey Comments

Page 1 of 86

  • XCOM 2 guide

  • PlugMonkey 05/02/2016

    @Deadite

    I'd say keep the difficulty level up.

    You can't manage failure if you have no failure to manage.

    Edit: I've completely misread your post, haven't I? You're saying go down a step from whatever felt good in XCOM 1. Good tip. Thanks!

    I'm still keeping the difficulty up though. ;) XCOM demands that total failure is absolutely an ever present option.
    Reply +2
  • "It was tempting to retire…"

  • PlugMonkey 05/02/2016

    @Uncompetative

    Absolutely. Smash his hands. It became a sapling. I'd speculate maybe even a golden acorn is difficult to spot from a distance, so they made it something bigger? Bastards! SMASH THEIR BLOODY HANDS!

    The problem is that every game changes, often drastically, from its earlier stages to its final version. It's an inevitable, natural part of the iterative process.

    With Molyneux, the precedent has now been set that if you talk about something that doesn't find it's way into the game exactly as you originally conceived, then the mob will smash your hands.

    Molyneux was by far the worst, but this hasn't just affected Molyneux. Pretty much everybody has stopped talking about work in progress games. To avoid any future Molyneux incidents, we will now all be strictly limited to a diet of carefully managed, drip fed, on-message, well targeted marketing information.

    Yay! Win! And why? Because a bunch of people backed a Peter Molyneux kickstarter apparently oblivious to who Peter Molyneux is.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 04/02/2016

    @schuelertomas

    We are 'gamers', but we are also completely opposed in what we want from games, so what does that word mean? Nothing. We can still say it, we still are it, but it doesn't mean anything any more. When you say "he lied to us gamers", it's not true. I've never felt lied to, so either I'm not a gamer, or the word 'gamer' has lost its meaning.

    The second one.

    saying i "applaud attacking molyneux" is an exaggeration on your side.
    You said it was "one of the best journalistic things that happened in games".

    Ultimately, I freely admit that I AM in the minority, I just think that there are much darker times coming in your world. I think what we've lost was of far greater value than what PM ever threatened to take. He wasn't worth it.

    You're a gent though. I just disagree with you is all.

    *doffs cap*
    Reply -1
  • PlugMonkey 04/02/2016

    @schuelertomas

    We both play games, but if you applaud attacking Molyneux then what we want from this industry and this medium is fundamentally, irreconcilably, diametrically opposed.

    Therefore, there is no 'us'. We don't stand together. Therefore "we are gamers" means nothing. "Us gamers"? No such group.

    You carry on being a mature, responsible consumer, punishing the wrongdoers for doing wrong.

    I'll carry on being a frivolous, starry-eyed enthusiast, mourning the days when developers felt they could talk candidly about games and their ambitions for them; before an example was made of Molyneux of what to expect if you go too far.

    And "we" can stop pretending we belong to some sort of single, common group, as used to exist in the olden days. I play games, you play games, but any statement that follows "us gamers" saying what "we" think or feel or want will be a lie.
    Reply -2
  • PlugMonkey 04/02/2016

    @schuelertomas

    You might see yourself as a gamer. That's fine. Iím not laying claim to the name, Iím saying the name doesnít mean anything anymore. 'Gamers' as a group, which is how you used it ("us gamers"), no longer exists. Thereís you, and thereís me, and thereís no link between us. We have nothing in common.

    Look down this thread and you will see a clear split between people who are enthusiastic to hear developers talk, even if the developer in question is talking bollocks. Iím calling those people Ďenthusiastsí. Then there are the people who are outraged at their consumer rights having supposedly been breached. Iím calling those people Ďconsumersí. There is no ďus gamersĒ. Not anymore.

    There are some things I consume simply as a consumer, and there are some things that go beyond simple products and I am enthusiastic about every aspect of. Games, for me, is in the latter camp. I don't post on vacuum cleaner forums, for example.

    I don't see myself as tender-hearted or a Gandhi figure, I'm just sad with the direction gaming has gone. You will indeed get exactly the industry you deserve - one that increasingly keeps you firmly at armís length. It will avoid you ďbeing lied toĒ, which is what you want, but it will also involve you no longer getting any insight, which is what I want.

    By the way, you may think Iím getting lied to, but Iím not because I'm knowledgeable enough to understand what someone like Molyneux is talking about when he talks. I can place it in the appropriate context. That's what I'm driving at with the labels here. A consumer doesn't know or care how a vacuum cleaner is made, they just want it to work well. They donít care to hear James Dyson talk about his inspirations or aspirations, only to tell you about the specifics of his new product.

    That's not me with games. That might or might not be you, but there is most definitely no ďusĒ.
    Reply -1
  • PlugMonkey 04/02/2016

    @schuelertomas

    the fable games where bad back then. and are still bad. objectively speaking.
    Um, no. That's really not true, and third party evidence agrees with me, not you. You can keep saying it if you like, but it will still be revisionist horseballs.

    [he] lied to us gamers
    Sheesh. boo woo to you too.

    "Us consumers", by the way. You mean "us consumers".

    There are no 'gamers' any more. There are consumers like you, and there are people like me who used to be 'gamers', but no longer want to be associated with people like you.
    Reply -2
  • PlugMonkey 03/02/2016

    @schuelertomas

    The Fable games are good, objectively speaking. Critic evaluations are good. Sales are good. They may not have hit Molyneux's ridiculously lofty ambitions, but saying they are terrible is revisionist horseballs invented to fit the new agenda.

    The RPS interview was an appalling hatchet job. The supposed mandate of getting answers to tough, important questions that needed to be asked was torpedoed in the very first question. It wasn't an interview, it was a punishment beating.

    The only debate is whether it was justified. Well, no. It could never be justified. Journalists don't do that. They are supposed to have standards and ethics, even if they believe the people they are interviewing don't. Not least because your readers aren't going to get answers to your tough, important questions otherwise. It was crap. He knew it would be popular crap, but it was still crap.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 03/02/2016

    @cooliowithdaflow

    Yes, that's how you make a trilogy of critically acclaimed, platinum selling games. Just that. Nothing else.

    My favourite part of all this is how we've revised the Fable series from being objectively pretty damn good to being objectively terrible just to fit the narrative.
    Reply -1
  • PlugMonkey 03/02/2016

    @eightbitboy

    How is that solving a problem? That isn't the problem! It wasn't ever the problem! PM specifically said that the 'prize' wasn't just money, but something life changing.

    It's undoubtedly not quite what anyone had in mind, but you can't possibly claim that becoming the starving Ethiopian poster child for the hate campaign of a bunch of whinging malcontents hasn't changed Bryan Henderson's life quite considerably!
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 03/02/2016

    @cyacomini

    It's a question of what interest you have in the developers themselves. I want to hear Molyneux talk. I want to hear all developers talk. Not as a marketing message on the features of the next game, but because I'm interested in what goes on behind the games. Even if what goes on behind the games is a humongous gulf between vision and reality, that's still something I want to explore and understand.

    If someone is interested in what goes on behind the games, they can't possibly endorse the treatment of Molyneux at the hands of the 'fans' and 'journalists'. Those two positions are completely incompatible. I think the people with such an interest are likely to be the older gamers, but not necessarily so.
    Reply -1
  • PlugMonkey 03/02/2016

    @Urthman

    Sad that he still doesn't get that Walker was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.
    LOL!
    Reply -5
  • PlugMonkey 03/02/2016

    @Rodimus-Prime

    It IS good to shoot for the stars. Much more important with my games than with my kitchen. Essential, even. And itís good for artists to be able to talk about shooting for the stars without fearing character assassination. Thatís a difference between tradesmen and artists, and a difference between consumers and enthusiasts, aficionados, connoisseurs. Which do you want to be?

    Sure, in a perfect world it would be great if Molyneux could express the passion and enthusiasm without his mouth running away with him. Here, though, in imperfect reality weíre left with the choice of either just not taking him particularly seriously, or tearing him to pieces and moving increasingly towards sanitised Ďconsumerí relationships where none of the actual creatives ever want to stick their heads above the parapet and talk about their work. Thatís a MASSIVE loss to me, and I donít really see what weíve gained from it.

    A fundamental difference between you promising a kitchen you canít deliver and Molyneux promising a game he canít deliver is that all the precious consumers donít have to rely on the promise. They get to read reams of reviews of the product before parting with any of their hard earned, and are never left with nowhere to make toast. There was never any problem with people being misled in the first place! If you had access to Molyneuxís pre-release interview, you damn well had access to the game review!

    I want to read where people are trying to go and then see how close they get to it. I want that insight. How many developers nowadays risk speaking candidly and publicly though? Hardly any. The Ďconsumersí have already all but won, and itís a massive, MASSIVE loss to anyone with any sort of passion for the medium.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 03/02/2016

    @Rodimus-Prime

    Don't take this the wrong way Rodimus, but when the day arrives when all games are created by a similar process to one of your kitchens, I won't be joining you at the party.
    Reply +3
  • PlugMonkey 03/02/2016

    @XenonDurango

    Amen. He doesn't deserve a fraction of the childish hate he receives, and that RPS 'interview' was an awful piece of 'journalism'. The only thing that changed that day was that I now don't play Peter Molyneux games OR read RPS.

    All the new wave of video game 'consumers' will only be happy when everyone in the industry is a carefully rehearsed, on message, sound byte spewing marketing machine.
    Reply +22
  • Eurogamer readership survey 2016

  • PlugMonkey 04/02/2016

    At no point did you ask me how many Destiny articles is too many Destiny articles. I feel conned and dirty. Reply +38
  • This is why people love the developer of Shadowrun: Hong Kong

  • PlugMonkey 02/02/2016

    @Bambot

    The 'tiny bit' under the headline that is, in my browser at least, perfectly legible?

    I have to say, if 'clickbait' is what you're going for, putting the answer right there where you can read it without clicking is pretty daft. It kind of defeats the purpose, don't you think?
    Reply +1
  • A developer from Derby wants to rekindle the WW2 shooter

  • PlugMonkey 02/02/2016

    @Costarring

    They're using Unreal, which is free. They take a % of the money from sales.
    Reply +6
  • PlugMonkey 02/02/2016

    @superfurry

    Chivalry raised $80k. Came out. Was awesome.

    It's tight, but doable if the team is committed to living on cold baked beans.

    Edit: It's also a heck of a lot more doable than the SP game everyone is asking for instead...
    Reply +11
  • XCOM 2 review

  • PlugMonkey 02/02/2016

    @Lancezh

    Me either. Apparently this one is the same.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 01/02/2016

    @Yossarian

    There were plenty of cues and tricks to triggering one pod at a time
    Yes there were. That's what I didn't like, gaming the spawn system.

    'Spawning' or 'triggering' is a pretty semantic difference. I still suspect the characters aren't loaded and spawn at a location when triggered. Maybe they are loaded except for having their AI disabled. It makes no difference. In the original UFO I got the impression they were running their full AI even when you had no idea where they were.

    It's a big difference, fighting an enemy you can't see vs. fighting an enemy that effectively isn't there until you see it. I didn't find gaming that system hard, but I also didn't find it satisfying. They're supposed to be out there in the shadows, out manoeuvring me, not sitting politely by and waiting for me to get around to them.
    Reply +3
  • PlugMonkey 01/02/2016

    @BlackFlower

    I'm not sure about that. I think exclusives still have a pretty massive sway. There isn't all that much to help you choose between an xbone and a PS4, so whether you'd rather play Gears of War or Uncharted is going to make a big difference.
    Reply +2
  • PlugMonkey 01/02/2016

    @Yossarian

    You moved, and when you hit a certain point on the map, a whole bunch of enemies would appear (i.e. 'spawn') and run for cover. There was a special presentation when this happened.

    Until you moved to that point, the enemies wouldn't be there. They would never, for example, just wander over from where they were to where you were. To all intents and purposes, they only spawned based on your movement.

    How is that not how the 2012 game worked?

    I found this annoying as it made flanking not worth the risk of triggering another batch of enemies. Is that still how this one works?
    Reply +7
  • PlugMonkey 01/02/2016

    And those moments, as you scramble to counter a group of enemies that you weren't quite ready to discover, are when XCOM is at its absolute best.
    Does that mean the aliens still spawn in as you move, punishing attempts at flanking? Because that was a major annoyance in the last one.
    Reply 0
  • Star Citizen is free to play this week

  • PlugMonkey 01/02/2016

    @Mun

    I never said £12k wasn't a lot of money, and I never said your opinion was repugnant to me. I said I don't understand why selling things is repugnant just because they are expensive.

    Well, I kind of do, but I don't see why it's more repugnant than any other pointless £12k status symbol.

    It's just a gimmick. It's kind of funny, and I can't imagine any of the very, very few people who buy them aren't well aware that they are buying something very, very silly.

    Apologies if I caused any offence. Ordinarily, posting opinions on public forums is taken as an indication that said opinion is open for discussion. And I kind of took the 'indefensible' bit as a challenge. ;)
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 01/02/2016

    @Mun

    I'm a gamer, I know all about spending serious money on things most people consider pointless.
    I don't really get what you're trying to say there. Most gamers are trapped in a 1990 mentality of £40 being a lot of money.

    So, no judgement on the people who want to spend their money that way, but most of them will be compulsive, stupid people?

    Edit: You retracted 'stupid' in a post cross, but the point still stands that £70 just isn't all that very much money to spend in 2016. Meanwhile I find the idea that RSI's who business strategy revolves around selling £12k packages slightly preposterous. They are a gimmick.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 01/02/2016

    @Mun Why do you find it repugnant?

    They are selling stuff in their game at a price people are willing to pay for it. There's no hard sell, no con, and despite constant allegations of it being vapourware, here we are posting comments under an article about the software being free to try for a week, proving it to be anything but.

    If you don't want it, don't buy it. If you do, you can.

    What's different between this an any other product you don't think is worth the money, but other people do? What are the grounds for calling it repugnant? It's expensive. Is everything expensive 'repugnant'?
    Reply +4
  • PlugMonkey 01/02/2016

    @Mun

    Well, it's certainly not indefensible. How is it repugnant?
    Reply +3
  • PlugMonkey 01/02/2016

    @VideoGameAddict25

    I love the "IN STOCK". Because, y'know, it's only possible to make them so fast...

    It is mental, but I'm not sure it's that much more mental than the other mental things people with lots of money spend them on.
    Reply +13
  • This War of Mine: The Little Ones review

  • PlugMonkey 28/01/2016

    @jamyskis1981

    I do get drawn in sometimes, but I actually found This War of Mine drove me in the other direction.

    When given a very forced, binary choice to either kill the vulnerable old people or leave empty handed, they immediately stopped being vulnerable old people. They just became a form of loot drop, and at that point playing the game became a completely pointless exercise. I couldn't really invest in the idea any more. There definitely is an aspect of what you bring to the experience yourself.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 28/01/2016

    @after8ters

    Me too. It was today.
    Reply 0
  • I have to break Fallout 4 to finish it

  • PlugMonkey 21/01/2016

    Things were getting a bit dry by the end so I started using power armour for the first time. Bad idea. I rocked up to the Institute in my new pimped armour, but unfortunately I'd added the helmet mod that highlights people in red.

    If you do that, the Institute is deserted. You can't progress, and you also can't travel back to the surface. I've got about 3 hours to replay to get back there, and I haven't bothered so far.

    I've read comments from people who trusted the autosave system. For them, this was how the game ended.
    Reply 0
  • Alexis Kennedy on: Gravity

  • PlugMonkey 17/01/2016

    Games are games...They're not simulations.
    For the most part, video games aren't games. They are simulations of games.

    Reply 0
  • Elite Dangerous soars past 1.4m sold

  • PlugMonkey 14/01/2016

    @spamdangled

    Have they added any actual content yet?
    Not that old chestnut.

    30 different ships isn't content? A half dozen different professions? 100 billion systems?

    I've easily spent a hundred hours in this game, so I find it a bit odd when people tell me there's nothing to do. Those hours have been way more varied than in, say, Fallout 4 as well. You're having some problems with some raiders you say? Get right out of town!

    If you mean "have they added missions that handhold me through the unlikely scenario of me being the sole saviour of the galaxy" then no, they haven't.
    Reply +5
  • Why everyone's talking about Grand Theft Auto 5 single-player DLC again

  • PlugMonkey 13/01/2016

    @SavageEvil

    DLC is literally a risk they absolutely do not have to take.
    R* created a printing press called GTA V
    Um...

    What risk? It's a printing press. The chance of GTA DLC not making its money back is zero squared.
    Reply +1
  • Steam's sale changes were a huge success

  • PlugMonkey 12/01/2016

    As with others, I spent less and the whole thing was less of an event, although me actually taking time to consider purchases might not necessarily be a bad thing overall... Reply +1
  • Half-Life writer Marc Laidlaw leaves Valve

  • PlugMonkey 08/01/2016

    @Big-Boss

    If it does happen, it'll be a F2P base building iOS game.

    The subsequent internet explosion will tilt the planet off its axis and send us hurtling into the sun.

    You heard it here first!
    Reply +21
  • Oculus Rift costs £500

  • PlugMonkey 08/01/2016

    You have about as much idea as I do.

    None.
    I said that.

    I still think I'm closer though.

    I don't need a reason to think they're making them as fast as they can. You do need a reason to think they're not. It would have to be a pretty dumb reason too, considering they are selling out.

    Maybe they hate money? Or don't want to build up a lead before their competitors arrive on the scene? Or maybe it's new tech so it's hard to find enough people who can make them like every other piece of new tech in history?

    Hmm. Hard to know which one to lean towards. Actually, maybe I do have slightly more idea than you do.

    You don't have any clue how many they've sold. Zero.
    No, but I know they've sold out.

    If they are selling out, then they are not overpriced.

    How many they have made doesn't change that. They could do a limited production run of 30 and charge $30k a pop for them. If they sold out, then the price is not be too high.

    Whether the limitation on number is down to enforced exclusivity or production bottlenecks, whether the actual number is 10 or one million, if they have sold out then the price is not too high.

    This doesn't mean it is or will be a success. It means that right now there are more people willing to spend £500 on a Rift than there are Rifts to buy. Therefore the price is not too high. That's what selling out means. It doesn't mean nothing. It means that.

    Whether the Rift is a success, whether the Rift can be a success at £500, well that's a different question. Historically though, there are plenty of enthusiasts willing to spend £500 on a new bit of kit. It's really not that expensive at all. Consumers can have a straight choice between this and a 4k TV or entry level surround sound set up.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 07/01/2016

    @George-Roper

    You think they've made ten and then stopped. I think they're probably cranking them out as fast as they can. I don't know which is true, but I do suspect I'm closer...

    If they're selling them as fast as they can make them, then the price is not too high.

    It's brand new, bleeding edge, first generation tech at exactly the sort of early adopter price I would expect it to be at. In fact, they could probably charge double and still sell them as fast as they can make them.
    Reply +1
  • Best-selling Steam games of 2015 list has a few surprises

  • PlugMonkey 05/01/2016

    @J_C_X

    Oooh! Spikey! How am I missing the point?

    Are you accusing EA and Ubisoft misleading shareholders?
    Um, no, I'm saying that the likes of EA and Ubisoft (especially Ubisoft) are predominately AAA publishers, and that AAA games dominate the console market but not the PC market. Therefore the PC market could easily be the largest overall, but not the largest for EA or Ubisoft or any other AAA developer.

    Talk about missing the point!

    PC gaming probably is the biggest market, but it's not what we perceive as "PC gaming".
    Sorry, who is "we"?

    It's the F2P franchises, local MMORPGs in the Far East and browser games.
    And that's not PC gaming? That is PC gaming. Well a part of it anyway, plus a bit of AAA and a lot of small publishers selling a million units of half finished siege engine simulators. And survival simulators. So many survival simulators! And Euro trucks. And Euro trucks in space. And that guy who has sold 80 million dollar's worth of as yet imaginary Euro trucks in space.

    In other words, it's broad. Much broader than the AAA focussed console market, and Ubisoft are a AAA developer. Would you like me to say that yet again to be clear? Only I'm running out of different orders to arrange the words in.

    Actually, let's just go back to this:

    PC gaming probably is the biggest market,
    Yes, it probably is.

    That's all that graph you refuse to accept showed.
    Reply +4
  • PlugMonkey 05/01/2016

    @bad09

    That wouldn't surprise me. I bet their Hasbro games quietly churn out a fortune without anyone in the traditional games media even noticing, and when was their last big, proper AAA hit anyway?

    The thing is, the medium is so broad it's like arguing over whether cinema or web streaming is "dominating" videos.

    In terms of what? Users? Revenue? Awareness? I bet more people have heard about the new Star Wars than any single online video, but I'd be surprised if Odeon has more customers than Youtube. So, who's "dominating"?
    Reply +2
  • PlugMonkey 05/01/2016

    @J_C_X

    I'm not sure what anyone thinks they have to gain in arguing that PC is 'dominant'. It's a completely meaningless and impossible analysis.

    That said, I'm equally baffled as to the value of announcing that Ubi and EA, two massively console focussed publishers, get most of their revenue from console. Am I supposed to be surprised? You might as well quote me Nintendo's figures.

    Wow. Almost entirely console? Really? You don't say!

    PC could be the largest overall market, but not the largest market for AAA games. All that would need to be possible is for AAA to represent a small(er) % of the PC market, but almost all of the console market. I then look at the respective markets, and that's exactly what I'm seeing.

    Console is a market that a few AAA publishers dominate on. This has been well known, documented and commented on for years. That doesn't necessarily make it the biggest overall market, does it? Or am I doing something wrong with my maths here? This all seems entirely plausible to me.
    Reply +5
  • PlugMonkey 05/01/2016

    @Blackmarsh63

    No, it won't be bad news for gamers. The current prices are kept high by them still needing to keep the high street retailers on side. That can't last forever though. Removing costs and middlemen can only be a good thing for gamers.

    For example, friends that have Playstation Plus have nothing but good things to say about the value for money it offers.

    Why are people so desperate to pretend that doom and gloom are forever waiting in the wings? Video gaming is a hugely competitive, entirely consumer led industry. As long as Sony are competing with someone like Microsoft and Microsoft are competing with someone like Sony they will both have no choice but to offer you the best possible product they can at the best possible price, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. Games without end. Amen.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 05/01/2016

    @Minmat

    AAA is budget, not sales.

    Most AAA games are multiplatform, because spending many millions of dollars on a game and then limiting it to one platform is kind of silly.

    If you release simultaneously on three platforms, as the vast majority of AAA games do, why is one of them a 'port'?

    How many sales is considered 'good' is a function of your budget, not your platform. If you're not making a multiplatform AAA game, then PC/Steam is a better single platform than any other. I've already explained why.

    (400k won't get you onto the Steam top 20 though.)
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 05/01/2016

    @Spuzzell

    You have a point. The AAA numbers aren't that bad at all.

    3.8m for GTA V looks bad compared to console, but it came out over a year later! Anyone multiplatform would have bought it on console by then. I know I had.

    2.7m for Fallout 4 is pretty damn strong, knocking XBone into 3rd place according to VGChartz.

    1.3m for The Witcher 3 also knocks XBone into 3rd place, and I dare say a few people bought it DRM free direct from GOG.
    Reply +10
  • PlugMonkey 05/01/2016

    @SuperShinobi

    Steam is great for indies and Valve, but consoles are the lifeblood of the AAA games industry.
    It is, and they are. And I think this is entirely expected and natural and healthy.

    Since drifting PCwards this gen, the only AAA game I've bothered with in 2015 is Fallout 4. It didn't make my GotY list, and I probably won't bother with the next one.

    The reason for this is that, even just looking at Steam alone, it's so broad! There's so much on offer, it's all so accessible, and I have so much information on everything. I never used to buy games I hadn't heard of on console, but on Steam I can have a recommendation offered to me, click the link, see a high approval rating from a thousand other users and buy with confidence. And I do. A lot.

    Standing in Game, I can buy the latest AAA game, or risk absolute pot luck.

    I don't see this as being a bad thing. The way consoles have increasingly revolved around a handful of super titles is far less healthy imho. AAA becoming the lifeblood of the industry is a problem, not a plus.
    Reply +14
  • PlugMonkey 05/01/2016

    @Blackmarsh63

    The major retailers would refuse to stock Sony/Microsoft consoles if things went digital-download only. They would have to sell their hardware and games themselves which is very bad for consumers.
    That would be a very short lived rebellion. Sony wouldn't have to sell their own consoles. They don't sell their own TVs. Bad news for Game, good news for Currys and Tesco and Richer Sounds.

    And isn't selling their own games kind of the whole point of going digital?
    Reply +8
  • Fallout 4 mod adds mutated Macho Man Randy Savage

  • PlugMonkey 05/01/2016

    @berelain

    Thanks! I'll check those out. Especially the one for vertibird induced fatalities...
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 05/01/2016

    @berelain

    Could you highlight me some, um, highlights?

    Fallout 4 has proven an extremely successful time sponge, but has also left me pretty underwhelmed. It's 3/5 in a dozen different areas, but not 5/5 in any.
    Reply +1
  • Steam security error leaves personal information exposed

  • PlugMonkey 27/12/2015

    Steam not offering an apology is indeed appalling.

    I know I certainly won't sleep at night until a faceless corporation has extended an empty gesture in my general direction.

    I mean, how else am I ever expected recover from the minor error that did not in any way personally affect me?
    Reply -1
  • PlugMonkey 26/12/2015

    Valve have 'shrugged it off' because nothing of the faintest significance happened. It's the behaviour of the dozens of people with nothing better to do than try to make an issue out of this that are the mystery here, not Valve. Reply -15