Game Deals
A place to post and discuss the best gaming deals around the internet
Post Format Guide (Optional)
Single Game:
[Source][Region] Game - Price
For example:
[Steam][US] Hades - $19.99
Bundles: [Source][Region][Bundle Name] Game 1, Game 2, Game 3, ... - Price
For example:
[Steam][US][Indie Bundle Extravaganza] Game A, Game B, Game C - $19.99
Sale Event: [Source][Region][Event Name/Description] Date Range
Use DDMMM format
For example:
[Steam][US][Steam Summer Sale] 29Jun - 13Jul
In this format, the region indicates the specific region or country where the deal is applicable (e.g., US, EU, UK, etc.). This can be helpful for users who want to know if the deal is available in their region or if it's region-specific.
I welcome any feedback, just trying to do my part into building the community---
view the rest of the comments
I haden't seen that they had extended the milestone to 2026, so that's good on Krafton (even if they are removing most of the cost due to the founders portion of the bonus in the process). The issue i see still is, Subnautica pioneered the EA field. It was expected to release fairly barebones, thats how Subnautica 1 released when it went EA. Thats how below zero released when it went EA. The leaked milestone reports show a very optimistic view of what S2 should be when released, and then they revisited it to scale it back down to realistic expectations, then when revisited they said the new goals would be seen as bad PR to the user field and would recommend postponing release so they could upgrade the content available (both goalposts listed in the leaked milestone images). It sounds more like what the founders are claiming, that Krafton is trying to delay the game to avoid the primary payout, and that they are using the excuse that users would be critical of an EA as a reason.
EA Games can still flop because they are laughably too early. There's definitely certain expectations that come with the brand as well.
I just don't really see the point though. Between three guys getting millions of dollars and us getting a better game, if delayed by a few, the second choice is always the best one. No matter the reasoning behind it imo.
It seems like a lot of risk just for three guys. I like the game, I'd rather avoid a bad release so this suits me fine. Honestly, the bonus was insane and really puts the whole situation into rich people fighting each other. At least, we are getting the pro consumer outcome.
I think my biggest issue with it is, it definitely seems like they made the bonus as part of the acquisition deal to obtain the company, with no expectation to actually follow through with the bonus. I dislike companies being able to bully smaller companies out of what they were entitled to.
I don't care that the founders aren't getting the money so to speak, I disagree with the corporate bullying of a larger entity absorbing/acquiring a smaller entity and then not even going through with their end of the deal.