It’d honestly be hilarious if all the creators just started rebranding their fan projects with Palworld Pals (or any other similar IP). Start shifting the discourse away from Pokemon. I’d love that.
Once my Switch broke and the Steam Deck released, I decided I didn’t want to bother with Nintendo anymore. They’ve been killing their communities for far too long.
I saw a docu i think about smash bros. from nintendo, very cool docu serie btw, and the guys that organized the first tournaments got a letter or something that they where not allowed to organize such tournaments (mind you just fans playing the game in a bigger room nothing more) because, and here it comes, the game should not be played like that! Wtf.
Nintendo has kind of always sucked as far as passionate fans are concerned. Their products are some of the best out there, sure, but they are ruthless.
Playing devil’s advocate, they’re just protecting their IP. Problem is they can’t spend resources or time figuring out who is or is not profiting from their work, so they just stamp out all the bugs in the house that get big enough to be noticed. I guess, I really don’t know.
To add to other comments, Bethesda NPCs haven’t aged well. Especially when they’re right next to Baldur’s Gate 3 NPCs. Starfield left a lot to be desired. Can’t believe we’ve been lacking ES for this
I’ve no faith in Bethesda anymore. I played about 25 hours in Starfield and had finished the ranger questline and felt that is so shallow. Then I started thinking about all the quests that I did and how they didn’t change or lead to anything. If Bethesda don’t change how they structure quests then I won’t play any of their future RPGs.
The name of the game has changed. Its no longer about shoving stuff in a big world. Players of the genre want their choices to matter in an adaptive world. Bethesda didn’t get the memo they were so caught up in their empty dream sandbox.
Edit: I should also add expected AI behavior is evolving. After Rain World, I notice bland AI.
It used to be that if you wanted an open world game you had a handful of options, and for RPGs Fallout and Elder Scrolls were really the only options. Nowadays we have more open world games than you can shake a stick at. Bethesda doesn’t seem to realize that the rest of the industry has caught up with and passed them in a lot of ways
20 years ago this was Bethesda’s style. They were the open-world rpg simulation. Now and Indie Dev can drop 6 character models and 6 objects into a game engine and have similar functionality in maybe a month. Two weeks if its hunkering down like a game jam. Technology has surpassed their products. They need to do something to spice it up or ES 6 is gonna bomb.
I stopped playing BG3 to try Starfield when it came out. I got through the intro, landed at that first populated world, and stopped to talk to a janitor at the train station. She said something like, "Boy, I sure would like a cappuccino from TeraBrew!" and a quest tracker popped up for me to go buy her a cup of coffee. I delivered it to her and she gave me a bag of apple slices that healed 1 HP or some shit.
Its fucking jarring. Same story here. Stopped my BG3 cause my friend begged me. I said nah and he let me remote play it to try it out. I instantly recognized the same bullshit from all the way back to Oblivion out of the NPCs. They just feel dated now. Especially next to BG3 who probably put a ton of work into their NPCs.
Man if it ran on a toaster people would be bitching that these toasters are holding the game back why aren’t they not using the full power of my new Gen console/$2000 RTX PC?!
It’s fine to require newer hardware but the game has to justify it. You can’t have a game that looks like Starfield and claim it needs a high end system to run when games like BG3 and Cyberpunk also exist.
I accidentally heard about it a month ago and watched a bunch of videos about the studio and the game. Pretty interesting, and i was really looking forward to see how bad it is. I was kinda surprised how big the following of the game is, and most people i know have no idea that the game exists
Yeah well just because you haven’t heard of it and no one’s heard of it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t hyped, It just means it wasn’t typed very effectively.
Personally, I might be done with the series at this point.
Did they not just put a lot of the vehicles behind a paywall in GTA V this year? If you previously had them, you were fine. You would be SOL if you didn’t buy them in the game before the update, though. IIRC some of cars were even stuck behind the GTA+ subscription.
I don’t want to buy a game, and then have to buy some of the exact same content again years later. They should have also told people that they would be paywalling the cars a decent amount of time before they went through with it, imo.
It’s not the end of the world or anything, but I’m concerned that this might be an attempt at starting a new type of profiting. This is worse than the horse armour from Oblivion. At least that gave you new models and textures.
“We’ll just sell them a game, then we’ll sell them the same assets in the same game years later!”
Just wait until it spreads to more game companies. I wish that there was a stronger push back when it happened. People are going to completely forget about it until it happens again.
With their current track record, maybe I’ll buy it after a decade haha
Aside from R* Social Club being finiky if you’re offline, GTAV and RDR2 didn’t flaunt with the line between SP and MP, in my experience. Each felt separate and optional to the other.
Never played much GTAV (4 was the last good one as far as I’m concerned, at least so far) but yeah, I loved how RDR2 and RDR Online don’t force one into the other!
GTA trilogy wasn’t developed by rockstar iirc. That being said, pre-ordering games is a dumb move anyway since games aren’t finished when they are being released nowadays
And it’s almost like they cant run out of binary code + a license key to distribute.
And the preload period is stupid anyway since you will most likely need a day 1 patch anyway.
How efficient is it to antagonize people that are actively promoting your own content for free on other platforms? Does this actually work for Nintendo?
I guess they antagonize anyone that has moderate exposure using their IP
In some countries copyright law says that if you let people use your copyrighted material with little to no impediment then you cannot suddenly request whoever is using your material to stop
Let’s say that Nintendo allows fans to make fan made Mario games for 5 years. Then they suddenly sue everyone and say “hey you have to pay for copyright or shutdown”. A judge can decide that since they didn’t enforce their copyright for some time they cannot sue people that are using their IP.
From a legal perspective the act of policing your own copyrighted material is the company’s responsibility. This law prevents companies from relaxing their copyright claims for years (essentially allowing people to use it) and then suing everyone for using their IP. In other words Just let everyone use it, then sue them. The law is there to prevent that
Nintendo is likely super strict because “let people use your copyrighted material with little to no impediment” has room for interpretation in a court room. So they go to the conservative side and shut down everyone. Also consider that they’re right next to China. The piracy capital of the world. It’s not a surprise they’re scared about their copyright.
I’m not saying that what they’re doing is right. It’s not. But I see where it comes from.
People that don’t know of this (or don’t care) will indiscriminately buy their products. To unseat them it would require a handheld that targets the same market and a killer game for that handheld.
Nintendo is a “family friendly” brand before all else and really only cares about the experience of children playing their games and adults buying their games for children to play. They count on their core IPs to draw in those kids as adults, but don’t put much effort in catering to an adult audience. They put more effort in with the Switch (game store with more adult oriented games), but still minimal effort - their original properties are family friendly.
They see other people using their IP as diluting their brand value rather than promoting it. They think their characters are what makes people nostalgic for their games and drives brand value. So they want you to only be able to see your “favorite Nintendo characters” from Nintendo official sources and have complete control over that experience.
I think they’re wrong about most of that. The characters are, for the most part, pretty generic and simple. What people like about Nintendo is that the games are accessible, they played when they were kids, and they were often introduced to those games by parents or older siblings. There’s a social context to Nintendo games that is unique and nostalgic. They’re often some of the first games you play as a kid, and they’re the first games you think of when you want to introduce your own kids/nieces & nephews, etc. to gaming. I don’t think that unofficial Super Smash Bros tournaments or Gary’s Mod having fan-made Mario models in it dilutes that in the slightest but Nintendo does drive away adults who are the primary drivers of the Nintendo brand’s popularity (as they are the purchasers). Once it’s these young adults’ turn to share Nintendo games with the next generation, I think Nintendo’s litigiousness will hurt them because it will have driven many of these people away.
I didn’t see that coming, and it’s a welcome development. If it warps the general PC hardware market enough that devs start optimizing for a standard platform, it’ll result in less buggy products at launch. And maybe orienting development towards a relatively underpowered platform will make it easier for those of us dumb enough to that like to spend more on a desktop to hit those 60 FPS targets.
I think it’s more important that it gives Valve a method of avoiding being shoehorned into a “Windows only world”. The Steam Deck is largely why Linux has pushed past 2% market share on the Steam Hardware Survey consistently now. Holo, which is the codename for SteamOS on the Deck, makes up over half of Steam on Linux.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not dillusional. Windows is still far and away the majority platform and will be for some time. However, there is a real, functional choice now that didn’t exist a few years ago.
True, but even if Steam were to offer a x% lower cut on sales for Linux users if the developer makes a Linux-native build, it’d still not entice many to build and maintain a native port if they are only saving x% off a tiny y% of users. Other poster’s point being that incentives like this would actually become enticing to companies when Linux market share (Proton users) increases.
Doubtful Steam is gonna offer a share cut on all sales when it runs on Proton for the 2% of userbase using Linux, and from that only a minority would care whether or not it’s native anyway.
Valve could start by releasing a Steam Deck SDK for Visual Studio that exposes an “Export to Steam Deck” option when targets the latest release of Steam Linux Runtime.
Currently they offer Docker containers which is good but could be improved.
Back when Steam Machines were a thing and Valve tried to only push Linux native games, game developers got placements on Steam Store’s landing page banner in return.
Proton is so good that devs have actually gotten better performance by dropping their native Linux build and just running a proton-emulated version in Linux 😀
The benefit of Steam is backwards compatibility. The moment you force native porting you lose your greatest benefit. Since you anyway have to build backwards compatibility with Windows you gain nothing by incentivizing native Linux and the developers gain nothing from being incentivized to build native because their games will work through Proton.
There’s no reason for Valve to incentivize native builds. It’s the devs that need to have an incentive to develop natively for Linux. And with the market share being what it is there’s no incentive for the devs either.
I see you don’t know about Steam Linux Runtimes which are backwards and forwards compatible. 1.0 (“scout”) is based on Ubuntu 12.04, so already 12 years of binary compatibility.
I think you’re missing the point. It’s not about OS backwards compatibility, it’s user library backwards compatibility. Imagine if proton didn’t exist and you have 15 years of Steam library that has expanded on a yearly basis. You now buy the Steam Deck to play your library. What games can you play? I guarantee you couldn’t play 99% of your library because less than 1% of all games on Steam have been made natively for Linux. If you can’t play 99% of your library what’s the point of owning the deck? This is why Valve is pouring money into Proton, because Proton is the tool that gives users backwards compatibility for their library. Without proton the Steam Deck would be an utter failure.
It’s also why they don’t need to incentivize native builds, because they already solved that problem on their own with Proton. Why put effort into having developers develop native builds when you could just put that effort into Proton and essentially get the same result (and extra benefits) without hoping the developers do something they didn’t want to do in the first place?
I think you’re missing the point. It’s not about OS backwards compatibility, it’s user library backwards compatibility.
I never proposed to ax Proton, so I’m not the one here missing any points.
It’s also why they don’t need to incentivize native builds, because they already solved that problem on their own with Proton. Why put effort into having developers develop native builds when you could just put that effort into Proton and essentially get the same result (and extra benefits) without hoping the developers do something they didn’t want to do in the first place?
I explained several times already that game updates breaking Proton compatibility is a real thing that would not have happened with native games.
Game developers develop for dedicated platforms other than Windows all the time. They’re called game consoles. Native games don’t just mysteriously break on updates or suddenly ban players because the game developer out of the blue decided that Proton is cheating. First launch of games doesn’t annoy with those stupid Microsoft runtime installer scripts, etc. Proper native games could be optimized the way console games are instead of relying on multiple levels of Windows compatibility layers (the newest BS Proton has to deal with is gamepad compatibility for launchers via a special input wrapper) – they are just a smoother experience all around.
So you understand that it is way more beneficial for Valve to support proton than native Linux, and then say that Valve should incentivize native builds?
So you understand that it is way more beneficial for Valve to support proton than native Linux, and then say that Valve should incentivize native builds?
Proton should be the focus for older, existing games and native games should be the focus for new games. Not really that hard to understand.
In some far future, sure. But at the moment Linux barely makes up 2% of the users and that number is not going to rise if developers started developing natively for Linux. There is currenttly negative incentive for developers to develop natively for Linux, I can’t find the article but there was a developer who ported their game to Linux and while Linux was barely a speck of their playerbase the Linux users made up the majority of support tickets. Valve would need insane incentives to get developers to develop for Linux. Or they could take fraction of that effort and make Proton better. Quite frankly I’m not sure why I even need to explain this, it should be a no-brainer to understand why supporting Proton right now is much better for Valve than incentivizing Linux builds.
In some far future, sure. But at the moment Linux barely makes up 2% of the users
Fun fact: Whenever a console maker launches a new console, ahead of launch the user base is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000%. And yet no one of them would even think about not incentivizing game development for the upcoming platform.
and that number is not going to rise if developers started developing natively for Linux.
Based on which argument? Games on occasion break on updates. Players get banned for using Proton. That’s negative publicity.
There is currenttly negative incentive for developers to develop natively for Linux, I can’t find the article but there was a developer who ported their game to Linux and while Linux was barely a speck of their playerbase the Linux users made up the majority of support tickets.
Doesn’t change the fact that native games lead to a better experience for consumers (which I already outlined).
Valve would need insane incentives to get developers to develop for Linux. Or they could take fraction of that effort and make Proton better.
Start by offering a proper SDK that plugs into Visual Studio. You’re acting as if incentivizing would cost insane amounts of money, based on no fact at all.
Quite frankly I’m not sure why I even need to explain this
You barely explained anything. I explained why emulated Windows games lead to worse user experience. You refuted nothing of that.
Fun fact: Whenever a console maker launches a new console, ahead of launch the user base is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000%. And yet no one of them would even think about not incentivizing game development for the upcoming platform.
Actually, no. There’s a reason why for multiple generations we’ve had only 3 console selling companies, because all of them have a pre-existing user bases. We saw when a new player wanted to come to the market, Google tried with Stadia. Not exactly a new console, but a new platform where to play games. Sure, they literally paid companies to get their games on their platform, but in the end they still failed because they could not build a user base. And to bring this point back to Steam Deck, Valve doesn’t need to incentivize native Linux builds because Proton can make those games available on the Steam Deck. Steam deck is literally a success without Valve ever incentivizing Linux builds. Oh, and Valve also had a pre-existing user base to make Steam Deck a success. What you’re saying is so wrong I shouldn’t even be explaining any of it.
Based on which argument? Games on occasion break on updates. Players get banned for using Proton. That’s negative publicity.
With those negatives you’ve shown that at best native builds retain the existing user base. That is not the same as growing a user base.
Doesn’t change the fact that native games lead to a better experience for consumers (which I already outlined).
That is not a fact. That comes down to implementation and considering most developers are not familiar with Linux it’s very much a stretch that they could actually give a better experience than what Proton gives by default. Proton does a really good job, I personally have had minimal issues with Proton and considering the impact it has had on Linux gaming I don’t think I’m the exception here.
I also urge you to look at it from a game dev perspective. You see your game run acceptably on Proton. Do you really want to put in the effort to learn Linux to such degree that you can make the native experience better than the acceptable experience Proton gives, for no additional effort? If I was a game dev, I wouldn’t do it. I’d put that effort into making a next game.
Start by offering a proper SDK that plugs into Visual Studio. You’re acting as if incentivizing would cost insane amounts of money, based on no fact at all.
Sequeing from the previous point. Okay, Valve offers the proper SDK. What’s the incentive for the game dev to actually use it? Why should they spend time learning how to make a game for Linux when they could make another game for Windows and know that it probably also works on Linux thanks to Proton? Unless they themselves want to make a game for Linux there’s no reason for them to actually use it.
You barely explained anything. I explained why emulated Windows games lead to worse user experience. You refuted nothing of that.
Because it needs to explanation. Just go into any Linux gaming community and ask what has been the most impactful thing in Linux gaming for the past decade. The unquestionable number 1 reason is Proton. If there’s anything right now growing the Linux user base it’s Proton.
Does Proton do a worse job than a developer making the game natively for Linux. As I alluded to before, not that clear cut of an answer. But the part you’re so adamant on ignoring is that does making a native build pay off compared to just having Proton handle it? I imagine most game devs would say “no”. Linux playerbase is still too small for developers to give it any attention, which is why Proton is a fucking godsend because it allows users to play games on Linux even if the developers don’t even consider Linux support.
As long as the user base is too small for developers to care all efforts should go into Proton. Valve can’t make developers care unless Valve literally throws money in their face to make them care. And Valve does not need to do that because Proton does a good enough job to not need to throw money at the developers.
That’s it, I’m done. If you’ve got anything to say I have my middle finger up towards the camera. I get it, your pet dream is native Linux gaming. Nothing I say matters because you want to believe your dream. Nothing you say matters because I’m not going to believe your unrealistic dream. I literally don’t care what more you have to say because to me it comes across like a flat earther explaining why the earth is flat. I’m not going to waste any more time explaining how the world is round and with that I consider the discussion concluded.
It doesn’t really matter though, because Wine is mature enough that it’s not a hacky diy fix, it’s a viable solution. None of the games I play run any worse on Linux than they did on Windows, and some run better. The vast majority of people don’t care whether it’s native or not, they just want it to work.
how i personally see it is that it welcomes devs to set a new minimum pc requirement to target. due to valve not doing contstent iterations (which imo is actually a good thing), it gives people a point of performance comparison reference to when wanting to play a new title.
I like to laugh at him as much as the next guy, but Will Smith has nothing to do with this game. He was merely a paid actor in it. Tencent failed to nake a good game and to market it properly. Nobody was going to read the article about the shit game anyway so they lead with Will “get that outta yo mouth” smith.
When Cyberpunk initially failed did you see headlines like: Keanu Reeves game flops? No because that would be stupid.
The source notes that for Mac there have been 2 exclusive games across all versions, and for Windows, there have been about 2560 across all versions. There doesn’t appear to be a listing for Linux unfortunately.
It depends on how the source categorized the information and how Microsoft classifies the Xbox One versus the Xbox One Series (whether as being two actual different consoles, or two versions of the same console.)
There is only one entry for anything related to Xbox One as far as I can see so I expect the 12 it notes are distributed across all versions of the Xbox One, or that there are 0 dedicated games for the Xbox One Series proper.
The less exclusives, the better. We don’t need lock-ins, we need open platforms and open systems. If I want a plug&play gaming experience I can buy a console, if I want maximum performance and quality in a more maintenance and setup intensive package I can build my own PC.
For real - it’s so nice nowadays being able to play nearly any hot new game I want to on my desktop. Never been a huge fan of consoles - keyboard+mouse was always far more natural for me, but then again I was big into C&C and SC when I was a kid. The only console I’ve really loved since the N64 is the switch, and that’s largely because I can bring it on a long flight and fuck around in ZELDA: BOTW or TOTK for hours on end, which is awesome (I tend to avoid putting games on my personal dev laptop, and it also only has an iGPU).
MKB is more natural because controllers are redesigned constantly to create a false sense of innovation. The fundamentals of controlling a figure on a screen have not changed, nor have hands.
Shouldn’t FF16 also be on this list? Given that FF7 Rebirth will almost definitely see a PC port, I don’t think the ongoing development of an FF16 PC port should exclude it from the list.
I think the “Microsoft dilemma” is between Making Some Money vs. Take All The Money.
If they publish a bunch of successful games on Steam or on Playstation, they will make Some Money, compared to games published exclusive to Xbox, where they can make All The Money.
By acquiring studios they are making sure that good franchises “don’t make all the money… yet” (on competing platform like Steam, Playstation or Switch, but also Android/iOS)
They could make good games exclusive for Xbox, but given how relatively unsuccessful is the Xbox platform, compared to Switch and Playstation, it would mean that very expensive (to make) games will bleed money
PlayStation often makes unforced errors that make you wonder how it gained such a significant foothold across the last few console generations and such a fiercely loyal audience.
Mostly unforced errors from other companies. It’s dumb decisions all the way down.
Yeah they both make a bunch of really anti consumer choices constantly, I never got the diehards who go hard for the console. Exclusive games I can at least understand, but is an Xbox really that functionality different from a PlayStation?
I was a Nintendo kid in the 99s, then had a PS2 followed by a 360, I really only got a PS4 cause the opportunity for a deal came up, and I only got a PS5 cause I already had a PS4.
Admittedly that’s probably where most of the fan clubbing comes from, generationally upgrading until you’re to use to the system to change.
I don’t think they would be ditching the table if they were winning tbh. Their goal is always to get as many people to subscribe to their stuff as possible
Let's not forget that with Gamepass, it's not just a better game by folding in PC, but they're doing something completely different with their consoles than Sony is. More and more, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are either competing with Valve or against themselves, and not each other.
Except for Nintendo, they’re still just doing what they’ve been doing for the last 20 years, releasing consoles with outdated hardware and relying on gimmicks to sell them, at this point they’re not even trying to compete anymore, Valve is a stronger competitor for Microsoft and Sony than Nintendo nowadays.
Still, raw processing power comparatively it is underpowered, can’t push beyond 1080p for example, which is fine for Nintendo games because they make games with that limitation in mind, third party switch games are a lot more hit or miss, especially ports of pc games.
Compared to even cell phones the switch is laughably underpowered in the year 2024.
Not saying it can’t be useful or enjoyable, just gotta face facts about what the device is lol.
Steam deck is starting to eat their lunch I think.
Playstation’s exclusives are on the whole, a lot more interesting to me. I honestly have almost no interest in Xbox because of that. It’s not the hardware, it’s purely the software.
I feel like we‘re not seeing/talking about the reason the console market is another duopoly. Its a harsh failure on cartel prevention laws imo. New consoles should pop up here and there yet they dont (very small opening for steamseck likes). Its not a healthy market.
At first glance I think the IP laws are the problem here. A new console should be able to run xbox games and/or ps5 games and compete on hardware and ergonomics alone imo. That way the competition would drive prices down and decisions would again be for improving the service, not the bottom line.
I think the answer is simple (they probably mentioned it in the article I’m not reading). Sony makes good hardware and good games. They don’t really need to compete with Nintendo since they kinda do their own thing at this point, and Microsoft is really no better. I also think Playstation is generally regarded as having better exclusives, even during the 360 era where Xbox clearly won.
My experience is that seems to be a US centric view that the 360 “won” it’s generation, I’ve never encountered that view locally and it’s ultimately not born out by statistics although it was the closest Microsoft ever came.
In the UK, where I’m from, it’s widely considered 360 won too.
The reason the PS3 won in the end I think was due to a worsening opinion of Microsoft towards the end when the original plan for the Xbox One was being discussed and shown, along with a lot of teenage gamers now being older with more disposable income allowing them to buy a PS3 later in the generation and trying out all of the exclusives they missed out on.
I don’t know how true this rings out in general, but that was pretty much my experience.
The north east for me. Pretty much everyone had a 360 and everyone still calls it “the 360 days” or something of the other. But might just be the people I come across. Only had a few friends that had a PS3 in school, they always seemed to be left out from what the others were doing gaming wise. Wasn’t until the PS4 until I started seeing people back to playing PlayStation by default like the PS2 days.
Here’s another example where trying to chase the live-service money train has just ended up with a subpar product that people abandon or avoid almost instantly.
Unfortunately I suspect the wrong lessons will be taken away from this as well - e.g. the console/PC gaming market is too fickle, etc.
There’s been more than enough examples of great IPs being ruined by overly aggressive monetization.
The reason why it still happens, and will continue to happen, is because the games that generate the highest return on investment are the ones with aggressive monetization. Clash of Clans made way more money than Baldur’s Gate 3. Investors and shareholders don’t care about rave reviews and game of the year awards. They want money. I just wish they’d keep it to new IPs instead of ruining a great series.
It’s frustrating because like … people could just not spend money on garbage. Like there are exploitive games that make a ton of money, right? How do we get people to stop spending money on them?
We probably can’t because many people are morons who can’t pass the marshmallow test.
I don’t like the blaming the victim mentality here. Sure, the games aren’t super great, but they use skinner box mechanics to get players to feel like they have to pay. Skinner Boxes are literally dopamine machines, meant to program behaviors. To fully lay the blame on the players instead of acknowledging that the games themselves are mostly to blame feels pretty gross.
My post came out more victim blaming than I meant. “how to get people to stop paying for exploitive games” might be regulation or education. I don’t have an answer.
On the other hand, casinos have been around forever so maybe we’re stuck as long as we’re human.
Needs some form of regulation. The new generations are so indoctrinated into skins and battle passes that they talk about how much they should cost instead of if they should even exist in the first place.
No education will change things, they have grown up with these cancerous monetisation methods, countries just need to ban it, like they were starting to do with lootboxes.
The fact is is that all 3 console manufacturers charge monthly subscriptions for you to play games you bought with anyone outside of your room. (Nintendo Switch Online, Playstation Plus, Xbox Live).
Guess how much I have to pay Steam every month to play games in my $3000 library with my friends across the country? (A: nothing!)
Fan was originally short for fanatic, but language changes over time and now it means someone who likes something or someone. These “people” do not like, they hate. They are not fans, they are fanatics. And even that term feels too kind.
I feel like articles like this promote more psychopaths. If they know that their threats are working and effecting their target they are going to keep doing it.
kotaku.com
Top