Free Game: "Garfield Kart: Furious Racing"

[Spalls Hurgenson]

I'm not proud of this announcement. But a free game is a free game.

So, here it is:

* Garfield Kart: Furious Racing
https://www.fanatical.com/en/game/garfield-kart-furious-racing

Because apparently what the world has been demanding is a poorly-made
Mario Kart clone featuring Garfield the Cat.

I'm so sorry. Yoh have two weeks to refuse to claim this game.

[Justisaur]

I used to like Garfield. When it was in the newspaper. When it was first put to
animation in 1988 it was ruined for me and I hate it now.

- Justisaur

[Mike S.]

A lot of clicking to get this one. I almost gave up.

Almost.

[Ant]

Got it, but I doubt I will get it. FYI. It's requires a Fantical account
to get a Steam key.

--
"Whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." ???Colossians 3:17. Slammy Thurs. & TGIBF?
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 13:56:41 -0500, Mike S. wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 13:26:42 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>>I'm not proud of this announcement. But a free game is a free game.
>>So, here it is:
>>* Garfield Kart: Furious Racing

>>I'm so sorry. Yoh have two weeks to refuse to claim this game.


>A lot of clicking to get this one. I almost gave up.
>Almost.

Even had I wanted the game (I didn't) I wouldn't have gotten it
because it required me to link my account to Fanatical.com. They're
going to have to offer something a lot more valuable than Garfield to
get access to my gaming habits ;-)

But I had to post the link to the Garfield game, because Ant had
already posted the link to Terroir and I couldn't let him get more
points than me ;-)

[Ant]

What are the scores and rankings now? :-P

[Zaghadka]

On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 02:24:43 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Ant
wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 13:56:41 -0500, Mike S. wrote:
>> >On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 13:26:42 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>> >>I'm not proud of this announcement. But a free game is a free game.
>> >>So, here it is:
>> >>* Garfield Kart: Furious Racing
>> >>I'm so sorry. Yoh have two weeks to refuse to claim this game.
>
>
>> >A lot of clicking to get this one. I almost gave up.
>> >Almost.
>
>
>> Even had I wanted the game (I didn't) I wouldn't have gotten it
>> because it required me to link my account to Fanatical.com. They're
>> going to have to offer something a lot more valuable than Garfield to
>> get access to my gaming habits ;-)
>
>> But I had to post the link to the Garfield game, because Ant had
>> already posted the link to Terroir and I couldn't let him get more
>> points than me ;-)
>
>What are the scores and rankings now? :-P

Well, they're weighted scores, so Spalls just scored about -20 points
with this last one.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 02:24:43 +0000, (Ant) wrote:
>Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>> But I had to post the link to the Garfield game, because Ant had
>> already posted the link to Terroir and I couldn't let him get more
>> points than me ;-)

>What are the scores and rankings now? :-P

Well, you posted one game and I posted another, so at least for that
day, it was one-all.

But Epic is reportedly going to do a 12-days-of-Xmas give-away (one
game per day*), so there is plenty of opportunity for the tournament
to go either way.

In fact, I really should start practicing... Free game. FREE game.
Free GAME. Hmmm.



----------------------
* Only 12 games? Amateurs! ;-)

[Ant]

I wonder how many will be repeated from previous give aways. :P
--
"Since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe." ???Hebrews 12:28. Slammy Thurs. & TGIBF with the crazy colony! Will the weekend calm down? Go USC Trojans and beat Notre Dame! Crazy Global Entry.

[Werner P.]

Am 26.11.22 um 01:25 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:

> Even had I wanted the game (I didn't) I wouldn't have gotten it
> because it required me to link my account to Fanatical.com. They're
> going to have to offer something a lot more valuable than Garfield to

> get access to my gaming habits 😉
I have bought from Fanatical from time to time, their bundles for a
while were way better than what Humble used to offer.
But I have not found an interesting one for a while now.
Humble has gotten better again though.

[Spalls Hurgenson]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 08:31:50 +0100, "Werner P." <we...@gmx.at> wrote:

>Am 26.11.22 um 01:25 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
>> Even had I wanted the game (I didn't) I wouldn't have gotten it
>> because it required me to link my account to Fanatical.com. They're
>> going to have to offer something a lot more valuable than Garfield to

>> get access to my gaming habits ?

>I have bought from Fanatical from time to time, their bundles for a
>while were way better than what Humble used to offer.
>But I have not found an interesting one for a while now.
>Humble has gotten better again though.

Fanatical (and their predecessor, BundleStars) can be very hit or
miss. Their individual game sales are okay but usually not any better
than you can find elsewhere. Their bundles can be very good but often
a lot of the contents of those bundles are low-tier games, and the
games that appear in those bundles reappear often. So after you buy
one or two bundles, there's usually no point in looking at any of the
new bundles for a year or three until enough new stuff cycles in.

That said, I've gotten a good number of games from them over the
years; sometimes to acquire specific games, other times to 'round out'
a series (because I can't own Sniper Warrior Ghost 2 and 3 and /not/
pick up Sniper Ghost Warrior 1! ;-) and other times because some of
the games looked /just interesting/ enough (and were cheap enough)
that I didn't mind potentially throwing away a few bucks if the games
turned out to be crap.

The service itself has always been very reliable; I've never gotten a
key that didn't work, and in the few instances there were problems
(once they ran out of keys, for instance) they were very quick to
acknowledge the problem, and kept in contact until the problem was
resolved. I was very dubious about the company at first, but seven
years later? I'd say they've proven themselves.

The only thing I don't like about the company is how they're pushing
"mystery key" sales, where you spend $2USD to get a key to a random
game (it could be some crappy 50p Indie title, it could be Grand Theft
Auto 5); it's too much like real-life lootboxes and I don't think it's
good for the customer or the industry. I wish they'd stop, but -
seeing as they've been promoting the idea for years - it's obviously
quite profitable for them. And it's not as if the company isn't
upfront about the whole thing.

There's an added benefit to their bundles too: odds are that if I'm
buying a bundle of six games, at least one of them is something I
already own. Which means I end up with extra keys and, well, there's
always another Christmas around the corner... ;-P

I've actually been more disappointed with Humble recently, since the
quality of their games has gone down as their prices have gone up. It
used to be you could get a half-dozen mid-to-top tier games for a
tenner; now it's half that amount for twice the price. They've been
cutting back on quality and quantity on their monthly "Choice" games
too. It's still a good deal (at least for me) but it's not quite as
awesome as days-gone-by.

[JAB]

On 28/11/2022 16:03, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> The only thing I don't like about the company is how they're pushing
> "mystery key" sales, where you spend $2USD to get a key to a random
> game (it could be some crappy 50p Indie title, it could be Grand Theft
> Auto 5); it's too much like real-life lootboxes and I don't think it's
> good for the customer or the industry. I wish they'd stop, but -
> seeing as they've been promoting the idea for years - it's obviously
> quite profitable for them. And it's not as if the company isn't
> upfront about the whole thing.

I don't use Fanatical but having a quick look at their 'lootboxes' I
can't say I mind too much. The main problem I have with lootboxes is the
way they are often designed to exploit the maybe just another one and I
get the 'big item'. WoT do this every time they sell them, create some
hype around a tank but make it hard to obtain and then put it in lootboxes.

The Fanatical ones seem more like the just a bit of fun as they don't
seem to have the hook of chasing the triple-A game. Hell, even Airfix do
mystery boxes of model kits.

[Spalls Hurgenson]

I'd argue they are using exactly the same "chase after the next one"
methodology as lootboxes; buy a mystery key for $1USD, maybe get a
$70USD game. Oh no, ended up with an Indie title selling on Steam for
50p? Just buy another mystery key. It's utilizing the same FOMO
instinct that all gambling takes advantage of.

I'm not saying it's wrong; certainly there are people who enjoy the
thrill of the chase. (Although Fanatical doesn't seem very upfront
with what the prizes are, though, and there doesn't seem to be any
sort of disclosure as to the odds, so they are arguably in violation
of some law, somewhere. Somebody would have to take them to court to
test this, though. Until then, they're probably safe).

Still, I don't really see this sort of thing as admirable or -
ultimately - beneficial to the customer. It only works as a business
practice because it brings in more money than it costs, which means
that most of the time, people are paying more - probably a lot more -
for the mystery keys than the games are worth, which leads people to
fall into the 'sunk cost' fallacy that they'll somehow come out ahead
if they just buy more keys. It also makes it harder for games to
compete against one another, since it hides the actual price of the
games (with mystery keys, the crappiest game has the same apparent
value as Red Dead Redemption). A free market requires an informed
consumer, and this works against that.

There's just too many pitfalls in the scheme. I'm not saying they
can't do it, or even that they shouldn't do it... just that I wish
they /didn't/ do it.

But opinions vary ;-)

[JAB]

For me the difference is that it lacks that pushing the big ticket item.
If they splashed a number of triple-A games in the advertising then I
would feel differently. Is it admirable, no. Do I have the same problem
with it that I do 'traditional' lootboxes, I can't say I do.

As for the legality part, here in the UK, and a number of other
countries, the sticking point of whether it's classed as gambling is can
you cash out. So can you turn what's in the lootboxes into real money.
If you can't then legally it's not gambling.

Our gambling commission said the law should be changed to cover it the
same as gambling. A select committee that spent two years looking at it
said the same. Our government on the other hand said forget all that we
need to speak to the games companies to get their view on it. The fact
that the select committee has already done that seems irrelevant. The
real answer is our government has become infested with a number of
politicians who have a strong ideology of regulating how a business
operates is by default bad. It's quite ironic really as these are the
same people who pushed Brexit which adds a layer of regulation that we
didn't have when we where a member of the EU.

[kyonshi]

For what it's worth, it was briefly my 5yo's favorite game.
By now he has graduated to Sonic All-Stars Transformed, but he did
prefer the Garfield one for a short while.

[Spalls Hurgenson]

Well, so long as they get the fickle five-year old vote of approval...
;-)

I dunno, maybe it's just the long shadow of that awful movie that
turns me off. Or just that Garfield just isn't that funny.

[JAB]

On 01/12/2022 01:48, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> I dunno, maybe it's just the long shadow of that awful movie that
> turns me off. Or just that Garfield just isn't that funny.

I can't say I know that much about it but it kinda felt it was trying to
appeal to both adults and children but fails at both. I never really
understood why it's so popular in a similar way as to how many people
actually like Peanuts compared to it's expected that you like it so you do.

[kyonshi]

I think the comic stripe really benefited from "it's what we have and
you better like it because we won't get anything else anytime soon"

I did like the whole Garfield without Garfield webcomic though. That one
elevated the whole thing into art.

[plateshutoverlock]

On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 10:27:01 AM UTC-8, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

What really shocks me is that they did not give it the gag
worthy name of "Furrious racing". Someone had
to pipe up in the boardroom with this name, but
maybe the manager said "Please, we are being
forced to make this game to meet our development
quotas, we don't need to make the situation any
worse than it already is."

[kyonshi]

I bet they tried to make it "Furrious Racing" but someone thought it was
a mistake and nobody cared enough to correct the correction.