Tomba_be

I think indie development is the most likely way for things to change. Things need to change from the inside out, not by banging on it from outside. You need to get "minorities" into game development so they can raise their issues at the root. But if a lot of studios are as macho-driven as you often hear, I can see why women don't want to work there. So it's been a vicious circle. But with indie games being so prevalent nowadays, women can start proving that they are just as capable of making good games. Unfortunately a lot of the more visible female game developers are making quite niche games, which don appeal to a different crowd than the games that actually need change the most.

I do think that there is a certain amount of criticism that is very 'American' to outsiders. I live in (a very white part of) Belgium. Until I was 12 or so, the only place I'd ever seen a black person was on TV. After that, it probably still took me about a decade to stop "noticing" black people. Many Belgians think like that. A while back there was an "incident" because a baker made a life-size cookie version of Obama during a state visit. But because the cookie was dark brown (because that's just the way that type of cookie always is) and it's pretty hard to make a baked cookie look like someone without looking like a horrible mutation of that person; the US press took that story as an example of how Belgians are racists. The truth often is that people outside of the US just don't look at everything from a "how might this thing be racist"-viewpoint. When people here heard about how this was viewed on in the US the reaction was "oh yeah, maybe when you look at it THAT way". But we also understand that until a few decades ago racism was an actual law in the US. Black people were legally separated from white people in all sorts of matters, and that still is something that is written in the collective mind of Americans. And looking at certain events there still is a huge difference in how black people are treated by the authorities. So it's understandable that you look at so many thing through those "let's make sure we don't do something like that again"-goggles. And although there are of course plenty of actual racists in Belgium and other countries, I can still understand how a group of people just don't think about "ok let's make sure nothing is racist about this" when making a game. I think the people who are thinking about race the most are 1) the people who suffer because of it and 2) racists. Your average non-racist white person just does not think about it all that much. Which is a good thing because it means he doesn't really care about the colour of people's skin, but it also means he doesn't think about how something might offend someone because he isn't trying to do anything wrong. And since (I assume?) most game development is done by white-straight-males, it's not that hard to understand why the concerns of people outside of that group just don't occur to them naturally. No one has ever "forced" them to think about such things. So a reviewer mentioning it might help a bit (although it might just as easily confuse them), but until we see an influx of women and non-whites in game development, I doubt anything will really change.

There is also the part of the spectrum in which some writers (and a loud minority of fans of those writers) accuse developers of crimes or other heinous ideas. I've seen people accuse developers of being "pretty much rapists" when they portray women in a sexual or other way that doesn't sit well with them. Just like they accuse developers of being misogynists because they don't include a playable female character or only have damsel-in-distress females in the game, or makes fun of female stereotypes, or ... Misogyny is the HATRED of females. If a developer does not cater to women in their games because they do not believe that it would make economic sense (for example), or they make a game that is designed to attract 16 year old hormone fueled teenage boys; that does not mean they actually hate women. It just means they are making a game for an audience that does not include a lot of women (a lot of female gamers don't care about such things) and a certain, smaller, portion of men (because some men find it distasteful). Calling those developers or the people who enjoy the game rapists an misogynists is way worse then making such a game. Just like it is bullshit to call CDP racists because they didn't include non-Caucasian characters in The Witcher.

And I know the people making such claims are usually a minority, but they fuel the MRA-type people because they'll have something to point at and say "see, they just hate men and fun!". Exactly the same way as others will say "all those gamergaters keep threatening innocent people and just hate women" because a small group of them are huge dicks.

It's those extreme sides that make this such a difficult debate because everyone who just wants to talk and discuss the situation with an open mind, gets caught in the crossfire. A text saying "it would have been nice if CDP would include some characters from that worlds 'Arabic' continent next time" gets picked up as "CDP are racists! Read all about how they hate non-whites". Or how a female reviewer got shit on for having 1 sentence in a GTA review about how it would have been nice if Rockstar included some better female characters (in an otherwhise very positive review) because some extremists wrote articles about how Rockstar is basically promoting rape. I keep seeing the same sites do things like that, and they are not putting such sensational-sounding headlines on articles to try to convince readers about a point of view. If someone actually cares about making games a better place for non straight-white-males, they would make articles that explain how having more diverse worlds would actually result in better games, and that there is still room for power fantasy-type games. But they choose to go for the "everyone who enjoys or makes games like this, are monsters, read all about it here! (and keep coming back to fight it out in the comments)"

TLDR: 1) Stop accusing developers of nasty things because the developers don't make games the way you want; 2) There is nothing wrong with a reviewer writing "a more diverse group of characters would have made this a better game".

I'm assuming Valve has some agreement with credit card companies that states that the sale will only be final after 14 days. That way the credit card companies can hold on to the customers money for 2 weeks (collecting interest) before paying Valve. That eliminates extra charges while creating a little extra profit for the CC companies. Customers have a decent refund policy, Valve gets good PR. I'm assuming developers and publishers get their money monthly from Valve anyway, so there is no delay for them as well. Everyone wins?

They have every right to return what they bought. But the store also has the right to refuse to sell them anything else.

Seemed unavoidable. EU law dictates that anything bought online can be returned without cost or without giving a reason within 14 days. There are some exceptions for copyrighted material, that needs to be sealed before it can be returned. So Steam is even going beyond that legal requirement. They already gave EU customers back their money when the buyer contacted support and made a clear reference to the law in question. It's probably easier to implement the same rule worldwide, even when it is not a legal requirement, it's still good PR.

This also pretty much allows for demos for every PC game on Steam!

It would make more sense if they would just stop selling games to you. If you keep returning items to a store (because the store has a refund policy that allows you to return items that you decide you don't like/need), that store will refuse to sell you anything. I once returned a DVD box because the actual DVD wasn't in there. Which seems a pretty clear warranty issue. Before they swapped it with another box, I had to show my ID. When I asked why that was necessary they said that if I returned items like that frequently I would end up on some list that (several) stores use to refuse service to customers. It's a reasonable prevention against abusers imo.

What an awesome idea, randomized levels

Someone in 1993

I somehow trust Firaxis to mess this up as well. Bringing back a few of the features this game should have had anyway (and did, in 1993!) like randomized levels, also means they will remove something else, just like they've been doing with the Civ games. XCOM was an ok turn based combat game for the current generation but lacks the depth of any of it's predecessors. The other complaints will most likely not be addressed: like how the demands for a proper base are now impossible because there is only a mobile base which of course can't really be customized beyond a few pre-set upgrade paths... And level destruction will be "impossible" because alien building materials are just indestructible...

Well, last time I added a year to my subscription during a sale, my account broke in such a way that I kept my 'Monthly' status, but I didn't get billed each month anymore. Since it's just the avatar icon I never bothered anyone with it. When I tried adding a year during this sale, my status did get changed to 'Premium Yearly' and I got to the 'Payment succeeded' page, but my account still has a next billing date of June 1, 2015. So hopefully that script next week will fix things for me, if not I know who to bother with it!

But at least the sale is bringing in some extra money, that's always good to hear!

According to the FAQ on this thing:

"If you find that mod has broken or is behaving unexpectedly, it is best to post politely on the Workshop item's page and let the mod author know the details of what you are seeing."

That's pretty much illegal in at least a lot of EU countries. When you buy something the company that sells it to you is responsible for the warranty. If I buy a mod and I pay Valve, Valve should make sure the mod works or refund me. They are not allowed to dump that responsibility off to the mod creator. If some paid-for mod breaks (eg after a game patch) and the creator says "fuck it, I can't be bothered to fix this" who is responsible for the warranty at that moment?