Whom

Yeah, I think it's important not to lose perspective here and let expectations slide just because Nvidia are being more awful right now. Make no mistake, value went out the window a long time ago and AMD are also fucking us, just a little less hard than their main competitor. Even adjusting for inflation, what used to get you the top of the line now gets you last-gen midrange.

I agree that this happens to an extent but Digital Foundry in particular makes a point to take into account performance of the cards most used by regular people and are one of the biggest forces in that space pushing people to not just hit "ultra" and move on as you can see with their optimized settings series and the like, as well as getting the best out of older games as in their retro series. They like games that look good and play smoothly, of course, but I don't think it's fair to associate them with that kind of ULTRA MAX OR DIE attitude.

I think there's sometimes an overcorrection from the "gameplay over graphics" crowd. I've been part of that group before and get it, it's frustrating when from your perspective the industry is ignoring the parts of games that you care about the most. But it's a strange thing to pick on because at the end of the day pretty things that feel smooth to play are wonderful! That can be done on a toaster with beautiful pixel art / low poly 3D models, but it can also be done in dramatically different ways by pushing high end hardware to its limits. There's room for both and I adore both. Games are art like anything else and it'd be strange to tell people who appreciate going to a beautiful movie shot on particularly nice film on-location in expensive places just because it's still a good movie if you watch it on an old laptop with awful web compression or because an underground mumblecore film from 2003 is also great.

Graphics aren't all that matter to me but if the primary joy someone gets from gaming is seeing ultra-detailed and perfectly rendered scenes the best way they possibly can, good for them. Personally, I like getting good visuals when I can but my primary concern is always framerate, as particularly in first person games even 60fps often triggers my motion sickness and forces me to stick to short sessions. Ultimately I see the this whole debate as a relic of the past that only made sense when the only games the average person had access to were AAA/AA releases. Low-spec gaming is better than it has ever been, with the indie scene continuing to go strong like it has for the past 15+ years and an ever-expanding backlog of classics which now run on just about anything every year.

I can imagine a reasonable user who doesn't look into it beyond the old warning text being aware that incognito's purpose is to not store browsing history and therefore assuming that somehow impacts Google's ability to know where you've been. Like, they might know it doesn't stop trackers but assume not having the history logged means it's not there for Google to take. Or speaking more generally, they could've taken it to mean "we won't track you, but we can't do anything about others doing so."

I wouldn't say it just relied on basic reading abilities, as you could easily be misled if your mental model for how tracking and data collection works was just a bit off.

What launcher do you recommend? I've been using Flauncher as it's the only decent FOSS one I've found, but it's pretty barebones.

That's fine, just let the rest of us do the same.

You are still talking past my assertion that a deck building card game is defined by the card pool, which is usually designed by a singular group of people.

I'm not talking past it, because as I've said over and over, I agree. That singular group of people can just release that card pool under a Creative Commons license and any associated software under a FOSS license and they have made a FOSS card game. What is the problem?

Well, the point is that the advantages of centralized development don't have to be given up, because development can still be centralized. The advantages of FOSS development I'm building this point upon aren't like increased efficiency or something like that. It's an ethical thing, allowing the game to be the public good it ought to be (and functionally kind of is, looking at proxies and homebrew). If those original designers ruin the game in a way that upsets enough people, a new designer or group could fork it and become the new standard. This isn't really possible with a proprietary game without stepping incredibly carefully around the law. Homebrew and modified cards can exist, but if there was a modified version of Magic threatening to replace the original game, Wizards would be sending nukes your way real quick.

But I get that you seem to be coming at this from a different position, if you don't consider games being made as part of the commons as an inherently good thing then we have a philosophical disagreement that goes beyond the scope of this discussion. I believe that making stuff that belongs to everyone IS the value of free and open source development, not a means to an end.

you are conflating tying two design activities together as requiring a profit motive.

I'm not though! I am saying, repeatedly, that a single organized group or even singular designer, for-profit or non-profit (but ideally the latter, of course) can do ALL of those design activities and release it as open source. They can design every card, decide every rule, and decide every card that "counts". Having a FOSS license doesn't change any of that. It's up to players if they want to just use that or use additional stuff others make...just like it is now, since homebrew exists and will always exist as long as there is paper to write rules text on.

I'd like to gently suggest you reread my comments, because my whole point is that design, rulesets, and declaring legality within their own system can all happen with a governing body that is not a for-profit company and released according to the same principles as free and open source software. There is not separation of those activities if you simply choose to play the original, say, Bizards of the Boast version as most players realistically would. Stuff made by others would effectively work just like homebrew does now.

That already is how Magic is, though. There's a core base ruleset and cards deemed official by the original organizing body and tons of custom stuff out there that the original body doesn't treat as part of their product. The organizing body can control power creep and all that within its own ruleset, and most players would likely choose to use that so they don't end up with 999/999 epic dragon of doom for 2 mana, but they don't have to. The only real difference in this sense is that the organizing body wouldn't be a corporation driven by profit and that players would have more legal headroom and proper tools to make custom stuff rather than the current awkward position fan sets land in.

In fact, this would give the organizing body that stands in for Wizards more room to hold back power creep, as they wouldn't have the constant nagging knowledge that increasing power a little more will net them more money. They would have maximum control over deciding what is best for their version of the game. I imagine we'd end up with a few standardized systems of play like we have now in corporate TCGs, the original organizing body's version alongside scattered other custom versions for highly opinionated players who want something different.

Assuming you meant to type "wouldn't," I think you may be a little off on what you think free and open source software entails. It doesn't imply an open design process or anything of that kind, though it does lend itself well to those workflows. It instead describes what the end user has the freedom to do with what they receive. This is true of both of the philosophically different but practically similar "open source" and "free software" definitions.

In the software world, FOSS developers can, if they want to, design entirely behind closed doors within their own organization and drop a disc with the software, the source code, and licensing guaranteeing you certain freedoms. In the case of adapting that philosophy to a game, I think this would probably be the best approach to avoid the problems of design by committee. The cards could be released freely and included could be project files for card design, art used, etc. to allow people to do whatever they want with em.

It's worth mentioning that while developing in the open is the standard in the git era, it's not a requirement for open source and for a project that would benefit doing otherwise they could easily just do big releases with the source available and the proper licensing.

That said, I think this is overcomplicating things. You could simply have a nonprofit organizational body who designs in-house just as Wizards does and releases the final product into the public domain or under Creative Commons licenses. Unofficial cards compatible with your game will more or less be the same as they are for Magic: optional modules that are clearly not part of your vision for the game and so playgroups must choose if they want to play the game your organization produces or an expansion to it.