>>715717513
shes cheap to work with because shes bad at her job

>>714215150

I sometimes wonder if women's games were hurt by the industry trend to hire politically, rather than hire pasty nerdy men who know computers.
It's hard to tell because steam isn't where women play so I don't know if the Sims 4's figure is representative. It's high but only ever since it went free-to-play, and never had a peak that a long running, reliable behemouth of the industry should get. Even Stardew Valley beat it according to Steamdb.

I'll never understand why people think capitalism = worse product that pushes away customers. Or greed = pandering to a very, very, very specific, teeny tiny base of customers who don't play video games.

Webm unrelated.

See also
>>713448556
>capitalism = cringe embarrassing tropes and traditions
?

>>713448615
DE's writing is good because it affirms the beliefs of people who think a certain way despite their lives and lucrative livelihoods not.
But if I look at steamdb it was also really really bad because literally no-one played it... and somehow it sold 3-7m copies...? Something doesn't add up. Do people just buy things based on vibes/marketing and not actually use the products they buy?

>>713444613
What a loss....