52
votes
What gaming rumor just won't die?
In gaming discussion, rumors are very prevalent and powerful. Some rumors keep coming up over and over again and just won't go away despite never revealing themselves.
What gaming rumor do you feel like has been around forever and just won't die?
That Valve has a contingency plan for Steam should they ever go out of business. This rumour has been kicking around for something like 15 years, and it's never once been substantiated. The most that's ever been shown is a quote from a low-level support rep with a vague promise that Valve would make things right.
Users make many claims about how the terms of service protect us (they don't), that Steam's client is designed to continue working if the DRM servers turn off (it isn't), or how Gabe himself has promised that he'd step in to fix things (really?). There's just no evidence for any of it.
Of course, people push back whenever this idea is challenged. It's unthinkable that their game library might just disappear one day, so that person must be wrong! But this is self-deception. Valve's terms are very clear that you hold a license and nothing else. If Valve goes under, or heck just decides to "turn evil" (whatever that means), our digital subscriptions are liable to go with them.
We trade ownership rights for the many conveniences of digital distribution. Steam has been a massive boon to PC gaming, and for the most part, Valve has been a magnanimous leader. But we also need to be realistic about what that means. Digital ownership is brittle at best, and there's no guarantee it'll be around forever.
One more reason to support GOG and keep pressure on GOG to keep selling DRM-free games.
There are plenty of DRM-free releases on Steam.
I posted a very similar comment about DRM-free releases on Steam elsewhere on the site earlier today but I'll go over it again because it's relevant here too.
The gist of it is that Steam's own DRM system is optional, the choice to use it is given to the developer/publisher, and so most games that are available on GOG/itch/other DRM-free platforms are usually DRM-free on Steam as well. This means you can launch them without Steam running, even move them out of the steamapps directory, onto other PCs without Steam installed, etc. and they will still run.
Here's a not-comprehensive list: https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/The_big_list_of_DRM-free_games_on_Steam Test any indies or games that you suspect might be DRM-free but not on this list yourself, if need be.
If you want to back them up, instead of backing up an installer .exe like with GOG, zip the game's installation directory from the steamapps folder and store that with your DRM-free installers.
Unless some future Valve in it's death throes decides to push a final update to the Steam client that forcibly uninstalls everything, deleting all the game data, I would assume that what would actually happen is the Steam DRM-protected games will fail to validate and not launch (and I'm sure users will find their own solution), and for the DRM-free games, users will be able to go grab the files out of their steamapps directory if they didn't back them up already beforehand.
Huh I didn't know that. Very interesting. So you're saying there are no needed files/registry items outside the steamapps folder or is that only a thing for the DRM free games?
Secondly how do you test for it being DRM free? Run the game's exe without Steam?
TIL, thanks.
All games can be moved to any folder and still run, the game contents are contained in a single folder. This is basically what happens when you move games using Steams built-in move function. Doesn't matter if the game has DRM or not. Steam DRM (or other DRM used) is contained entirely within the game install folder.
Exactly this. You could even uninstall Steam and they'd still run.
Worth noting that you should not launch your start menu shortcut as this is often a Steam URL even for DRM free games.
I think it's worth noting that many games that don't explicitly use DRM can still require steam (likely for networking/achievement tracking etc) and simply fail to load if steam isn't running. Though I assume everything on the DRM-Free list wont have that issue.
If the game won't start without Steam, then it has DRM. Steam has a DRM that can be used by developers, but it's optional.
It effectively becomes a form of DRM but it's not the drmwrap feature in steamworks:
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/drm
If you mean that the game is reliant on servers to play offline content, then it's DRM. Steam DRM is not required whatsoever for achievement tracking, etc.
Maybe that was just a technicality but I guess the point I was trying to make is that some games link to steam, detect if it's running and just disable a few features if it isn't and still run fine. Others will not bother with the detection, assume it is running and then exit or crash if it isn't. Then of course there are games that intentionally include full DRM to control how/when the game is run.
Got any examples of such games? I have never heard of this happening.
I just tried to find some examples, one game (Kingdoms and Castles) froze on startup without steam running but I'm not sure if that's due to steam-runtime library issues on Linux or client detection. I was sure I'd seen this behavior in other games but I don't recall which ones.
According to PCGamingWiki that game uses Steam DRM, so that would explain it.
Thanks for clarifying that, it's good to know. I also realized I should have known this because I once used a second ssd as game drive and moved that to my new system. I blame the heat :D
It happens! And to clarify regarding things like needed files/registry items, etc. If anything like that is needed, it is essentially always created on launch rather than during install. A lot of games do store things in documents, appdata, etc, but it's not something you need to keep in mind when moving games (unless you also want to move your save files ofc).
Halio basically covered it all but I'll just add that in my experience, in the cases where games make some save and config files in the user space, (like a My Documents\My Games\Game type of location) for any game I've backed up and brought to a fresh windows install, usually the game's own exe is capable of making/rebuilding those files as fresh defaults if they're not present. In some cases they're not even made by installation but instead at first launch.
I don't think installers putting things in the Windows Registry that the game needs to run has really been a thing in a very long time. The vast majority of games these days store saves and configurations either in
AppDataor Steam's cloud saves folder, and the games don't require this data to exist on first boot.And I was just wondering about hl3. Didn't realize this was a thing. Makes me miss when counter strike was all home brew servers.
I mean the plan is called pirate all the games you legally owned anyway.
I'm in my mid-thirties, so I've been around the Internet for a long time. I was initially gung-ho about piracy and used Napster and Kazaa and LimeWire enthusiastically. Then I grew a conscience in high school and my piracy dwindled. Then in college, I went nuts and stole everything I could (cheaper HDDs woooo!). Then streaming took off and I haven't needed to pirate.
All that to say, I've gone back and forth about the morality of media piracy. But one thing I'm always okay with is pirating something I already own in another format.
Most Steam users have probably heard the Gabe Newell quote: "Piracy is not a pricing issue. It's a service issue."
I'm in the same age bracket as yourself, with a similar history of piracy, and this quote completely encapsulates my own viewpoint on the morality of piracy.
Yeah. Now I have more money than time, so I buy all of my games. Plus there's so many big sales and things now that, I'm pretty much never going to have to pay $70 for a game.
I still rarely pirate movies and TV on occasion. I've got 3 different streaming services. If a show I want to watch isn't on one of them, I'm not going to feel to bad about it.
I more or less followed your same path. Older me is also more concerned with bundled malware than younger me. More to lose I guess? different risk-reward calculus?
Exactly, hard to make any kind of argument against having what you bought without sounding like/being a corporate shill. I bought it, how I keep a hold of it or reaquire it after some copyright/company collapse bullshit doesn't matter.
That rumor has gotten under my skin for SO long, and I used to get downvoted on The Other Site every time I pushed against it.
Steam can't even keep its servers up when they start a new sale. I'm somehow supposed to believe that during a potential bankruptcy event all of its users will be able to download terabytes of games? The whole thing strains credibility so bad.
This reminds me that back when NFTs were big, a friend said one possible hypothetical use case for them would be more direct digital game ownership. He wasn't arguing in favor of it and just mentioned it as something he'd heard, but it did get me thinking. Some sort of direct ownership of digital games that isn't linked to a single company would definitely add a layer of security and reassurance for buying digital games.
How would NFTs allow for direct digital ownership or a layer of security?
Don't NFTs have to be tied to a particular "authority" to decide what the official state of ownership is?
My comment isn't about NFTs specifically, but the general idea of a system that allows for individual ownership of games that isn't directly tied to a specific store or account, e.g. Steam or EA. By "security" I didn't mean literal security, but more peace of mind that you won't suddenly lose an entire library of games if your account gets banned or deleted. There are plenty of horror stories out there to make me glad I don't care for multi-player games.
Honestly, I don't know much about how NFTs work, and this discussion happened years ago so the details are fuzzy. I at least know NFTs are most definitely not the way to go about that, though I also don't know what the best way to implement such a system would be. There would be a lot of factors to consider, like sources to download games, how ownership is tracked, whether you can trade or sell it to other people, etc. You'd also still need to keep track of the ownership ID or token or however it would work, but depending on implementation, there could be multiple ways to save it beyond "make some account and hope you never lose access to that account".
A blockchain, in the context of NFTs and ownership, is essentially just a shared notepad that anyone can add a note to, but everyone has a unique colored permanent marker.
Someone like OpenSea, tracks ownership of NFTs by writing “NFT1 is owned by Bob” in blue. For that to be meaningful, people have to agree that OpenSea should be the source of truth for ownership of NFT1.
Joe can open a competing marketplace add a note saying “NFT1 is owned by Joe” or “Bob gave NFT1 to Joe” in red. Who decides which is right? Who decided who had the right to claim original ownership of an NFT?
There has to be some central authority deciding what the “truth” is, even on blockchains. Blockchains just store data. It’s up to people to decide what that data means, which usually boils back down to making an account with some service (ie opensea) who decide what the “correct” way to interpret the data is.
You would have to put the entire codebase into the blockchain for it. Then for the security of not simply copying the code out of the blockchain you'd need to have it tie directly to the account in possession of the NFT to actually run the application.
There's a lot of problems with putting the entirety of the game code on a blockchain however.
Wouldn’t putting the entirety of the code on a blockchain make the code public, allowing anyone to get the game for free?
Seems like a complicated way of making the game open source and then asking that people pay before downloading it.
You'd have to have a DRM integrated with it that checks the owner of the NFT to see if you are authorized to play it.
I think such comments come from the early days of Steam where Valve employees were thinking they could just patch the steam drm checks out of the 5 Valve developed games that were there. But yeah, nowadays the idea that they could contractually do that do the big publishers, that the games would be updated to work without it, and that whoever ends up handling the wind down would care to spend time on it all make it unlikely.
This "rumor" just seems so illogical - if Steam runs out of business why would they give a fuck about "making it right"? When a billion dollar org is on the verge of bankruptcy the last thing they care about is the individual wellbeing of their customers - they are just fighting for survival at that point.
The only plausible (and I would even say "likely") contingency plan for Steam is I highly doubt it would ever actually just go bankrupt and disappear. They would sell to some big player before that point. A ton of big companies would love to own Steam and if Steam thought they were doomed they would just sell.
Holding a button doesn't make the PokeBall more likely to catch the Pokemon.
No it's frantically tapping A that does it.
But really I bought into that so hard. I was shattered when I found it wasn't the case.
There is so much esoteric pokemon knowledge (and bugs) still being discovered in old games today that it honestly isn't that far fetched.
Eventually we'll find out that we actually could use Shove on the car next to the SS Anne to find a Mew.
In the Pokemon Crystal Clear romhack I'm pretty sure this is actually how you catch Mew :D
I thought it was tapping A and Left on the D-Pad, then B and Right, then A+Left, then B+Right, etc until the Pokemon is caught or breaks free.
For me I press down the shoulder buttons and the A and left D-pad button as the Poke Ball flies, release when it opens to catch it, and then press again when it closes and starts shaking. I know it doesn't work, but I still do it as habit and a sort of good luck charm with it adapted for the controls of the console.
What's crazy is I think the first time I did it, it worked on something with full health or some other radically low odds? Just something that reinforced the belief that it worked.
It still feels like it helps lmao. Similar to the elevator closing button.
Do people still say this though?
When Pokémon GO first came out, I was told tapping on the pokeball would help it catch.
Certainly, just look at the other replies to my comment haha
I feel like it's an old playground rumor though, not something people tell each other about even the modern games.
It's certainly still something people do even in the modern games.
But you can totally find a Mew by having one of your Pokemon use Strength on that truck over by the S.S. Anne.
In my neighborhood the trick was to alternate A and B really fast. I managed to create a technique involving using your index finger and sliding between the two instead of merely pushing them. Good times.
Half Life 3 lol
There's absolutely no way that HL3 would ever measure up to the hype, even if it was a 10/10 AAA title released tomorrow.
It's ironically the third comment on my list...
If you sort by relevance, it is now ;)
It seems like every three days there's a rumor that Nintendo is making a "Switch Pro."
Yeah, this is one of my biggest annoyances. There's a channel I follow on YouTube for Nintendo news that I'm considering dropping because of this. I think the "common theory" is that it was planned but they had to change it due to Covid and chip shortages.
Though now the rumors seem to have moved onto the Switch 2 instead.
I think the Switch 2 and Switch Pro are basically the same thing.
I will be very surprised if we get a new console that isn't basically just a more powerful switch. And I'm 50/50 on if it will be backwards compatible and share the same eShop lol.
If it's backwards compatible and shares the eShop, Switch Pro. If not but functionally the same as the Switch, Switch 2.
The difference I've been able to garner is the Switch Pro would just be a stronger one, with games able to run on both versions but some running better on that than the regular Switch. Switch 2 would have games exclusive to it that wouldn't work on the original Switch. Either way, it'd likely be stronger than the current Switch, maybe with some additional gimmick.
I would be honestly surprised if it isn't backwards-compatible with the Switch though, because Nintendo's been pretty good with that for the immediate preceding consoles. GameCube > Wii > Wii U for home console, GB(C) > GBA > DS > 3DS for handheld.
They broke the trend with the Switch, but that's pretty easily chalked up to how different it is from both lines hardware-wise. Probably for the best since both lines had reached a dual-screen model, and the gimmicks limited options for new innovations (and added extra work for external devs since most other consoles don't have motion control or touch screens), so a bit of a "reset" was in order. The Switch's core functionality and features are pretty simple, so if they keep with the hybrid model, it will be easy to innovate and expand on it compared to the other two.
I think the 2 and Pro are the same thing too, in the sense that the development of the Pro probably was stopped or went off the rails and the Switch 2 was started with a bunch of that work/information.
My guess is that for multiple potential reasons the hardware that'd make a Switch Pro a justifiable upgrade over the Switch yet not so big to make the Switch 2 need a huge upgrade to still feel "bigger enough" over the Pro wasn't cheap enough for Nintendo to make it a viable product. Hopefully they've actually gone back to the drawing board somewhat and didn't just start calling the Pro the Switch 2 instead.
well, the Switch has its days counted, that's for sure. i just cannot see Nintendo not releasing a new console—doesn't have to be an improved version of the Switch—soon
Yeah but people have been saying it for years. It's not recent.
I'm still waiting for NX :)
it always seems like Nintendo always has a "upcoming console" whether it be a "pro" model or a totally new thing
Here I am still waiting for the Revolution.
Nintendo rumors are the worst.
Remember that the Revolution was supposed to be an immersive VR console?
Instead we got a lightly upgraded Gamecube with waggle controls.
Well, the video was very well made: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX2smM87r14
Everyone always brings up "it better be backwards compatible" but I'd be genuinely surprised if it isn't. Nintendo has been pretty good about backwards compatibility with the immediate previous generation. GameCube > Wii > Wii U for home console, GB(C) > GBA > DS > 3DS for handheld. The Switch was the most significant break of the precedent, and I chalked that up to differences in hardware from those two lines. I don't see any reason to expect otherwise from whatever console follows.
The original credible rumor was that we were getting a Switch Mini and a Switch Pro. That had actual info from manufacturers and stuff if I recall correctly. Well, it was true: we eventually got the Switch Lite, which made the Pro both inevitable and obvious. Then it did come out: as the Switch OLED. I assume the OLED ended up being just a normal Switch with a better screen due to the chip shortage. I read that the updated dock has a new chip that supports 4k output. Could be leftover from the Switch Pro plan, but likely it's just what's more available.
Nope; it seems pretty clear that any plans for the Switch Pro never got very far. The OLED switch and the newer runs for the base model actually did have a new chip, technically, but instead of a major upgrade it was just a basic revision.
It's been clear for a while now that Nvidia isn't interested in making another Tegra chip - at least not another Tablet-focused one, so unless Nintendo is going to shove some money at them it's really doubtful that there will be a Switch Pro. The successor is likely to be powered with chips from a different manufacturer, and my bet is on AMD since they already have a history with them and they're they're Nvidia's main competitors. The rise of PC portables also mean that AMD is already succeeding as a partner in this specific niche.
The real question is what gimmicks will Nintendo put in their new system? While I don't have much confidence in any of the ideas out there, I'm leaning towards VR. They've already dabbled with it, via Labo.
There is definitely new hardware coming. The chip that Nintendo and Nvidia were working on leaked awhile ago. As well as tests that were run on said chip.
It's not a Switch Pro though. But there will be a Switch 2 at some point.
Sorry did somebody mention a Bloodborne release for PC? Did you just say Bloodborne 2? BLOODBORNE REMASTER CONFIRMED
I mean, I love the game too, probably one of my top FromSoft games and definitely my favorite soundtrack of pretty much any game, but I think we can cool it on expecting releases that probably aren't going to happen. 😅
Though I do have my fingers crossed for a remake on the 10 year anniversary (slight copium)
I just don't see why they won't; it would print money T_T
It absolutely would. Can you even play it on Ps5? It's a damn shame that Bloodborne has been shut off from so much of the gaming world, locked to the Ps4 system. It has historically been my favorite game of all time. Although, I think Elden Ring may have replaced it, because pound for pound I think ER might just be the best game of all time. They did so much there. I need to revisit both.
The original is playable through backwards compatability in 30fps on PS5.
I mean, Demon's Souls, a much more obscure entry, got a full remake, and Sony is porting everything including the kitchen sink to PC. Bloodborne PC or a PS5 remake is not unreasonable. It's kind of like Mario 3D World on Switch: we all knew it was eventually coming, it just took longer than expected.
I agree with what you're saying, but just to play devil's advocate... It could be that they elected to remake a title like Demon's Souls specifically because it is a bit obscure. They knew that there was a specific group of people that would do almost anything to see DeS remade, but not too many fans that would throw a fit if there were some changes.
And I think that was a great idea! Look how many people complained about every tiny change in the remake and said that it had "taken away the game's soul." I think FS is well aware of how beloved BB is and, if a remake/remaster is on the way, they will think very carefully about how, when, and by whom it is done.
DeS really did need the remake more. It was trapped on PS3, perhaps the worst platform there is to be stuck on right now, and it's the Souls game that came out before DS1 make the series mainstream. BB had the advantage of being backwards compatible on PS5 and streaming on PC as well.
Came here for this! I still follow @isbbonpc on Twitter after all this time because I refuse to let the hope die haha
I don’t even need a remaster, just give us a 60 FPS update on PS5! I’ll even buy it again!
That you can't play games on Linux.
It's getting better thanks to Steam to eradicate that rumor, but it's still there.
I just don't tell others I'm playing games on Linux unless they ask me specifically lol.
Playing games on Linux is the ultimate form of modding PC games.
I spend time getting it to work perfectly, then play it for 10 min and never open it again lol.
In all seriousness, with Steam most games people have a desire to play just work now, but it wasn't too long ago that Linux gaming was more trouble than it was worth.
Yeah I remember those times, which is why I switched to linux as my main OS only about three years ago.
I always loved the UX of the linux distros, but not being able to play my games stopped me from using it. Never really dual booted either because there wasnt really any point.
Luckily things work now!
Dual boot is nice, but it has its own issues too.
I keep a low power laptop for Linux use, don't need much horsepower, and my gaming PC on Windows but I try to keep it as minimal on there as I can, pretty much just games and gaming adjacent software.
I haven't done this personally, but I think that the best solution for people who need to use Windows but want to use Linux is to virtualize Windows. The kicker is that you'll probably want to dedicate your GPU to the VM for best performance, which can be tricky to set up.
There is no "best" solution honestly, it comes down to your needs, requirements and IT skills. Someone who deals with VMs and VFIO a lot at work and doesn't play a lot of MP FPS' would be best suited to a gaming VM whereas someone whose playing specific MP FPS' might need to dual boot because the DRMs/anticheats that throw up problems in Linux also typically throw up problems in VMs that aren't so easy to get around.
Personally I dual boot because it's what I know and am used to, plus stuff like winbtrfs + btrfs' CoW nature make sharing games between both OS' extremely easy while adding some other benefits because you can just have one subvolume for Windows and one for Linux and keep separate game installs for each OS on those subvolumes, btrfs will automatically share whatever files are the same between installs without any of the problems that come with using a shared ntfs drive and the same game install folder for both OS' plus the snapshotting is also extremely handy for when a game update breaks something and you can't otherwise roll back. (It's worth noting that some people have reported data loss with winbtrfs but that's not as huge of a problem with a drive only used for game installs that can just be verified or reinstalled and I haven't personally encountered any of those problems in over 2 years of using it on a btrfs raid5 array, which is getting up there in terms of poking sleeping dragons in the eye.)
Honestly, huge shout out to Valve for both making using a controller (or god forbid a non-Xbox controller!) on PC not require me to juggle 3 bloated programs, and making Linux gaming actually doable for most people.
Thanks, just had to look that up. I wasn't paying attention to how Wine was doing and didn't know Google & Valve started getting involved. I'll for sure have to play around with Linux again. ^_^
That the bug in that game you love isn’t being fixed because the developers are lazy, incompetent, greedy, shitty, etc.
Games are hard. Game code can be tricky. Game engines are magic. Modified game engines are black magic.
An audio bug in a AAA game that hasn’t been fixed in years is probably not a simple fix. It might not even be something that can be fixed without further hacking the engine, breaking something else or moving to a new engine (also very, very far from simple).
Stop attacking developers when you have no idea how complicated it all is.
It's usually the upper management and such saying "takes too much time, not worth of fixing" anyway.
Developers know there's a bug, very often. They're just not allowed to fix it. It's really fucked.
Also the word "netcode" makes me see red.
Yep. There are famous tales of games running on black magic, by which I mean sometimes not even the devs fully understand how the heck some feature is working. It reaches a point where you don't touch it because that might just break it. (That, and you want to just move on to something else because you've been on crunch mode for the past three weeks and don't want to risk extending the work time.) There are so many stories and anecdotes of features that originated from being unable to figure out how to fix a bug and deciding to take advantage of it instead.
Game development is incredibly complex, and that complexity scales. I'm in genuine awe at major AAA games that run smoothly given all the intricacies involved. Even with full teams of developers, QA testers, modelers and animators, so much can go into them that it's easy to miss details. Studying game development has given me a new appreciation for games, and it always irks me when people call developers lazy or incompetent. Seriously, this industry has one of the highest rates of burnout for a reason.
To add to that, if there really is a form of "laziness" anywhere that leads to things not getting fixed, it's less a laziness and more a greedy complacence on the part of the publisher or some higher management at the developer if independent, who has decided the fix does not provide a financial return - surely the actual developers who build the thing would want to fix it but aren't being allocated the time or resources.
You can see this most directly with the Bethesda RPGs and complaints about the lack of high aspect ratio or refresh rate support, the games in Gamebryo/Creation right back to Oblivion support both if you fix the UI files for the aspect ratio you want and set fMaxTime and fMaxTimeComplex in the games ini file to suit your refresh rate manually which shows that 90% of the work to support those niche configurations has been done but the last 10% to enable that support is left to the community at best.
People act like it's the engine itself that's completely incapable of either or that it's lazy developers not wanting to do the extra work, but realistically the most probable reason is that 16:9 at 60Hz is the lowest common denominator that all PCs and also the consoles can output while ultrawide, triplehead and high refresh rate setups have been relatively niche until fairly recently with high refresh rates meaning that the cost benefit of supporting those kinds of setups is far lower, although personally I think even those kinds of larger niches should be still served even if the cost/benefit isn't all that great directly, even beyond the customer satisfaction element it has other benefits such as helping find bugs that'd otherwise remain elusive for example. (Just to go on a tangent for a sec, I can see UW eventually coming to TVs as well which would eventually lead to console support. UWs work really well for movies because they share the same aspect ratio as the cinema does afaik making it relatively low hanging fruit in terms of the next big feature to market on either before OLED comes down enough in price or after it's mainstream and common.)
FFXIV has had some really amazing bugs attributed to the ARR "legacy code" and I often wonder how much of it is rumours and how much is actually the damn spaghetti code that they can't fully unravel or everything else will fall apart.
More than likely it's MANAGERS not the developers themselves determining where to spend resources. Can't fix AudioBug cause your plate is full work on NewGameAudioBugs.
I found watching Marblr's videos on various Overwatch bugs very insightful. It really shows just how delicate polished AAA games from skilled developers are, even after 6 years of active full time support.
The next presentation will have silksong news. They can all feel it in their bones, their soul... Right?? :^)
This is me. But also, in case you missed this, they did finally say something, even if that something was "Not quite yet, ya'll!": https://twitter.com/griffinmatta/status/1656106351184199680
Inside all of us Hollow Knight fans, there are two wolves: "hahaha this game is never coming out" and "Let them cook!"
The Super Mario 64's courtyard plaque that supposedly reads "L is real 2401" (although someone has since made a more likely guess) and all the various rumors surrounding how this could reference a secret way of unlocking Luigi, which somehow got a resurgence once an asset leak revealed that pre-release plans that were since scrapped did include putting Luigi in the game.
It did, however, lead to my favorite out of context use of Ace Combat's OST.
Squadron 42 will really release in a year or two. 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Did you know is a secret end-boss in Street Fighter II named Sheng Long?
Every guide in the internet says that you need to max Akechi to access the third semester in P5R. You don't, you just need to max Maruki.
Absolutely anything at all uttered that includes the word optimization.
Oh god yeah. Gotta love the "disable xyz service and make your pagefile 500 gb, it got rid of stuttering!" placebo posts, lol.
Those posts are the antithesis of searching for an answer to an obscure issue, finding a single, eleven year old post on a deserted forum overrun with spam, with a single nine year old comment...
"nm, took a while but I found the solution."
WHAT? WHAT WAS THE SOLUTION?!
The two that comes to my mind instantly:
Fallout New Vegas 2 is on the way! Obviously that's the reason for Microsoft acquiring BGS and Obsidian. Gates himself only jumped through those hoops to ensure little Timmy can, now in his 30s, play the sequel to his favorite youth rpg.
I kid, I kid. But also I hope...