Jim Sterling / James "Stephanie" Sterling / James Stanton/Sexton & in memoriam TotalBiscuit (John Bain) - One Gaming Lolcow Thread

Gee, I wonder what Jim is talking about this week:
Oh, wow, yet another video about the evil triple-A capitalists and how everyone, including the press, should hate them.
I swear, this year has been worse than normal for repetitive Jimquisitions.

Here is a pretty good video on the same topic from someone else


the no argument segment is really depressingly though, because even though every argument for $70 games are bad, it will still happen. as it did with dlc and microtransactions and the $60 pricetag
Consumers speak with their money and chances are high this will be accepted aswell.
 
Last edited:
It'll never not be funny hearing an obese manchild homosexual who's job is to whine about entertainment on the internet make cries for the abolishment of the system that allows him to be freely gay and retarded and profit from it... to a system that would have his job shut down and his brains on a wall. Communist leaders hated sloth and degeneracy, and Jim being a fruity tub of lard would've had guys like Ché Guevarra throw him in labor camps and worked to death.
The only place he can prosper is the same place that allows EA to be scummy.
Hell, without EA's scumbaggery would he even have a job?

I swear every lolcow that's made of mayo on this site seems determined to champion causes that would bring about their swift demise. Hilarious.
 
@Tetra beat me to it, but another YouTuber, Upper Echelon Gamers, already covered the same topic (with far less padding) months ago. Jim is late on this.
I didn't even bother watching Jim's version, because he's incapable of getting to the point.
 
Those are the newer IL2 games, not the older ones like 1946,
I didn't say anything about 1946, that and CoD are much cheaper, sure that the expansions of the OG IL-2 were cheaper too, that's why I mentioned Great Battles specifically, not just the series in general.
And trust me when I say that the simulator spergs aren't happy about the prices or how planee are served piecemeal for $40 bucks a pop. It's a niche genre and there's nowhere else to go for a semi modern WWII dog fighting sim unless they use crashtastic DCS with it's like three planes.
True, same can be said about the increase in price for sixth and seventh gen games from 40 to 50 to 60, I said-
there's people that are willing to pay it. (Well ok that and people were flipped around, but you get the point)
Not that people are super happy to be spending more money, damn near nobody thinks that way. I can completely understand people not liking price increases, or paying a lot for niche products, there's a reason they're niche after all. And certainly there's plenty of times of industries in general pricing stuff higher just because they can, for example the music industry's done that plenty of times. And indeed I'm sure plenty of games that were probably marked up much higher than needed to make back their money, dead certain that could be said with the Wii U to Swtich ports for example. But frankly the solution's simple, either wait till it goes down in price or buy another product, no game's essential after all. Even something niche like IL-2 as you mention you could always get 1946, still a solid experience in its own right even if a bit dated. Even niche genres have plenty of options if you don't restrict yourself too much, it's not as big of a problem as Jim or the like make it out to be.
 
the issue is that jim is a conSOOMer who believes that he has to buy every new thing that comes out in his hobby. it's a weird mindset that you see from a lot of people in recent years, where they basically feel like they're forced to constantly buy whatever frivolous thing and can never save money as a result.

at least in jim's case he has some excuse of being a "games reviewer," but he does a pretty shit job of that anyways.
There is the next level of it, which I think Jim sperged about way back when I listened to him, that is being mad about limited DLC (either time or store exclusive) because you are apperantly entitled to access every iteration of the game that the devs ever made.
 
There is the next level of it, which I think Jim sperged about way back when I listened to him, that is being mad about limited DLC (either time or store exclusive) because you are apperantly entitled to access every iteration of the game that the devs ever made.
as someone acoustic about such things, it does really annoy me when games have edition exclusive DLC, but that's mostly because i like playing a complete game.

or, in the case of dead space 2/3, because such things absolutely curbstomp the game's difficulty for no reason. "just start out the game with access to weapons you don't get until past the halfway point, this will clearly have no effect on anything" ea go and stay go.

One thing I‘ve noticed which Jim never mentioned is games seem to go on discount quicker than ever these days, if you wait just a few months there’s a good chance a game will be at least a third off on a sale.
game companies are like serial masturbators, each shot comes sooner than the last with less and less in it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Coccxys
or, in the case of dead space 2/3, because such things absolutely curbstomp the game's difficulty for no reason. "just start out the game with access to weapons you don't get until past the halfway point, this will clearly have no effect on anything" ea go and stay go.
Well, the bigger issue there was that you could "buy" the DLC weapons for 0$ then immediately sell them for a meager sum. Enough autism and patience, and you could unbalance the ingame systems at the first shop. "But don't do that and ruin the game for yourself", but it's hard to avoid that temptation when playing on the higher difficulties where deaths can feel super cheap. EA are cunts.
 
One thing I‘ve noticed which Jim never mentioned is games seem to go on discount quicker than ever these days, if you wait just a few months there’s a good chance a game will be at least a third off on a sale.
Not just that used games as well. The last game I bought brand new was Doom 2016. Any game I want these days I just wait and buy used. Also most games come out as a special edition about a year later with all dlc included for less money.
 
Last edited:
Well, the bigger issue there was that you could "buy" the DLC weapons for 0$ then immediately sell them for a meager sum. Enough autism and patience, and you could unbalance the ingame systems at the first shop. "But don't do that and ruin the game for yourself", but it's hard to avoid that temptation when playing on the higher difficulties where deaths can feel super cheap. EA are cunts.
infinite money aside, just having a flamethrower, line gun, detonator right at the start of the game completely throws out some challenges. as an example, when i did my hard core run in DS2, i had to snag an early javelin gun to make the first group of pack easier, since the secondary attack let me deal with clusters of them quickly. this was well before you could pick up the ripper, which is more or less ideal for the rest of the game.

years later i watch a streamer go through the same section with a DLC flamethrower and just trivialize it, albeit not on hard core, but, the DLC weapons are all available there anyways.

tangential i guess, but it always frustrates me when people proclaim that excessive accessibility options are great because they let everyone and their dog play a game. they never pay attention to the secondary effect of it ruining the intended gameplay experience of overcoming a challenge. same deal with the DLC weapons in DS2, you're essentially getting a perk that players without the DLC only get on NG+.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sneaky khajiit
I swear every lolcow that's made of mayo on this site seems determined to champion causes that would bring about their swift demise. Hilarious.
What do the lefties say? "Voting against their best interests!"

Forbes:
Voting seems pretty straightforward, right? Choose what is good for you and avoid what is not. Well, evidence has clearly shown that people (meaning you, unless you are a dog reading this) can be remarkably bad at selecting what is good for them. Indeed, in the end, you may be your own worst enemy. And many entering voting booths simply make the wrong choices for themselves.

Don't vote for your interests Goy, vote for ours! This is what these people actually believe. People like Jim Sterling believe that voting for the abolishment of capitalism and welcoming globalism with open arms will be a net positive for the working class. $2,000 a month in free gibs will never offset the damage that globalism, mass immigration, or communism does to a country in the long term. They believe giving more power to government will solve every problem in every country, not realizing it only creates more inequality and gives even less power to "disenfranchised" people.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Rivalo and Ita Mori
Here is a pretty good video on the same topic from someone else


the no argument segment is really depressingly though, because even though every argument for $70 games are bad, it will still happen. as it did with dlc and microtransactions and the $60 pricetag
Consumers speak with their money and chances are high this will be accepted aswell.
I will disagree with point one of this video personally with the part where he compares owning movies vs owning games.

I understand the argument that milk vs movie tickets vs video games are very very different products and should be treated differently. I just think he is missing or underestimating the "demand" side of the economics here which always influences price because of the basic concept of supply and demand. Simply put, movie rentals and streaming are dramatically more effective then the video game equivalent as alternatives for owning the media yourself with no strings attached. This lowers the need to truly own a movie compared to owning a game, which means economically speaking you can't increase the price like you could for a video game.

Plus I think owning a video game has more utility and convenience because you can only watch a movie so many times, while some video games you can play almost forever under the right circumstances like online pvp games or coop games if you have those sorts of tastes and a friend group for it.

Because home movie ownership have notable competition with streaming platforms and movie rental services like Redbox which are relevant enough that the demand for physical movies has declined over the years. Yes rental services have existed for decades, but they've improved substantially due to how easy it is to run one due to a rental location now being one small kiosk with zero employees manning it vs an entire video store with employees running it during all opening hours. Renting movies costs a dollar and you can watch it that day and be over it. Streaming is fairly obvious and is something people already have and don't need to leave their house to use. I know someone who is a massive Pixar fan and she has watched Up literally dozens of times over the last couple years, she doesn't own the disk she has purely watched it on Netflix/Disney+/Whatever for years which she uses for a bunch of other shows. So why even own the physically movie?

So if the demand goes down for something, then the price can't really go up realistically because that lowers the demand even more. Movies have shifted how they intend to recoup costs because it is very obvious that physical movie ownership on the decline because the alternatives are too effective.

Video game streaming, as far as I know, sucks as we can see with Google Stadia and video game rentals aren't much that much better. The best deal I could quickly find is you basically pay somewhere between 15-37 USD a month to have access to 1-4 games at a time, you can switch what games you rent freely but you need to ship them back then wait for another game you want to be available so it might be shipped to you within a week or two, then you repeat the process indefinitely. It isn't as effective as Redbox which can be a literal 5 minute walk to a gas station and a couple minutes of messing around with a kiosk for some people.

So the legal alternatives for video game ownership generally speaking suck compared to movies in my opinion. The other issue with video game streaming is the prices for "ownership" are basically the same cost, so the competitive aspect sucks compared to movie streaming which is relatively a good deal if you watch enough movies/tv even if you own several streaming services. So the demand for video game ownership is much higher compared to its competition which is why the movies vs video games isn't as perfect of a comparison because market wise they are very different.

I understand and can agree with the rest of the arguments, but I think his first major argument doesn't work as effectively as it seems.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: AsbestosFlaygon
Back