deleted by creator

Well, their customers are PC gamers so it makes sense to target them. Not all gamers build their PC themselves (I’d say most don’t as I have built most of my friends pc). Having a plug and play solution, without risk of hardware/driver/software issues, can be attractive to some. The market for these is not hardcore gamers, but couch gaming.
But if the hardware is more expensive than a pre-built, no one will buy it.
They said in interviews that some steam deck users primarily use it docked to a TV (like I do), and that showed them there is a market for such devices.

They didn’t invent them. The Xbox 360 already had achievements years before them.

I would guess lower than 800 for the base model. The steam deck entry price is low and they probably will try to have the machine affordable. They know no PC gamer that can build their own PC will buy it if it’s not competitive.
Since they’re OEM integrating parts, I can guess around 550-650 for the base model but that will also depend on the US tariffs that week.

Watch the gamer nexus video if you want more info on the cooling. Iirc they use phase change TIM for the CPU and paste for the GPU.
They also talk about how they designed the case to avoid it being choked

Not every company can pull it off, but I’m certain if Epic had invested in their launchers it could have worked.
A few years in and their launcher has stagnated completely

I paid 2€ for a sandwich up to 2020. How is $5 expected in 95…
Now it’s more like 4-5€ for a good one.

Yeah no worries I dont have any issue with cheating in single player games.
I used loads of trainers in the past to expand the fun in a game after beating it. It’s just rarer the times I need to pull out one to finish it

suppressing opinions, paradoxically enough, can lead to the strengthening and intensification of those opinions

Maybe, but I’m not advocating for a complete silencing of these opinions. I’m saying we shouldn’t allow these in this space because they will degrade the quality of life here.

These opinions didn’t spawn with Trump

No but they were spread by the media that was giving way too much attention to this turd. Had nobody taken him seriously, we wouldn’t be here today.
If we didn’t allow a prominent public figure to do a Nazi salute, there would be less openly Nazis today on the internet.
A few years ago these were the kind of behavior that got you put in jail. Today it’s debated if we allow them at our table…

we can’t accuse them of always curating echo chambers if we block them every time they post something

Blocking a maga instance is not the same as completely blocking any kind of discussion with them. If they register to an open fascist organisation, discussion with them will be hard.
Like another poster below said, they choose not to engage in good faith, they choose not to re evaluate their view point when presented with new information. They chose their echo chambers because it’s a safe space for them.
They are welcome to have a real discussion, but unless proven otherwise, a fascist instance will not. They will drag you down to their level and push the Overton window more and more toward authoritarianism.

Because the game is prettier/smoother running on my computer native res at 100fps, than watching compressed videos on YouTube.
Otherwise yeah I would have watched a play through instead.
Also going at your own pace and being free to explore the environment is more pleasant than watching someone do it for you

I’ll man up at some point and try to beat the game “fair”. But not a bad idea if I still get stuck to just cheat.

I still disagree that art has to be for somebody

Agree to disagree then :) (even though I don’t mean it has to have a target audience) For me, in your example of art you made then deleted, the art is still art. But you did experience it yourself. It wasn’t to your liking so you trashed it, but you did evaluate it through your psyche. For me every art made has at least one person as the recipient: the creator. You make something because you want to see it in the world, or maybe just to practice, or for any other reason. We humans don’t do things randomly (or at least not truly) and imo the creator gains something by creating the art (tangible or not).
Art for the sake of art seems to imply we create stuff just because it’s art, without any expectations. For me that seems a bit reducing, as what’s seen as “objectively pure art” is cultural. Poetry structure in the west is not the same as in the east, so even if you write some for the sake of it, you are implicitly making it western style for a western audience (unless you go out of your way to try eastern style, but then it has a meaning to you).

Sure I don’t want to discard everything and the baby with it, but even then I don’t know (which is logical) any game that was made and finished but never published/distributed to anyone. Every game dev I see at least has some goals for it to be played by someone. Even the games I made in game jams were intended for me to play, or others at the event to test.
There is a ton of research done on UX (not just UI, but also level design) so that the game can be enjoyed by others.
Anyway, my point with Elden ring is that it is possible to do it, so I can understand some people asking for the same treatment for other hard games. It is possible to make the game more accessible without interfering with the artistic vision. So why not?

For TTRPG as well as video games in general, fun can be different things for different people. Some like hard psychosocial thrillers, some like dumb dungeon fights, others like to discuss with every npc. It is up to the DM or game dev to decide which they’ll put forth. For DM it’s easier to change course if needed, but for games it’s less personal. So having options to turn the difficulty up or down is imo not that big of a compromise.

Yes that I totally agree with you. Nobody should force artists to do stuff. However we are still in a capitalist system, so most probably they will have to adapt to sell to an audience.

Regarding your first paragraph, after reading the Wikipedia page (English and French, since the EN one is quite short).
Seems like it’s mostly as a reaction of moralism and sentimentalism.
While I agree that art is art in itself, it still has to be experienced by someone else to exist.

and appeal to the artistic sense of eye or ear.

To me it seems to imply that art must be experienced for it to be, even if just by its creator.
Art is purely human, made by humans and experienced by humans. The concept wouldn’t exist without us. That’s also why AI gen is not art most of the time.

On the other hand, I disagree that art can be “pure” without any moral or political stance. Everything we do and express, we do through the lenses of our mind, which inherently lives in a world surrounded by morals and politics.
Also the Wikipedia article suggests that this view is completely eurocentric and does not represent other cultures around the world. So I would take it with a grain of salt.

I put exactly 0 thought to the characters builds, so I know it’s my fault and I suspect it’s not that hard. But I literally have no interest in the combat system, so of course the game is not entirely made for me. However, this story mode shows that some devs don’t consider difficulty as a pre-requisite to enjoy their art.

I’ll check out your link later, but holy shi, this went from 0 to 100 really quick. I’m authoritarian because I think you can’t appreciate art if you don’t see it? Like I can tell you I made a super cool game, but I’m the only one allowed to see it. Is it art? To me yes but how can you know if you never even saw it or know what it’s about?
For me, art is inherently human. If it’s not seen by anyone, it may as well not exist for anyone.
The art someone makes is not always meant for everybody, you can make art for yourself or a specific group, but you always make it for someone.

Once again I’m not advocating for removing all difficulty. But in the case of Elden ring, they probably went like “DS is too hard, let’s make some adjustments so more casual players can also enjoy the game”. And it seems to be not at the detriment of the experience for others.

I’m not here to bicker about preferences. I’d like to criticize games as pure art but we both know it’s not the reality. Big games only get made because lots of money is invested and they must make some back unless they want to lose their jobs. I’m not suggesting that Elden ring must be made easier, but they evidently saw that there is value (art and/or monetary) in making adjustments to make it more accessible.
For these games where the difficulty is core to the game it’s difficult to do it without compromise. Other games allow a choice and aren’t so tight about how difficult the gameplay must be. I think more games could see the value in having it more accessible. They already provide so much accessibility when it doesn’t impact the artistic vision: localisation, subtitles, key binding, color blindness, etc.
Like you said, it’s a design choice. Some games make the choice to be overly difficult and some like that, cool. Not all games are like that, and having options to allow more casual gamers to enjoy the game is a free win.
It’s possible to implement without compromise for the core users, and it will expand the reach your art has.

Edit: as a final point, in TTRP the golden rule is to have fun. If a rule in the book is not fun, the DM has the ability to change it so it’s fun to play. Why can’t I play a game and be like “this is way too hard for me, I’ll do X to have it easy there to advance”. Must I be frustrated to be able to enjoy the game? For ER/DS the idea seems to be yes, the game is for masochist. For other games why would it be?
Some games even allow custom rules to be set. BG3 and others have options where you change the rules so you can have fun your way. (Again not all games need this, but it doesn’t detract from the art of those games).

I’m not arguing that every game must cater to my casual needs. What I’m expanding upon the op is that art is art only in the eye of someone experiencing it. Artists like game devs are free to make the kind of games they want, but it is a balance between making the game attractive and marketable and making something only the most purist will like. Concessions are to be made for the game to be accessible, as you will have to sell it to make a profit. All the examples are from commercial games that need a consumer base to buy it.

Some will criticize Elden ring for being a bit more easy and approachable (than previous DS), because they are used to the elitist view that games must be difficult to play. But on the other hand, all gamers that had fun playing their own way are valid. Some will like having a hard time, some will like having an easier path to progress.
In the end, if you make art you want for others to see it. If your game doesn’t sell because only hardcore players can progress, it could be seen as a failure for your art to be spread. It’s also certainly a business failure as well.

So as I said, it’s a balance and there is no right or wrong way to do it. People can still discuss what their preferences are, be it hard games or story mode for easy gameplay.
I’m not 12 anymore so I don’t have time to learn, memorize and train for some of the newer games. I can appreciate games that include an easy path for me, allowing me to experience their art. Unlike eg. the Dark Souls universe where I’ll never truly experience it because it’s too hard for me.
Devs are then free to take this feedback into consideration for their next game.

I found expedition 33 to be difficult even in the story telling mode. It suggests a focus on the story, but you absolutely have to scale your characters correctly, learn boss fights patterns etc. I don’t like the fight gameplay (not my cup of tea), so I tried to avoid them, but I couldn’t progress past a certain point. Love the story and universe, but wish they’d made an even easier mode because I don’t want to spend time learning all the mechanics and combos etc.

It’s art to you, not us as we haven’t seen it.

That’s the Thought Emporium