Apparently this isn't standard anymore, and I can see how developers don't like it, but an antitrust lawsuit over this just seems poorly justified. For whoever doesn't want to sell on Steam under their conditions, there is Epic, GOG, Humble and ItchIO. Maybe those don't sell as well, but that's the choice the company is making.
I don't think being the largest store by itself is grounds for this sort of legal action. Especially not when they became the biggest store simply by providing good services for a good price, rather than any sort of restrictions at companies publishing in it.
It shows that companies are regarded above customers when every console is a closed ecosystem with a single store, no sideloading support, but nobody challenges that.
I wonder if part of the reason they add these games by eyedropper is to use them as hype tools.
The Switch 2 might be announced any day now, what is going to happen to NSO? Will they actually port them because it's tied to a subscription rather than a standalone purchase? Or will they start over again?
Ehh... I definitely see the possible pitfals of relying too much in any single private platform, but trying to blame them for putting their work there is not reasonable. It's good have your own website as a backup, but you can't get good discoverability with just that. To promote that as an alternative to a Twitter or Instagram page is not good marketing advice, no matter how idealistic one might be about self-hosting.
To run a business, the owner needs to get it where people are. Unfortunately most people on the internet are on privately-owned social media.
The Fediverse allows for a much needed middle-ground between self-hosted content and public engagement, but even then it still needs much wider adoption to be as viable as a platform for creators as corporate social media is now.
True but that doesn't really help them. A user can switch platforms trivially, but for a creator to carry over most of their following it takes a long time and constant insistence. I really feel for them too.
I saw your other comments. If you were honest over this being about how you are against corporate driven social media and in favor of decentralized ones, I'd respect your opinion much more than this repetitive insistence on the same point that "driving away nazis means they embrace nazis". Which is neither logical and it's wildly disingenuous regarding the challenges and the uglier sides of decentralized social media. Which by definition cannot entirely exclude nazis, even if you are not seeing them in one particular instance. Which, again, does not mean they are not there, it might just be that they are trying to stay incognito. All the more reason the willingness of the users to drive nazis out themselves is valuable, because expecting moderation to always catch them is naive.
If you tell me that relying on corporate social media is risky, I agree with you. There is more to this matter worth discussing, such as why people who rely on social media for a living, such as artists, may lean towards corporate platforms over user-driven ones. But we can't advance in a discussion if you keep going in circles to make BlueSky look bad for the nazis (they are driving away). If you are just going to repeat "but it means there's nazis" again, I'm not interested.
Even though the userbase is effectively driving them away, you are trying your hardest to try to spin that as a bad thing, ignoring the growing challenges of moderation at scale for an idealistic perfection that is not nearly as unblemished in practice as you want to pretend.
I don't know what's your beef with BlueSky, but this level of self-righteousness is just tiresome. And we are not even talking about actual Twitter which is overrun with nazis, This is not a problem in BlueSky. I'm starting to doubt that they are the actual reason for all this fuss.
If you don't want to be there, that's up to you. But I'll probably stick with it, many people that I'd like to follow are there.
The guy you replied to was me. It's wild you take fact that bad actors are pressured to leave and try to make seem like that's being welcoming of them??? That makes absolutely no sense.
Personally I don't even get to see any of them, I mostly see mentions after they are driven out. As much as the moderation there could stand to be improved, I doubt even your instance can actually match your standards of if you can't make absolutely sure not a single bad actor makes their way in, you are actually enabling them. The thing about Nazis is that they lie and play coy a lot, and the more that instances grow, the harder it is to identify all of them. it's not like all of them show up wearing swastikas.
...you say that like they are being invited and not sneaking in against everyone's wishes. Even the Lemmyverse is not entirely free of them, unfortunately.
Enjoying Baldur's Gate 3 but I think I missed out on all romances apparently. because I didn't start them on Act 1. That kinda sucks. Still, just got up to the Last Light Inn and the story is pretty interesting so far.
Is anyone believing they would not have layoffs anyway? They are likely just trying to pin their cost-cutting plans on game devs who protested against their ridiculous scheme. Comes to mind that the money their clients were already paying is the money that would have paid for those employees' wages.
I once had a campaign that had such a scripted ending, the GM took over one of the PCs to control what they would say and do in the finale.