ObiGynKenobi

And 54 cents a month is more than the ad revenue generated by a non-premium user running adblock, hence Google would prefer it.

It's certainly the option Google would prefer, which essentially always means it's unethical.

No, this isn't something you can expect.

There used to be a distro called Gallium OS, but it's been dead for a couple years now.

There are actually Chromebooks with very solid specs, but no, it isn't that simple. They have custom firmware and components that often don't play well with Linux, or Windows for that matter.

I'd gladly agree to pay more in exchange for a legally binding agreement that higher prices mean video games free of predatory monetization and reasonable pay and job security for the people making the games. But we both know that they have no intention of doing the right thing, no matter how high the box price. They're already raking in record profits while laying off huge chunks of their workforce and giving the c-suite ever-increasing annual bonuses.

They've perpetuated the lie that microtransactions were a necessity and the $60 price was unsustainable for such a long time that people actually believe it. Now they want to increase the box price while keeping the predatory monetization, having their cake and eating it too.

Your point isn't without merit, but your framing of it certainly is. The comparison made in the initial post is apples to oranges, but your experience is nothing more than anecdote and implying digital is universally cheaper is absurd. Allow me to counter your anecdote with one of my own:

Only a few months after release, I picked up an Xbox copy of Cyberpunk 2077, brand new from a big box retail chain and with a complimentary steelbook case, for $5.

What needs to happen is regulation. Pro-consumer governing bodies (which don't exist in the US, but the EU has been on a roll) mandating the right to transfer a digital license.

As for the stores, Xbox offers GameStop a small percentage of the revenue from every digital game purchased on a console sold by GameStop. That feels like a healthy compromise for an all-digital business model.

I'm not sure why you're trying to convince me of the merits of physical media? I did not, and do not, disagree. It's a more flexible option, and more options is always better for the consumer. But the reality is that physical media, in its current iteration, doesn't offer all that much protection. The only universal benefit of physical media is the ability to regift or resell. It's a great benefit, but it hardly liberates consumers from dependence on servers.

As for my original point, it simply read to me as if this person was giving the GameStop exec credit for something he did not say. I wanted to make sure his comments were seen in an accurate light.

A broken clock.

If only that was what he was saying. He doesn't care whether they're dependent on servers. The vast majority of physical games sold today are already nothing more than an entitlement and some of the game files, with the rest being downloaded after you insert the disc. He's only concerned with Gamestop getting their cut, both in new game sales and especially in their bread-and-butter trade-in market.

Yeah, I went back and tried it again yesterday, fully updated. I have no idea how anyone is getting 30 FPS on steam deck in act 3, unless they're in the camp or something.

Glad I could brighten your day, friend :) Thanks for sharing