Ubisoft calls their latest game Skulls and Bones an AAAA game, given
their track record of shady monetarization schemes, and given that my
native language is german, it instantly was clear for me that
the fourth A stands for the german "Abzocke" aka in english Rip Off!

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 19:26:35 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Werner P. wrote:

>Ubisoft calls their latest game Skulls and Bones an AAAA game, given
>their track record of shady monetarization schemes, and given that my
>native language is german, it instantly was clear for me that
>the fourth A stands for the german "Abzocke" aka in english Rip Off!
>
And the first three stand for "Achtung, Achtung, Achtung!" I suppose. ;^)

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

Am 13.02.24 um 19:32 schrieb Zaghadka:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 19:26:35 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
> Werner P. wrote:
>
>> Ubisoft calls their latest game Skulls and Bones an AAAA game, given
>> their track record of shady monetarization schemes, and given that my
>> native language is german, it instantly was clear for me that
>> the fourth A stands for the german "Abzocke" aka in english Rip Off!
>>
> And the first three stand for "Achtung, Achtung, Achtung!" I suppose. ;^)
>
jepp, spot on!

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 19:35:04 +0100, "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:

>Am 13.02.24 um 19:32 schrieb Zaghadka:
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 19:26:35 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>> Werner P. wrote:
>>
>>> Ubisoft calls their latest game Skulls and Bones an AAAA game, given
>>> their track record of shady monetarization schemes, and given that my
>>> native language is german, it instantly was clear for me that
>>> the fourth A stands for the german "Abzocke" aka in english Rip Off!
>>>
>> And the first three stand for "Achtung, Achtung, Achtung!" I suppose. ;^)
>>
>jepp, spot on!

Snark aside, Ubisoft intends this to mean that this game has quality
above and beyond the usual big-publisher title, but even if we ignore
the potential abuse Ubisoft is likely to heap upon its players, I
can't see anything about the game that looks in any way exceptional.
Or even novel. It's yet-another Ubisoft open-world game, and it's
following a similar formula not only to games like "Sea of Thieves"
but even Ubisoft's own "Black Flag".

I mean, what really does this game do that sets it apart from any
other game? There are bigger games. There are better looking games.
There are more realistic games. Early reviews indicate the gameplay
isn't particularly great. The story and setting certainly aren't
ground-breaking.

It's just another Ubisoft game, except apparently this one comes
pre-burdened with 'live service' nonsense right out of the gate. Maybe
it's a good game; not having played it, I can't say one way or the
other. I'll give the game the benefit of the doubt. But there's
nothing I've seen about this game that screams out to me, 'MUST PLAY
IT!!!1!!', much less be held above its peers.

And, yeah, I know the whole 'AAAA game' thing is just Ubisoft
marketing trying to hype the game up. But I just wish they at least
/pretended/ to have something special to back that claim up.

Am 13.02.24 um 20:35 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
> And, yeah, I know the whole 'AAAA game' thing is just Ubisoft
> marketing trying to hype the game up. But I just wish they at least
> /pretended/ to have something special to back that claim up.
Absolutely hence the fourth A stands for "Abzocke", aka rip off!

But seriously this is a marketing spin which absolutely will backfire!
I have yet to see the game, but your comment basically just says what I
read generally about it.

On 14/02/2024 07:43, Werner P. wrote:
> Am 13.02.24 um 20:35 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
>> And, yeah, I know the whole 'AAAA game' thing is just Ubisoft
>> marketing trying to hype the game up. But I just wish they at least
>> /pretended/  to have something special to back that claim up.
> Absolutely hence the fourth A stands for "Abzocke", aka rip off!
>
> But seriously this is a marketing spin which absolutely will backfire!
> I have yet to see the game, but your comment basically just says what I
> read generally about it.
>

I haven't seen it either but yes what I've read about it follows the
same lines of why is this AAAA. I wonder how long it will be before it
becomes free-to-play?

On 2/14/2024 11:01 AM, JAB wrote:
> On 14/02/2024 07:43, Werner P. wrote:
>> Am 13.02.24 um 20:35 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
>>> And, yeah, I know the whole 'AAAA game' thing is just Ubisoft
>>> marketing trying to hype the game up. But I just wish they at least
>>> /pretended/  to have something special to back that claim up.
>> Absolutely hence the fourth A stands for "Abzocke", aka rip off!
>>
>> But seriously this is a marketing spin which absolutely will backfire!
>> I have yet to see the game, but your comment basically just says what
>> I read generally about it.
>>
>
> I haven't seen it either but yes what I've read about it follows the
> same lines of why is this AAAA. I wonder how long it will be before it
> becomes free-to-play?
>

Epic Games free giveaway Christmas 2024. Who's up for the bet?

"Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> writes:

> Ubisoft calls their latest game Skulls and Bones an AAAA game, given
> their track record of shady monetarization schemes, and given that my
> native language is german, it instantly was clear for me that
> the fourth A stands for the german "Abzocke" aka in english Rip Off!

Kinda reminds me of the funnily named game "AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!!
for the Awesome". I think there's still space for Ubi to add a few more
As into their quality claims... Why stick with measly quadruple-A if you
can go to imaginary 17-A level of quality by just leaning on the
keyboard a little longer? It doesn't even cost anything.

Am 14.02.24 um 12:09 schrieb kyonshi:
> On 2/14/2024 11:01 AM, JAB wrote:
>> On 14/02/2024 07:43, Werner P. wrote:
>>> Am 13.02.24 um 20:35 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
>>>> And, yeah, I know the whole 'AAAA game' thing is just Ubisoft
>>>> marketing trying to hype the game up. But I just wish they at least
>>>> /pretended/  to have something special to back that claim up.
>>> Absolutely hence the fourth A stands for "Abzocke", aka rip off!
>>>
>>> But seriously this is a marketing spin which absolutely will backfire!
>>> I have yet to see the game, but your comment basically just says what
>>> I read generally about it.
>>>
>>
>> I haven't seen it either but yes what I've read about it follows the
>> same lines of why is this AAAA. I wonder how long it will be before it
>> becomes free-to-play?
>>
>
> Epic Games free giveaway Christmas 2024. Who's up for the bet?

Good bet... I doubt they will do it before!
But F2P is definitely the long term trajectory before being shut down!

Am 14.02.24 um 13:44 schrieb Anssi Saari:
> Kinda reminds me of the funnily named game "AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!!
> for the Awesome". I think there's still space for Ubi to add a few more
> As into their quality claims... Why stick with measly quadruple-A if you
> can go to imaginary 17-A level of quality by just leaning on the
> keyboard a little longer? It doesn't even cost anything.

Jepp there is definitely more space... Arse/Ass also starts with A...
All they need to do is to add some kind of smell strip to every order
with a very distinctive odor de toilete...

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 13:46:41 +0100, "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:

>Am 14.02.24 um 13:44 schrieb Anssi Saari:
>> Kinda reminds me of the funnily named game "AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!!
>> for the Awesome". I think there's still space for Ubi to add a few more
>> As into their quality claims... Why stick with measly quadruple-A if you
>> can go to imaginary 17-A level of quality by just leaning on the
>> keyboard a little longer? It doesn't even cost anything.
>
>Jepp there is definitely more space... Arse/Ass also starts with A...
>All they need to do is to add some kind of smell strip to every order
>with a very distinctive odor de toilete...

I'm starting to think this marketing claim is working against Ubisoft
rather than for it. ;-)

Again, had the company offered up a product more worthy of the
designation, it might have played out differently. But you can't just
put out your usual tripe and then say, "This is better than anything
else!" and not get ridiculed for it.

Apparently the whole "quadruple-A" thing came out as a response to why
the game cost $70, rather than the more usual $60, too.

"Despite very much being billed as a live, ongoing game,
Skull and Bones is charging $70 up front, then will add
its microtransactions and battle passes and such on top of
that as time goes on. This prompted a question posed to
Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot about why they were doing that
instead of broadening the playerbase as a free-to-play
game. His response:

“You will see that Skull and Bones is a fully-fledged
game,” he said. “It’s a very big game, and we feel that
people will really see how vast and complete that game
is. It’s a really full, triple…quadruple-A game, that
will deliver in the long run.”

- Forbes website
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/02/10/skull-and-bones-is-a-70-game-because-its-quadruple-a-says-ubisoft/

(Which was then followed up with this witty response by the article's
author:

I am trying to understand how you say something is
“a vast and complete game” and in the next sentence say
it “will deliver in the long run.”

)

So more of an off-the-cuff comment rather than an intended marketing
ploy, although Ubisoft leaned heavily into the comment afterwards. Not
that makes any of it any better.

I don't dislike Ubisoft games; they're fine. They're fun. They
obviously show the tens of millions of dollars of effort poured into
them. But they remain the formulaic, safe games that so-called
'triple-A' publishers churn out by the dozen. Nothing I've seen about
"Skull & Bones" looks to be any different. But they're hardly worth
the premium Ubisoft wants to charge for them.

On 2/14/24 08:52, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 13:46:41 +0100, "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:
>
>> Am 14.02.24 um 13:44 schrieb Anssi Saari:
>>> Kinda reminds me of the funnily named game "AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!!
>>> for the Awesome". I think there's still space for Ubi to add a few more
>>> As into their quality claims... Why stick with measly quadruple-A if you
>>> can go to imaginary 17-A level of quality by just leaning on the
>>> keyboard a little longer? It doesn't even cost anything.
>>
>> Jepp there is definitely more space... Arse/Ass also starts with A...
>> All they need to do is to add some kind of smell strip to every order
>> with a very distinctive odor de toilete...
>
> I'm starting to think this marketing claim is working against Ubisoft
> rather than for it. ;-)
>
> Again, had the company offered up a product more worthy of the
> designation, it might have played out differently. But you can't just
> put out your usual tripe and then say, "This is better than anything
> else!" and not get ridiculed for it.
>
>
> Apparently the whole "quadruple-A" thing came out as a response to why
> the game cost $70, rather than the more usual $60, too.
>
> "Despite very much being billed as a live, ongoing game,
> Skull and Bones is charging $70 up front, then will add
> its microtransactions and battle passes and such on top of
> that as time goes on. This prompted a question posed to
> Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot about why they were doing that
> instead of broadening the playerbase as a free-to-play
> game. His response:
>
> “You will see that Skull and Bones is a fully-fledged
> game,” he said. “It’s a very big game, and we feel that
> people will really see how vast and complete that game
> is. It’s a really full, triple…quadruple-A game, that
> will deliver in the long run.”
>
> - Forbes website
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/02/10/skull-and-bones-is-a-70-game-because-its-quadruple-a-says-ubisoft/
>
> (Which was then followed up with this witty response by the article's
> author:
>
> I am trying to understand how you say something is
> “a vast and complete game” and in the next sentence say
> it “will deliver in the long run.”
>
> )
>
>
> So more of an off-the-cuff comment rather than an intended marketing
> ploy, although Ubisoft leaned heavily into the comment afterwards. Not
> that makes any of it any better.
>
>
> I don't dislike Ubisoft games; they're fine. They're fun. They
> obviously show the tens of millions of dollars of effort poured into
> them. But they remain the formulaic, safe games that so-called
> 'triple-A' publishers churn out by the dozen. Nothing I've seen about
> "Skull & Bones" looks to be any different. But they're hardly worth
> the premium Ubisoft wants to charge for them.

60$ is too much IMO.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2/14/2024 4:54 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
> On 2/14/24 08:52, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 13:46:41 +0100, "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 14.02.24 um 13:44 schrieb Anssi Saari:
>>>> Kinda reminds me of the funnily named game
>>>> "AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!!
>>>> for the Awesome". I think there's still space for Ubi to add a few more
>>>> As into their quality claims... Why stick with measly quadruple-A if
>>>> you
>>>> can go to imaginary 17-A level of quality by just leaning on the
>>>> keyboard a little longer? It doesn't even cost anything.
>>>
>>> Jepp there is definitely more space... Arse/Ass also starts with A...
>>> All they need to do is to add some kind of smell strip to every order
>>> with a very distinctive odor de toilete...
>>
>> I'm starting to think this marketing claim is working against Ubisoft
>> rather than for it. ;-)
>>
>> Again, had the company offered up a product more worthy of the
>> designation, it might have played out differently. But you can't just
>> put out your usual tripe and then say, "This is better than anything
>> else!" and not get ridiculed for it.
>>
>>
>> Apparently the whole "quadruple-A" thing came out as a response to why
>> the game cost $70, rather than the more usual $60, too.
>>
>>      "Despite very much being billed as a live, ongoing game,
>>      Skull and Bones is charging $70 up front, then will add
>>      its microtransactions and battle passes and such on top of
>>      that as time goes on. This prompted a question posed to
>>      Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot about why they were doing that
>>      instead of broadening the playerbase as a free-to-play
>>      game. His response:
>>
>>      “You will see that Skull and Bones is a fully-fledged
>>      game,” he said. “It’s a very big game, and we feel that
>>      people will really see how vast and complete that game
>>      is. It’s a really full, triple…quadruple-A game, that
>>      will deliver in the long run.”
>>
>> - Forbes website
>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/02/10/skull-and-bones-is-a-70-game-because-its-quadruple-a-says-ubisoft/
>>
>> (Which was then followed up with this witty response by the article's
>> author:
>>
>>      I am trying to understand how you say something is
>>      “a vast and complete game” and in the next sentence say
>>      it “will deliver in the long run.”
>>
>> )
>>
>>
>> So more of an off-the-cuff comment rather than an intended marketing
>> ploy, although Ubisoft leaned heavily into the comment afterwards. Not
>> that makes any of it any better.
>>
>>
>> I don't dislike Ubisoft games; they're fine. They're fun. They
>> obviously show the tens of millions of dollars of effort poured into
>> them. But they remain the formulaic, safe games that so-called
>> 'triple-A' publishers churn out by the dozen. Nothing I've seen about
>> "Skull & Bones" looks to be any different. But they're hardly worth
>> the premium Ubisoft wants to charge for them.
>
> 60$ is too much IMO.

I never buy things for that price. They are going to go down with the
price soon enough anyway. I don't need to buy the newest and fanciest
games like that.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 09:59:40 +0100, kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>I never buy things for that price. They are going to go down with the
>price soon enough anyway. I don't need to buy the newest and fanciest
>games like that.

Yeah, same here. I think the last game I paid full price for was
either Baldur's Gate 2 or System Shock 2.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 09:46:32 -0500, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 09:59:40 +0100, kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I never buy things for that price. They are going to go down with the
>>price soon enough anyway. I don't need to buy the newest and fanciest
>>games like that.
>
>Yeah, same here. I think the last game I paid full price for was
>either Baldur's Gate 2 or System Shock 2.

Feb 2 2016 here. That was the last time I payed full price for a
game.* And already by then I was backing away from that habit; I only
made an exception because I trusted the developer.

And, as it was, I was quite disappointed with my purchase because, on
release, the game was /not/ worth it. It was only after several more
years of development that the game started to shine, and - 8 years on
- I can easily say that I've got my money's worth... but at the time I
felt a bit ripped off with what I got for my money.

Still, even if ultimately the investment paid off, had I waited a
couple years I could have had mostly the same experience but for less
money. It's no coincidence that was the last game* I bought day-one
for full price. I'd finally learned my lesson.

These days, full-priced games (or worse, games which try to charge
more than the 'standard' price of $60USD) are an even harder sell.
There is just such a SURPLUS of free games that its hard to justify
buying ANYTHING anymore. And even when you do decide to pull out the
credit card, there's an equally large number of games on sale too. And
it's not like you don't know that the 'new hottness' game you're
lusting over isn't going to be half price in three months anyway.

Let's not even get into the huge BACKLOG of games everybody already
has as well.

I'd almost feel sorry for game publishers, seeing what they have to
compete against. Almost.

* but before I get too high and mighty, this new attitude only applies
to full games. I'm still quite stupid when it comes to DLC and
expansions. ;-)

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 09:46:32 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Mike
S. wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 09:59:40 +0100, kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I never buy things for that price. They are going to go down with the
>>price soon enough anyway. I don't need to buy the newest and fanciest
>>games like that.
>
>Yeah, same here. I think the last game I paid full price for was
>either Baldur's Gate 2 or System Shock 2.

I pay full price when I want to tell the developer I support what they're
doing.

So full price on BG3. Full price on D:OS. Sale price on Overload, but
bought again at full price, because I really want to support 6DoF games.
Full price on anything CDPR releases that I'm interested in, because I
want to support no-DRM publication. I paid full price for Witcher 2 and
Cyberpunk upon release. Probably will grab Phantom Liberty on sale if I
want more.

Finally, if someone is actually maintaining a game past a year after
release and I like their game, I'm giving them more cash. I think I did
that for Fallout 4: Season Pass, but I'm not sure if it was a year after.
Also Civ V & VI add-ons. If they support a game, I pay for that.

I think I'm going to find a way to buy Talos 2 a second time, because
they gave me an exceptional amount of play time. Still going to check out
alternate endings soon, but almost 60 hours of play time.

My top 10 playtime games are 1. Civ V, 2. Fallout 4, 3. BG3, 4.
Torchlight, 5. Talos 1, 6. Civ VI, 7. Picross Pixel Puzzle, 8. Talos 2,
9. Fallout 3, and 10. FO:NV.

Each of those I got at least 40 hours out of. The top 3, over 100 hours.
I would happily send full-price money for sequels and DLC.

Otherwise, the publishers can suck it. The Number is ruthless, and
sometimes it turns a baleful eye upon pure shovelware and says, "Not even
for free! The Number has spoken!"

Does anyone else here spend their money strategically like that?

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On 15/02/2024 21:27, Zaghadka wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 09:46:32 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Mike
> S. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 09:59:40 +0100, kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I never buy things for that price. They are going to go down with the
>>> price soon enough anyway. I don't need to buy the newest and fanciest
>>> games like that.
>>
>> Yeah, same here. I think the last game I paid full price for was
>> either Baldur's Gate 2 or System Shock 2.
>
> I pay full price when I want to tell the developer I support what they're
> doing.
>
> So full price on BG3. Full price on D:OS. Sale price on Overload, but
> bought again at full price, because I really want to support 6DoF games.
> Full price on anything CDPR releases that I'm interested in, because I
> want to support no-DRM publication. I paid full price for Witcher 2 and
> Cyberpunk upon release. Probably will grab Phantom Liberty on sale if I
> want more.
>

I do buy some games at full price, or very near to it, so in the last
year I've bought Talos Principle 2 and Shadow Gambit~: The Cursed Crew.
Other ones I've bought at full price but that price is dirt cheap anyway.

Generally though my buying habits are now a mixture of games I really
want, cheap indie titles and those on a steep discount that I wouldn't
mind playing.

> Finally, if someone is actually maintaining a game past a year after
> release and I like their game, I'm giving them more cash. I think I did
> that for Fallout 4: Season Pass, but I'm not sure if it was a year after.
> Also Civ V & VI add-ons. If they support a game, I pay for that.
>
> I think I'm going to find a way to buy Talos 2 a second time, because
> they gave me an exceptional amount of play time. Still going to check out
> alternate endings soon, but almost 60 hours of play time.
>
> My top 10 playtime games are 1. Civ V, 2. Fallout 4, 3. BG3, 4.
> Torchlight, 5. Talos 1, 6. Civ VI, 7. Picross Pixel Puzzle, 8. Talos 2,
> 9. Fallout 3, and 10. FO:NV.
>
> Each of those I got at least 40 hours out of. The top 3, over 100 hours.
> I would happily send full-price money for sequels and DLC.
>

I can't say I know exact playtimes but some highlights are BG:1, Combat
Mission, Close Combat, Civ II/III, FO:3/NV, Silent Hunter 3, Torchlight,
Titan Quest, HL:2 + DLC's and Talos Principle 1. There's probably a few
I've also forgotten about.

> Otherwise, the publishers can suck it. The Number is ruthless, and
> sometimes it turns a baleful eye upon pure shovelware and says, "Not even
> for free! The Number has spoken!"
>
> Does anyone else here spend their money strategically like that?
>

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:27:34 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Does anyone else here spend their money strategically like that?

I don't because I just wonder when a company like Larian Studios, the
current PC gaming darling, becomes tomorrow's modern Blizzard.
Blizzard was once where Larian is today. It made no difference that I
paid full price for their games back in the day.

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 09:49:17 -0500, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:27:34 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Does anyone else here spend their money strategically like that?
>
>I don't because I just wonder when a company like Larian Studios, the
>current PC gaming darling, becomes tomorrow's modern Blizzard.
>Blizzard was once where Larian is today. It made no difference that I
>paid full price for their games back in the day.

Although I agree with the idea of 'strategic spending' to support
developers I like /in concept/, I don't do it myself. Largely because
- as MikeS pointed out - this sort of loyalty isn't really rewarded.
Companies don't CARE about their customers. Larian today might make
"Baldurs Gate 3" but - should the finances make sense to them -
tomorrow might be working on a shoddy, MTX-filled movie game. Or just
get purchased by some larger corporation.

Instead, I simply don't buy games I find objectionable, or from
companies that I find too egregiously scummy to do business with.
Activision/Blizzard is the most obvious example, but Capcom's making a
run for that title (it says something about the industry where
Electronic Arts only ranks as third worst ;-)

Am 14.02.24 um 15:52 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
> But they remain the formulaic, safe games that so-called
> 'triple-A' publishers churn out by the dozen

I would call this, design by spreadsheet!

On 2/18/24 05:42, Werner P. wrote:
> Am 14.02.24 um 15:52 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
>> But they remain the formulaic, safe games that so-called
>> 'triple-A' publishers churn out by the dozen
>
> I would call this, design by spreadsheet!

I'm stealing this.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Am 18.02.24 um 23:01 schrieb candycanearter07:
> On 2/18/24 05:42, Werner P. wrote:
>> Am 14.02.24 um 15:52 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
>>> But they remain the formulaic, safe games that so-called
>>> 'triple-A' publishers churn out by the dozen
>>
>> I would call this, design by spreadsheet!
>
> I'm stealing this.

Feel free!

On 2/18/2024 11:34 PM, Werner P. wrote:
> Am 18.02.24 um 23:01 schrieb candycanearter07:
>> On 2/18/24 05:42, Werner P. wrote:
>>> Am 14.02.24 um 15:52 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
>>>> But they remain the formulaic, safe games that so-called
>>>> 'triple-A' publishers churn out by the dozen
>>>
>>> I would call this, design by spreadsheet!
>>
>> I'm stealing this.
>
> Feel free!
>
The Number takes many forms.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 2/19/24 11:13, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 2/18/2024 11:34 PM, Werner P. wrote:
>> Am 18.02.24 um 23:01 schrieb candycanearter07:
>>> On 2/18/24 05:42, Werner P. wrote:
>>>> Am 14.02.24 um 15:52 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
>>>>> But they remain the formulaic, safe games that so-called
>>>>> 'triple-A' publishers churn out by the dozen
>>>>
>>>> I would call this, design by spreadsheet!
>>>
>>> I'm stealing this.
>>
>> Feel free!
>>
> The Number takes many forms.

I forget half the quotes I steal lol
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom