Without diving tooo much into it, I’m pretty sure the main reason is he doesn’t want government regulation around the games industry.

The most generous summary of his better points would be that it is not always feasible to leave a game in a playable state since server architecture might not allow for that. Semi fair since the games industry has gotten to a point where some of these games may be using code contracted from a third party making releasing the binaries difficult from a licensing perspective.

However he seems to have taken playable as ‘designed for single player’. Using the hypothetical of MMOs needing to be rebalanced around a single player experience. He extended this to a game Meet Your Maker which is reliant on other real players for the experience and saying there is no way to leave that 'playable.

As a note, Stop Killing Games is NOT asking for any rebalancing to be done and this is an entirely fabricated complaint.

The unfortunate thing for me is I don’t see how we get reasonable competition in the computing space at this point. The economies of scale that is required to get a reasonably priced chip to market is enormous.

Unsurprising, Nvidia really only cares for the higher end market for gaming.

Hopefully AMD and Intel can find success making reasonable cards for the masses.

Those programs do have an effect on pricing. Not 1 to 1 with the cost subsidization and even if it does there’s plenty of arguments to keep programs like that around.

However I’d rather see moves made to encourage positive behaviors, like purchasing an electric vehicle, that didn’t translate into a dealership subsidy.

Yeah, this is my issue with the government incentives for EVs, especially now that they are more common and can be deducted from the sale price. Most retailers are just jacking up the price to whatever the cap for the rebate is while pretending it’s still a good deal.