unautrenom @ unautrenom @jlai.lu

Posts

0

Comments

66

Joined

2 yr. ago

Regulation isn't just about breaking them up. I was more thinking along the line of applying the DMA and DSA to Steam proper, which would only lead to benefits for us. The presence of the speculation casino that is the Steam Market into the hands of kids without any regulation is nuts, and that's not saying anything about the current hypertoxic state of the Steam Community forums. That's not okay, and Valve seems reluctant to fix that (the former becausr it brings them a metric ton of money, and the latter probably to avoid pissing off the gamergate libertarian crowd). Regulation could force them to do so.

I'm not sure. The courts intends for Google to sell Chrome, not Chromium. Even if they gave guarentees that Chromium will become independant, the coourt's likely to tell them to sell Chrome anyway (as they could still apply monopolistic practices like service bundling without control over Chromium, not to mention they could 'fork' LF's Chromium later to make their own).

The way I see it, this is more Google being scared shitless about Chrome's new owner being shitty, promote their own services instead of Google's, and disrespect web standards (or depecreates the 'standards' Google implemented in Chromium without the approval of other browers, or standard bodies). That could cause MASSIVE issues for them, and the loss of business that could cause would be tremendous, in a way that's far worse than giving up control on Chromium.

To me, his seems more like the nuclear option of Google saying that if they can't own Chromiulm, then nobody can as a way to cut their losses.

Stephen Shankland's report from 2020 notes a number of people suggesting that Chromium as a whole could be moved out of Google entirely and into an independent foundation, such as the Linux Foundation. That's not what is happening now, but it's another step toward larger organization outside of the web's dominant browser and advertising provider (though Google is still one of the supporters).

One can only hope this is the first step toward a larger trend. LF stewardship of the Chromium project wouldn't be perfect, but it's still much better than the current situation of it being controlled by one company, be it Google or whoever they'll forced to sell Chrome to.

That's a good point. The number of Switches sold does nearly match Steam's MAU.

Every Switch is handheld, but how many people are they capturing, or will they soon capture, that care very little about Nintendo games and just want to play games handheld?

Every Switch owner I know has bought at least one Nintendo game over its lifetime, and often several. According to the best selling Switch games list, it's safe to assume at least one in every two Switch owner has bought Nintendo games for it. Is it due to the marketing and advertisement coming from the fact they own the platform, or that they're still the kings of both casual and family friendly couch gaming? I suppose indie is strongly catching up, at least on the former but the latter might be more difficult.

I have a feeling that the "port everything to the Switch" crowd won't really exist anymore in a world where that game already plays on a similarly-priced PC handheld without having to beg the developers first.

Wouldn't that be nice? Given that PS and Xbox exclusives now all make their way onto PC to the point we barely have to ask anymore. Though if we were to reach that point, I'd seriously worry about the centralisation of the Steam market. Hopefully regulation will catch up soon.

Nintendo’s unbeatable advantage will always be its first-party games, but the Switch 2 — a device rumored to be a fairly light improvement over its predecessor — doesn’t quite feel like it’ll be as culturally dominant as the Switch was in 2017.

That remains to be seen. Back in 2016-2017, every gaming media was skeptical that the Switch would be anywhere near as much of a success like the DS or the GameBoy had been, or if it was going to be another failure like the Wii U.

Why buy a game on PS5 when you can get it on Steam and have access to it on any number of devices?

That has been one of the arguments for PC gaming in a long time, but it never quite reached the console players' mindset. Not to mention that, despite its dominance in game distribution, Valve and the Steam brand are nowhere near as recognizable as any of the other 'big 3'. The Steam Deck may have sold a few million copies (four or five from what I hear?), but it's nowhere near the hundreds of millions of Switches, even in sale pace nowadays. I can't see it take less than a decade for that mindset to start changing change and competitors and regulation to get interested, and even that's an optimistic estimate.

Still, it's good to hear the platform exlusivity walls are finally breaking down.

That's some title gore and a half. They apologized for baning people who were flagged as cheaters for using 'compatibility layers' (clearly Wine/Proton) and unbanned them.

I'd argue it's not useless, rather, it would remove any financial incentive for these companies to sink who knows how much into training AI. By putting them on the public domain, they would loose their competitve advantage over other cloud providers who could exploit it all the same, all the while not disturbing the current usage of AI.

Now, I do agree that destroying it would be even better, but I fear something like that would face too much force back by the parts of civil society who do use AI.

Heavy recommendation for Portal: Revolutions. It's one of those super fun storied Portal 2 mods like Stories: Mel, if you like this kind of thing!

Oh wow. That's even worse than Falcom's policy regarding composers. Are they really that afraid their staff will get poached? Or are they being so cheap that they just don't want them to get the raises that accompany the rise in fame?

Well, I have some good news for you!

A collar or other physical appariments wouldn't stop you from abducting it either. Where I come from and (I assume) in many parts of the world, cats have an electronic chip in their neck with basic info about the owner and how to contact them, which would be discovered when you bring them to the vet.

But I think that's more of a cultural thing. Personally, I consider not letting your cat roam free in the neighbourhood (if you have the ability to let them) unjust and borderline animal abuse, close to how I would consider it if you kept your dog inside all the time.

Finally, taking a cat home out of, what, pettiness(?) sounds like a terrible idea, because beyond any notion of ethics, dealing witha cat you keep away from their territory and the people they know would be both a psycological and financial perspective. If you want to be hurtful to someone, there are easier and cheaper ways to do it than to abduct their pets.

So no, as a pet owner, abduction is really not anywhere near being a concern for me. Getting run over though? That IS a concern, particularly when cats panic. However, cats have far better hearring than we do and can hear cars from a mile away (esp when they're familiar with them).

The transitions between these eras will offer the chance to select a fresh civilization, with a range of options determined by your previous choices.

Wait a minute. I feel like I've seen that one before...

Oh well, fair enough. Humankind drew heavily on Civ in its design anyway.

Thank you for the link! It helped putting things into proper nuance and context (indcluding throwing away that ridiculous notion that the 'Steam Store' and the 'Steam Gaming Platform' are two completly different things in different markets).

However, reading the whole thing, it sounds to me like while the court dismissed some of the claims (1 to 4 and 7 apparently), they agreed that Wolfire and the other plaitiffs had the right to 'plausibly allege unlawful conduct' about the 'Most-favored-nations restraints' (the part where Steam forces publishers to set prices on all stores without steam keys being involved) without mentioning anything more on the subject.

I'm not americain so I'm not sure if I understand correctly, but that means the ruling isn't over and it'll go into an appeal court, right?

Um, I've read the complaint from top to bottom and it claims way more than just 'Valve wouldn't give them keys to resell' if they're not at the same price as on steam. It also claims Valve puts a 'Price Veto' clause which allows them to delist games from Steam if the publisher gives bigger sales on other platforms, even if they do not using steam keys, which does sound super uncompetitive to me.

Although I'll agree the evidence listed in the complaint seem a bit on the light side. Do you know if the trial happened yet? And if so, do you know where I can find what resolution they reached?

The only downside is that it's not really supported anywhere at all yet. But I do hope it becomes a real thing some day.

AFAIK there's a lot of talk about making GNU Taler the basis for the 'digital Euro' which is curently being debated at the EU Parliement.

I feel like that's just a very loud minority among those who play games. As you've so stated, the majority of people who play these games either do not care for politics in video games, and another subset prefer it that way.

If even the greediest of companies in the video game industry keep doing that, that means they've analyzed the market and having politics in video games might have between no to a positive impact on sales.

Culture wise? Probably. Institution wise though...?

Our current republic was founded by de Gaule, and our constitution was written by him as well. The thing, he's a millitary general, who (much like a good chunk of the French population at the time) held disdain toward parlementarism, due to the lack of stability of the Fourth Republic.

What that means? Our current system has much of the power concentrated in the hands of the gov (see 49.3 and to some extend 47.1 where the PM can just decide to override anu vote on law. It was something taboo, only used a fair few times before Macron, like once in 2014(?) and it ruined the PM (at the time Manuel Vals)'s carrier. Macron used it dozens of times throughout his years as President), leaving the National assembly with little manuveur than the censor motion (dissolves the current gov, but leaves the president in power).

That and Macron preparing to sell our public media and hospital to the private certainly don't give me mich confidence in that regards if the RN were to win (' •_•)

From what I understand, he was hoping for :

1. Destroy the incoming alliance between our two Far Rights parties (that worked)
2. That the trad right party would implode (that worked)
3. That the left would self-combust like always (that did NOT happen)

And that he would thus be the 'only credible choice' against Far Right. (Note that in the last legislative elections, he was NOT given a majority in the National assembly so that he'd have to negotiate with other parties, which he refused to do anyway, except maybe with the small trad right wing party).

Obviously, that didn't work out. As other in the French subs have pointed out, he's an ex-banker. He's used to making risky bets. But now's first time where he has to assume the consequence if he looses it.

(Here we go again)

First things first, shame on you Politico for showing outdated projection results. The actual outcome has been published now (after big cities' votes, including Paris, have been counted) and Far Right lost 5% (they're now polling at 29.2%), barely ahead of the Left Alliance (28%). That's both lower than the polls (which were giving her a whoping 37%), and their result in the last presidential elections.

Edit: source: https://www.resultats-elections.interieur.gouv.fr/legislatives2024/ensemble_geographique/index.html

Secondly, seat projections, right now are highly unstable due to our two turns system. RN (Far Right) might have some allies from the trad right wing parry who was utterly destroyed, but both the NFP (Left Alliance) and Macron's Renaissance* have said their candidates need to desist when they're third and Far Right is first to try to cumulate their votes.

*Macron's PM Gabriel Attal has, for the moment, said there might be exceptions to that rule for the candidates of the radical left party France Unbowed which they consider to be be 'too extreme' for their taste so we'll see.

(Also, slight reminder that Politico is a property of Alex Kreuger, the German equivalent of Rupert Mudrock. Don't expect full neutrality.)

The vote finished in the night and we got the official results now. Paris voted massively NFP and Renaissance, so Far Right is now at 29.3% while NFP is just behind them at 28.0%. Honestly? Given the polls we had, RN is lower than anyone could have hoped.

Source: https://www.resultats-elections.interieur.gouv.fr/legislatives2024/ensemble_geographique/index.html

I'm kind of surprised this image of France having a Far Right issue is only becoming a thing now though. These results are close (if not better for non far right voters) than the last 2022 Presidentals, and Far Right already had a huge score in 2017.