So, Valve is introducing "Steam Families", which seems to be an
updated version of Steam's previous "Family Sharing" plan.* In
essence, it allows gamers to share their library of games with other
family members, rather than requiring everybody to have their own copy
of the game (although, if more than one person wants to play the same
game at the same time, you'll still need multiple copies).

The earlier "Family Sharing" feature was similar, except it was more
restricted; for instance, with the older version, if I shared my
library with Donna, she could play my games... unless I was already
playing something. It didn't matter if she wanted to play "Half Life"
and I was playing "Call of Duty"; only one game per library could be
played at a time. Weirdly, even if Donna and I both owned "Half Life",
if we were sharing libraries, only one person could play "Half Life"
at the same time. The new "Steam Families" will do away with these
limitation.

Other features include an ability to restrict which games you make
accessible (good if you don't want your kids to access your M-rated
titles). Also, kids can request that the 'host' library can purchase
specific games; a better alternative than giving the kids your credit
card to buy for their own accounts.

Still, as good as all this may be, it doesn't solve the one issue I
really have with the whole thing, and that is that each person (or
computer) needs to have a separate Steam account. You can't just buy
little Donnie his own PC, log-on to Steam with your account, and let
him use that.

(Well, you can, but you yourself won't be able to play your games
until lil' Donnie stops playing). And the idea of having to create
accounts for each kid seems sort of creepy. There is enough
data-harvesting done on kids already.

Just let me use the same account on multiple computers, and lock it so
only one instance of each game can be used at the same time. That's
what I really want, Valve. Maybe give parental controls to lock down
access to certain Steam features per computer. It can all be done
without requiring kids to sign away their privacy. Is that really too
much to ask?

* read announcement here:
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/593110/view/4149575031735702628

On 3/20/2024 11:06 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> So, Valve is introducing "Steam Families", which seems to be an
> updated version of Steam's previous "Family Sharing" plan.* In
> essence, it allows gamers to share their library of games with other
> family members, rather than requiring everybody to have their own copy
> of the game (although, if more than one person wants to play the same
> game at the same time, you'll still need multiple copies).
>
> The earlier "Family Sharing" feature was similar, except it was more
> restricted; for instance, with the older version, if I shared my
> library with Donna, she could play my games... unless I was already
> playing something. It didn't matter if she wanted to play "Half Life"
> and I was playing "Call of Duty"; only one game per library could be
> played at a time. Weirdly, even if Donna and I both owned "Half Life",
> if we were sharing libraries, only one person could play "Half Life"
> at the same time. The new "Steam Families" will do away with these
> limitation.
>
> Other features include an ability to restrict which games you make
> accessible (good if you don't want your kids to access your M-rated
> titles). Also, kids can request that the 'host' library can purchase
> specific games; a better alternative than giving the kids your credit
> card to buy for their own accounts.
>
> Still, as good as all this may be, it doesn't solve the one issue I
> really have with the whole thing, and that is that each person (or
> computer) needs to have a separate Steam account. You can't just buy
> little Donnie his own PC, log-on to Steam with your account, and let
> him use that.
>
> (Well, you can, but you yourself won't be able to play your games
> until lil' Donnie stops playing).

That's what I ended up doing for my son, He doesn't have much he wants
to play on Steam, and as long as both of us weren't playing a game
online I could put his or mine offline and play Whater we wanted at the
same time. If I was playing something that was online, I'd either go
offline if that was viable or play something on another platform, like
GOG or check out the freebies on Epic and Amazon. He wanted to try
fallout 4 and fortunately that was free on Epic so I set him up on that.

I also always check GOG first when buying games before Steam as they
don't have that issue for the whole platform, as long as playing doesn't
require logging into something specific to the game. I'll happily pay a
few dollars more for that, especially if my son is interested in a
particular game.

The only thing I really don't like is very few games are set up for
local multiplayer on PC and even then those are usually console ports.
There's games I would try to co-op with him, but I have to buy another
copy and have another account, which previously would mean he'd have to
keep logging in and out of that account and my account with my help (I
don't give him my password) depending on which game he wanted to play.

At least this eliminates that issue if I buy another copy, I just don't
think that's fair considering all the console co-op games.

Heck some console games have split screen co-op but their PC ports don't
(I'm especially looking at you EDF World Brothers! which I think my
daughter would've liked to play with me.)

> And the idea of having to create
> accounts for each kid seems sort of creepy. There is enough
> data-harvesting done on kids already.

I had to do that with Roblox for them.

>
> Just let me use the same account on multiple computers, and lock it so
> only one instance of each game can be used at the same time. That's
> what I really want, Valve. Maybe give parental controls to lock down
> access to certain Steam features per computer. It can all be done
> without requiring kids to sign away their privacy. Is that really too
> much to ask?

This seems like a better solution as they can share all the games I've
bought, AND I can buy an extra copy for them if they want to co-op, and
I don't have to fiddle with offline mode. Still not my favorite
solution, which is what GOG does, where I don't have to worry about any
of that.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 20/03/2024 18:06, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> Still, as good as all this may be, it doesn't solve the one issue I
> really have with the whole thing, and that is that each person (or
> computer) needs to have a separate Steam account. You can't just buy
> little Donnie his own PC, log-on to Steam with your account, and let
> him use that.
>
> (Well, you can, but you yourself won't be able to play your games
> until lil' Donnie stops playing). And the idea of having to create
> accounts for each kid seems sort of creepy. There is enough
> data-harvesting done on kids already.
>
> Just let me use the same account on multiple computers, and lock it so
> only one instance of each game can be used at the same time. That's
> what I really want, Valve. Maybe give parental controls to lock down
> access to certain Steam features per computer. It can all be done
> without requiring kids to sign away their privacy. Is that really too
> much to ask?
>

I'm not sure it makes much difference once you introduce parental
controls as even if you have a single Steam account you still going to
need to be able to set up sub-accounts each with their own restrictions
and probably e-mail addresses unless you want little Timmy's wishlist
items on sale all the time. I'd also add something I think is more
important, once children get to a certain age they want their own
accounts and the privacy it gives them for what they do on Steam outside
of just playing games.

On 3/21/2024 10:39 AM, JAB wrote:
> On 20/03/2024 18:06, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> Still, as good as all this may be, it doesn't solve the one issue I
>> really have with the whole thing, and that is that each person (or
>> computer) needs to have a separate Steam account. You can't just buy
>> little Donnie his own PC, log-on to Steam with your account, and let
>> him use that.
>>
>> (Well, you can, but you yourself won't be able to play your games
>> until lil' Donnie stops playing). And the idea of having to create
>> accounts for each kid seems sort of creepy. There is enough
>> data-harvesting done on kids already.
>>
>> Just let me use the same account on multiple computers, and lock it so
>> only one instance of each game can be used at the same time. That's
>> what I really want, Valve. Maybe give parental controls to lock down
>> access to certain Steam features per computer. It can all be done
>> without requiring kids to sign away their privacy. Is that really too
>> much to ask?
>>
>
> I'm not sure it makes much difference once you introduce parental
> controls as even if you have a single Steam account you still going to
> need to be able to set up sub-accounts each with their own restrictions
> and probably e-mail addresses unless you want little Timmy's wishlist
> items on sale all the time. I'd also add something I think is more
> important, once children get to a certain age they want their own
> accounts and the privacy it gives them for what they do on Steam outside
> of just playing games.

One thing I also noticed was that if you just let the kid play on your
account the playtimes on the same account are of course counted to you
instead of the player on a second account. I guess people don't mind
that much, but I order my games by playtime, and felt really annoyed
that LEGO Jurassic World showed up as one of the games I have played the
longest.

On 21/03/2024 10:24, kyonshi wrote:
> One thing I also noticed was that if you just let the kid play on your
> account the playtimes on the same account are of course counted to you
> instead of the player on a second account. I guess people don't mind
> that much, but I order my games by playtime, and felt really annoyed
> that LEGO Jurassic World showed up as one of the games I have played the
> longest.

I find the playtime stat. basically useless as I tend to play a game,
leave it open and then comeback to it later. I also noticed that there
are games like Portal that I've played through I think three times and
the total playtime is 1 min.

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:36:07 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>On 21/03/2024 10:24, kyonshi wrote:

>I find the playtime stat. basically useless as I tend to play a game,
>leave it open and then comeback to it later. I also noticed that there
>are games like Portal that I've played through I think three times and
>the total playtime is 1 min.

I've seen this too. Oddly, it seems to happen most with Valve's own
games. According to Steam, I've only played Portal for 85 minutes,
despite finishing it multiple times (I know it's a short game, but
c'mon!). Similarly, Steam says I've only logged 26 hours on "Half Life
2". But other games are affected too; "Batman: Arkham Asylum" (two
complete playthroughs) has only a 40 minute play-time.

The 'time-played' stat is completely unreliable in my experience. It
doesn't always happen (my "Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim" remains fixed at
654hours, and has for years) but it happens often enough that I
wouldn't rely on it for anything except basic amusement purposes.

On 3/21/2024 2:21 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:36:07 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 10:24, kyonshi wrote:
>
>> I find the playtime stat. basically useless as I tend to play a game,
>> leave it open and then comeback to it later. I also noticed that there
>> are games like Portal that I've played through I think three times and
>> the total playtime is 1 min.
>
> I've seen this too. Oddly, it seems to happen most with Valve's own
> games. According to Steam, I've only played Portal for 85 minutes,
> despite finishing it multiple times (I know it's a short game, but
> c'mon!). Similarly, Steam says I've only logged 26 hours on "Half Life
> 2". But other games are affected too; "Batman: Arkham Asylum" (two
> complete playthroughs) has only a 40 minute play-time.
>
> The 'time-played' stat is completely unreliable in my experience. It
> doesn't always happen (my "Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim" remains fixed at
> 654hours, and has for years) but it happens often enough that I
> wouldn't rely on it for anything except basic amusement purposes.
>
>

It for sure doesn't log anything if Steam doesn't see an online
connection. And there have been games that I tried once for five minutes
and then found running in the background two days later (putting Sonic 4
into my list of most-played games).
Still, I like looking at a list of the games I spent most time with. I
don't need completely accurate accounting as long as it shows me what
games I spent the most time with.

On 3/21/2024 3:24 AM, kyonshi wrote:
> On 3/21/2024 10:39 AM, JAB wrote:
>> On 20/03/2024 18:06, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> Still, as good as all this may be, it doesn't solve the one issue I
>>> really have with the whole thing, and that is that each person (or
>>> computer) needs to have a separate Steam account. You can't just buy
>>> little Donnie his own PC, log-on to Steam with your account, and let
>>> him use that.
>>>
>>> (Well, you can, but you yourself won't be able to play your games
>>> until lil' Donnie stops playing). And the idea of having to create
>>> accounts for each kid seems sort of creepy. There is enough
>>> data-harvesting done on kids already.
>>>
>>> Just let me use the same account on multiple computers, and lock it so
>>> only one instance of each game can be used at the same time. That's
>>> what I really want, Valve. Maybe give parental controls to lock down
>>> access to certain Steam features per computer. It can all be done
>>> without requiring kids to sign away their privacy. Is that really too
>>> much to ask?
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure it makes much difference once you introduce parental
>> controls as even if you have a single Steam account you still going to
>> need to be able to set up sub-accounts each with their own
>> restrictions and probably e-mail addresses unless you want little
>> Timmy's wishlist items on sale all the time. I'd also add something I
>> think is more important, once children get to a certain age they want
>> their own accounts and the privacy it gives them for what they do on
>> Steam outside of just playing games.
>
> One thing I also noticed was that if you just let the kid play on your
> account the playtimes on the same account are of course counted to you
> instead of the player on a second account. I guess people don't mind
> that much, but I order my games by playtime, and felt really annoyed
> that LEGO Jurassic World showed up as one of the games I have played the
> longest.

Lol, yeah I do that too. I've got like 20 games before the first of his
games shows up, Lego Batman, but I at least played that with my son on
my computer before he had his own, so still counts. There's a few other
Lego games lower that I barely played with him though.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 13:50 this Thursday (GMT):
> On 3/21/2024 2:21 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:36:07 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>> On 21/03/2024 10:24, kyonshi wrote:
>>
>>> I find the playtime stat. basically useless as I tend to play a game,
>>> leave it open and then comeback to it later. I also noticed that there
>>> are games like Portal that I've played through I think three times and
>>> the total playtime is 1 min.
>>
>> I've seen this too. Oddly, it seems to happen most with Valve's own
>> games. According to Steam, I've only played Portal for 85 minutes,
>> despite finishing it multiple times (I know it's a short game, but
>> c'mon!). Similarly, Steam says I've only logged 26 hours on "Half Life
>> 2". But other games are affected too; "Batman: Arkham Asylum" (two
>> complete playthroughs) has only a 40 minute play-time.
>>
>> The 'time-played' stat is completely unreliable in my experience. It
>> doesn't always happen (my "Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim" remains fixed at
>> 654hours, and has for years) but it happens often enough that I
>> wouldn't rely on it for anything except basic amusement purposes.
>>
>>
>
> It for sure doesn't log anything if Steam doesn't see an online
> connection. And there have been games that I tried once for five minutes
> and then found running in the background two days later (putting Sonic 4
> into my list of most-played games).
> Still, I like looking at a list of the games I spent most time with. I
> don't need completely accurate accounting as long as it shows me what
> games I spent the most time with.

/Why/ did you buy Sonic 4??

(i cant judge too hard i did too ^^)
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 3/22/2024 4:50 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
> kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 13:50 this Thursday (GMT):
>> On 3/21/2024 2:21 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:36:07 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>>> On 21/03/2024 10:24, kyonshi wrote:
>>>
>>>> I find the playtime stat. basically useless as I tend to play a game,
>>>> leave it open and then comeback to it later. I also noticed that there
>>>> are games like Portal that I've played through I think three times and
>>>> the total playtime is 1 min.
>>>
>>> I've seen this too. Oddly, it seems to happen most with Valve's own
>>> games. According to Steam, I've only played Portal for 85 minutes,
>>> despite finishing it multiple times (I know it's a short game, but
>>> c'mon!). Similarly, Steam says I've only logged 26 hours on "Half Life
>>> 2". But other games are affected too; "Batman: Arkham Asylum" (two
>>> complete playthroughs) has only a 40 minute play-time.
>>>
>>> The 'time-played' stat is completely unreliable in my experience. It
>>> doesn't always happen (my "Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim" remains fixed at
>>> 654hours, and has for years) but it happens often enough that I
>>> wouldn't rely on it for anything except basic amusement purposes.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It for sure doesn't log anything if Steam doesn't see an online
>> connection. And there have been games that I tried once for five minutes
>> and then found running in the background two days later (putting Sonic 4
>> into my list of most-played games).
>> Still, I like looking at a list of the games I spent most time with. I
>> don't need completely accurate accounting as long as it shows me what
>> games I spent the most time with.
>
>
> /Why/ did you buy Sonic 4??
>
> (i cant judge too hard i did too ^^)

it was in a bundle on Humble, together with lots of other Sonic games.
And I got enough playtime out of the Racing games and some of the other
platformers to make up for Sonic 4.

kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 17:54 this Friday (GMT):
> On 3/22/2024 4:50 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 13:50 this Thursday (GMT):
>>> On 3/21/2024 2:21 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:36:07 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 21/03/2024 10:24, kyonshi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I find the playtime stat. basically useless as I tend to play a game,
>>>>> leave it open and then comeback to it later. I also noticed that there
>>>>> are games like Portal that I've played through I think three times and
>>>>> the total playtime is 1 min.
>>>>
>>>> I've seen this too. Oddly, it seems to happen most with Valve's own
>>>> games. According to Steam, I've only played Portal for 85 minutes,
>>>> despite finishing it multiple times (I know it's a short game, but
>>>> c'mon!). Similarly, Steam says I've only logged 26 hours on "Half Life
>>>> 2". But other games are affected too; "Batman: Arkham Asylum" (two
>>>> complete playthroughs) has only a 40 minute play-time.
>>>>
>>>> The 'time-played' stat is completely unreliable in my experience. It
>>>> doesn't always happen (my "Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim" remains fixed at
>>>> 654hours, and has for years) but it happens often enough that I
>>>> wouldn't rely on it for anything except basic amusement purposes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It for sure doesn't log anything if Steam doesn't see an online
>>> connection. And there have been games that I tried once for five minutes
>>> and then found running in the background two days later (putting Sonic 4
>>> into my list of most-played games).
>>> Still, I like looking at a list of the games I spent most time with. I
>>> don't need completely accurate accounting as long as it shows me what
>>> games I spent the most time with.
>>
>>
>> /Why/ did you buy Sonic 4??
>>
>> (i cant judge too hard i did too ^^)
>
> it was in a bundle on Humble, together with lots of other Sonic games.
> And I got enough playtime out of the Racing games and some of the other
> platformers to make up for Sonic 4.

Seems like a pretty good deal, even if S4 is negative value.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 3/22/2024 7:30 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
> kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 17:54 this Friday (GMT):
>> On 3/22/2024 4:50 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 13:50 this Thursday (GMT):
>>>> On 3/21/2024 2:21 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:36:07 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/03/2024 10:24, kyonshi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I find the playtime stat. basically useless as I tend to play a game,
>>>>>> leave it open and then comeback to it later. I also noticed that there
>>>>>> are games like Portal that I've played through I think three times and
>>>>>> the total playtime is 1 min.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen this too. Oddly, it seems to happen most with Valve's own
>>>>> games. According to Steam, I've only played Portal for 85 minutes,
>>>>> despite finishing it multiple times (I know it's a short game, but
>>>>> c'mon!). Similarly, Steam says I've only logged 26 hours on "Half Life
>>>>> 2". But other games are affected too; "Batman: Arkham Asylum" (two
>>>>> complete playthroughs) has only a 40 minute play-time.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 'time-played' stat is completely unreliable in my experience. It
>>>>> doesn't always happen (my "Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim" remains fixed at
>>>>> 654hours, and has for years) but it happens often enough that I
>>>>> wouldn't rely on it for anything except basic amusement purposes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It for sure doesn't log anything if Steam doesn't see an online
>>>> connection. And there have been games that I tried once for five minutes
>>>> and then found running in the background two days later (putting Sonic 4
>>>> into my list of most-played games).
>>>> Still, I like looking at a list of the games I spent most time with. I
>>>> don't need completely accurate accounting as long as it shows me what
>>>> games I spent the most time with.
>>>
>>>
>>> /Why/ did you buy Sonic 4??
>>>
>>> (i cant judge too hard i did too ^^)
>>
>> it was in a bundle on Humble, together with lots of other Sonic games.
>> And I got enough playtime out of the Racing games and some of the other
>> platformers to make up for Sonic 4.
>
>
> Seems like a pretty good deal, even if S4 is negative value.

I mean, you would expect Sonic 4 to be at least decent, considering 1-3,
but noooooo. it's a complete stinker.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:30:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 17:54 this Friday (GMT):
>> On 3/22/2024 4:50 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 13:50 this Thursday (GMT):

>>>
>>> /Why/ did you buy Sonic 4??

>>> (i cant judge too hard i did too ^^)

>> it was in a bundle on Humble, together with lots of other Sonic games.
>> And I got enough playtime out of the Racing games and some of the other
>> platformers to make up for Sonic 4.

>Seems like a pretty good deal, even if S4 is negative value.

Now I'm feeling like I am missing out.

I own Sonic the Hedgehog 1, 2, and 3 (and Sonic R, and Sonic Mania,
and Sonic Riders, and Sonic Adventure, and.. and... and... ) but I
don't own Sonic the Hedgehog 4!

You are all making me want to buy Sonic the Hedgehog 4!

Please don't make me buy Sonic the Hedgehog 4!

On 3/23/2024 6:42 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:30:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
> <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>> kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 17:54 this Friday (GMT):
>>> On 3/22/2024 4:50 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>> kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 13:50 this Thursday (GMT):
>
>>>>
>>>> /Why/ did you buy Sonic 4??
>
>>>> (i cant judge too hard i did too ^^)
>
>>> it was in a bundle on Humble, together with lots of other Sonic games.
>>> And I got enough playtime out of the Racing games and some of the other
>>> platformers to make up for Sonic 4.
>
>> Seems like a pretty good deal, even if S4 is negative value.
>
>
> Now I'm feeling like I am missing out.
>
> I own Sonic the Hedgehog 1, 2, and 3 (and Sonic R, and Sonic Mania,
> and Sonic Riders, and Sonic Adventure, and.. and... and... ) but I
> don't own Sonic the Hedgehog 4!
>
> You are all making me want to buy Sonic the Hedgehog 4!
>
>
> Please don't make me buy Sonic the Hedgehog 4!
>
The Number.

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

On 3/23/2024 4:36 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 3/23/2024 6:42 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:30:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
>> <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>> kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 17:54 this Friday (GMT):
>>>> On 3/22/2024 4:50 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>> kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 13:50 this Thursday (GMT):
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> /Why/ did you buy Sonic 4??
>>
>>>>> (i cant judge too hard i did too ^^)
>>
>>>> it was in a bundle on Humble, together with lots of other Sonic games.
>>>> And I got enough playtime out of the Racing games and some of the other
>>>> platformers to make up for Sonic 4.
>>
>>> Seems like a pretty good deal, even if S4 is negative value.
>>
>>
>> Now I'm feeling like I am missing out.
>>
>> I own Sonic the Hedgehog 1, 2, and 3 (and Sonic R, and Sonic Mania,
>> and Sonic Riders, and Sonic Adventure, and.. and... and... ) but I
>> don't own Sonic the Hedgehog 4!
>>
>> You are all making me want to buy Sonic the Hedgehog 4!
>>
>>
>> Please don't make me buy Sonic the Hedgehog 4!
>>
> The Number.
>

Yes, but Sonic 4.

Also the game is a two-parter. Always a stupid idea.

Don't buy Sonic 4.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 13:42 this Saturday (GMT):
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:30:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 17:54 this Friday (GMT):
>>> On 3/22/2024 4:50 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>> kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 13:50 this Thursday (GMT):
>
>>>>
>>>> /Why/ did you buy Sonic 4??
>
>>>> (i cant judge too hard i did too ^^)
>
>>> it was in a bundle on Humble, together with lots of other Sonic games.
>>> And I got enough playtime out of the Racing games and some of the other
>>> platformers to make up for Sonic 4.
>
>>Seems like a pretty good deal, even if S4 is negative value.
>
>
> Now I'm feeling like I am missing out.
>
> I own Sonic the Hedgehog 1, 2, and 3 (and Sonic R, and Sonic Mania,
> and Sonic Riders, and Sonic Adventure, and.. and... and... ) but I
> don't own Sonic the Hedgehog 4!
>
> You are all making me want to buy Sonic the Hedgehog 4!
>
>
> Please don't make me buy Sonic the Hedgehog 4!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Don't. It is very very very bad.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 13:00 this Saturday (GMT):
> On 3/22/2024 7:30 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 17:54 this Friday (GMT):
>>> On 3/22/2024 4:50 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>> kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 13:50 this Thursday (GMT):
>>>>> On 3/21/2024 2:21 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:36:07 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/03/2024 10:24, kyonshi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I find the playtime stat. basically useless as I tend to play a game,
>>>>>>> leave it open and then comeback to it later. I also noticed that there
>>>>>>> are games like Portal that I've played through I think three times and
>>>>>>> the total playtime is 1 min.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've seen this too. Oddly, it seems to happen most with Valve's own
>>>>>> games. According to Steam, I've only played Portal for 85 minutes,
>>>>>> despite finishing it multiple times (I know it's a short game, but
>>>>>> c'mon!). Similarly, Steam says I've only logged 26 hours on "Half Life
>>>>>> 2". But other games are affected too; "Batman: Arkham Asylum" (two
>>>>>> complete playthroughs) has only a 40 minute play-time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 'time-played' stat is completely unreliable in my experience. It
>>>>>> doesn't always happen (my "Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim" remains fixed at
>>>>>> 654hours, and has for years) but it happens often enough that I
>>>>>> wouldn't rely on it for anything except basic amusement purposes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It for sure doesn't log anything if Steam doesn't see an online
>>>>> connection. And there have been games that I tried once for five minutes
>>>>> and then found running in the background two days later (putting Sonic 4
>>>>> into my list of most-played games).
>>>>> Still, I like looking at a list of the games I spent most time with. I
>>>>> don't need completely accurate accounting as long as it shows me what
>>>>> games I spent the most time with.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /Why/ did you buy Sonic 4??
>>>>
>>>> (i cant judge too hard i did too ^^)
>>>
>>> it was in a bundle on Humble, together with lots of other Sonic games.
>>> And I got enough playtime out of the Racing games and some of the other
>>> platformers to make up for Sonic 4.
>>
>>
>> Seems like a pretty good deal, even if S4 is negative value.
>
> I mean, you would expect Sonic 4 to be at least decent, considering 1-3,
> but noooooo. it's a complete stinker.

Marketing, baby! At least we have a true spiritual successor in Mania.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 3/24/2024 9:00 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 13:42 this Saturday (GMT):
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:30:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
>> <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>> kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 17:54 this Friday (GMT):
>>>> On 3/22/2024 4:50 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>> kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 13:50 this Thursday (GMT):
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> /Why/ did you buy Sonic 4??
>>
>>>>> (i cant judge too hard i did too ^^)
>>
>>>> it was in a bundle on Humble, together with lots of other Sonic games.
>>>> And I got enough playtime out of the Racing games and some of the other
>>>> platformers to make up for Sonic 4.
>>
>>> Seems like a pretty good deal, even if S4 is negative value.
>>
>>
>> Now I'm feeling like I am missing out.
>>
>> I own Sonic the Hedgehog 1, 2, and 3 (and Sonic R, and Sonic Mania,
>> and Sonic Riders, and Sonic Adventure, and.. and... and... ) but I
>> don't own Sonic the Hedgehog 4!
>>
>> You are all making me want to buy Sonic the Hedgehog 4!
>>
>>
>> Please don't make me buy Sonic the Hedgehog 4!
>
> Don't. It is very very very bad.

THE SACRED NUMBER!!!!

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

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:29:15 +0100, kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/23/2024 4:36 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 3/23/2024 6:42 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>>> Please don't make me buy Sonic the Hedgehog 4!
>>>
>> The Number.
>>
>
>Yes, but Sonic 4.
>
>Also the game is a two-parter. Always a stupid idea.
>
>Don't buy Sonic 4.

Technically, I already did, back when the game was new, albeit on iOS
and not PC.

Honestly, I don't remember it being that bad on the iPhone, but
a) I was playing with touch-screen controls, and that
already makes the experience worse, and
b) It's not a genre of game I am particularly endeared too,
so I only played it for a short time, and I am not expert
enough to discern the game's weaknesses

So to me, it looked like yet-another-mascot-platformer that I had no
chance of mastering thanks to awful controls (a problem of the
platform, not the game). I stuck with it for a level or two, said,
"Yup, that's Sonic as I remember it," and moved on.

Honestly, the main reason I've never purchased it for PC was its
episodic nature. I just didn't feel like paying twice for a game I
knew wasn't going to get much attention (quite possibly, the second
episode would never get touched). Especially since the episodic nature
of the game felt so completely unnecessary and penny-pinching. But had
the whole thing been packaged together as a single sale, it's far more
likely I would have acquired it for PC years ago.

Still, I look at my library and see a "Sonic 4" shaped hole there, and
I don't deny the 'completionist'* part of my personality is
whispering, "G'won, buy it!".

* a polite term for 'hoarder' ;-)

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote at 17:07 this Sunday (GMT):
> On 3/24/2024 9:00 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 13:42 this Saturday (GMT):
>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:30:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
>>> <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>>> kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 17:54 this Friday (GMT):
>>>>> On 3/22/2024 4:50 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>> kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 13:50 this Thursday (GMT):
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Why/ did you buy Sonic 4??
>>>
>>>>>> (i cant judge too hard i did too ^^)
>>>
>>>>> it was in a bundle on Humble, together with lots of other Sonic games.
>>>>> And I got enough playtime out of the Racing games and some of the other
>>>>> platformers to make up for Sonic 4.
>>>
>>>> Seems like a pretty good deal, even if S4 is negative value.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now I'm feeling like I am missing out.
>>>
>>> I own Sonic the Hedgehog 1, 2, and 3 (and Sonic R, and Sonic Mania,
>>> and Sonic Riders, and Sonic Adventure, and.. and... and... ) but I
>>> don't own Sonic the Hedgehog 4!
>>>
>>> You are all making me want to buy Sonic the Hedgehog 4!
>>>
>>>
>>> Please don't make me buy Sonic the Hedgehog 4!
>>
>> Don't. It is very very very bad.
>
> THE SACRED NUMBER!!!!

Save yourself! It's not worth it!!
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 17:34 this Sunday (GMT):
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:29:15 +0100, kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 3/23/2024 4:36 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 3/23/2024 6:42 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>>>> Please don't make me buy Sonic the Hedgehog 4!
>>>>
>>> The Number.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, but Sonic 4.
>>
>>Also the game is a two-parter. Always a stupid idea.
>>
>>Don't buy Sonic 4.
>
> Technically, I already did, back when the game was new, albeit on iOS
> and not PC.

Huh, I thought it was free on mobile.

> Honestly, I don't remember it being that bad on the iPhone, but
> a) I was playing with touch-screen controls, and that
> already makes the experience worse, and
> b) It's not a genre of game I am particularly endeared too,
> so I only played it for a short time, and I am not expert
> enough to discern the game's weaknesses
>
> So to me, it looked like yet-another-mascot-platformer that I had no
> chance of mastering thanks to awful controls (a problem of the
> platform, not the game). I stuck with it for a level or two, said,
> "Yup, that's Sonic as I remember it," and moved on.
>
> Honestly, the main reason I've never purchased it for PC was its
> episodic nature. I just didn't feel like paying twice for a game I
> knew wasn't going to get much attention (quite possibly, the second
> episode would never get touched). Especially since the episodic nature
> of the game felt so completely unnecessary and penny-pinching. But had
> the whole thing been packaged together as a single sale, it's far more
> likely I would have acquired it for PC years ago.
>
> Still, I look at my library and see a "Sonic 4" shaped hole there, and
> I don't deny the 'completionist'* part of my personality is
> whispering, "G'won, buy it!".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * a polite term for 'hoarder' ;-)
>
>

--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:50:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 17:34 this Sunday (GMT):
>>>On 3/23/2024 4:36 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

>>>Don't buy Sonic 4.

>> Technically, I already did, back when the game was new, albeit on iOS
>> and not PC.

>Huh, I thought it was free on mobile.

Nope. Well, it might be free now, but on release it was a paid-for
product. I spent a whopping $2.99 for it.! ;-)

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 14:27 this Monday (GMT):
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:50:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 17:34 this Sunday (GMT):
>>>>On 3/23/2024 4:36 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>
>
>>>>Don't buy Sonic 4.
>
>>> Technically, I already did, back when the game was new, albeit on iOS
>>> and not PC.
>
>>Huh, I thought it was free on mobile.
>
>
> Nope. Well, it might be free now, but on release it was a paid-for
> product. I spent a whopping $2.99 for it.! ;-)
>
>
>
>

Not as bad, but again you should be paid for playing S4.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:50:09 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 14:27 this Monday (GMT):
>>>>>On 3/23/2024 4:36 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

>>>>>Don't buy Sonic 4.

>> Nope. Well, it might be free now, but on release it was a paid-for
>> product. I spent a whopping $2.99 for it.! ;-)

>Not as bad, but again you should be paid for playing S4.

Honestly, I'd probably pay that for "Sonic 4" on PC, just to complete
the series. It's really hard for me to resist a game once it gets
beneath the $5 mark. But even if it were priced that low, the fact
that I'd have to pay twice that to acquire both episodes kills that
urge.

Heck, even if each episode were only $2 I'd still hesitate. I'd buy it
as a bundle for $4, but paying twice? That's an added layer of
friction that I don't feel like fighting.

I am sure that there are times when episodic gaming works (even if I'd
be hard pressed to point to an example). But in "Sonic 4's" case -
even it weren't so reputedly awful - it just seems like greedy
double-dipping. It's a tactic that not only doesn't make me want to
buy the second episode, it prevents me starting the first.

I'm glad the trend of episodic gaming has largely died out.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 14:17 this Tuesday (GMT):
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:50:09 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 14:27 this Monday (GMT):
>>>>>>On 3/23/2024 4:36 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>
>>>>>>Don't buy Sonic 4.
>
>>> Nope. Well, it might be free now, but on release it was a paid-for
>>> product. I spent a whopping $2.99 for it.! ;-)
>
>
>>Not as bad, but again you should be paid for playing S4.
>
> Honestly, I'd probably pay that for "Sonic 4" on PC, just to complete
> the series. It's really hard for me to resist a game once it gets
> beneath the $5 mark. But even if it were priced that low, the fact
> that I'd have to pay twice that to acquire both episodes kills that
> urge.
>
> Heck, even if each episode were only $2 I'd still hesitate. I'd buy it
> as a bundle for $4, but paying twice? That's an added layer of
> friction that I don't feel like fighting.
>
> I am sure that there are times when episodic gaming works (even if I'd
> be hard pressed to point to an example). But in "Sonic 4's" case -
> even it weren't so reputedly awful - it just seems like greedy
> double-dipping. It's a tactic that not only doesn't make me want to
> buy the second episode, it prevents me starting the first.
>
> I'm glad the trend of episodic gaming has largely died out.
>

Same, but live service is still terrible.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom