I mean, if he actually did it, he should absolutely be investigated and appropriate action taken, but like… this is ridiculous, right? It’s not just me?

For what it’s worth, you can add a non-Steam game in Steam and still access all of the compatibility options. I find this considerably easier than trying to get the game to work manually.

It’s not that they need it to develop features, it’s that if developers want to claim that Steam is overcharging, they need to be willing to give up access to the features Steam provides, because Steam is providing a service to developers through that promotion. As a personal anecdote, I’ve bought tons of games that I’ve never seen mentioned anywhere except on Steam, and would never have found at all if not for Steam promoting them to me.

The popular complaint is that if your game isn’t on Steam, it doesn’t sell on PC. The purpose of the thought experiment is to consider whether simply existing on Steam is all it takes, because if not, then Steam is clearly providing a service to them above and beyond simply having their game available to buy on its storefront.

Let’s engage in a thought experiment. Let’s assume Steam were to offer 2 options:

• 30% cut of sales, all current services as they exist today.
• 8% cut of sales, but your game will never be featured on the front page of the store, can’t participate in sales, cannot be wishlisted, won’t show up in recommendations or ‘similar to games you play’ lists, will not be promoted at all. Can’t participate in community features or use the workshop. It’s still on steam; anyone who searches for it can find it, you can freely advertise it yourself and list it elsewhere and all of that, and you’re free to sell it anywhere else at any price.

How do you think that second option would work out for developers? Anyone who wouldn’t take that option is admitting that the services Steam is offering are worth the price of admission. By your logic, it should result in a 22% reduction in the cost of games; I doubt that would be the case.

Even if the most favored nation clause does exist, all it takes is a quick look at https://isthereanydeal.com/ for nearly any game to confirm that it isn’t actually enforced. Games go on sale on platforms other than Steam all the time when they aren’t on sale on Steam.

According to discussion about this elsewhere, there’s a bluetooth speaker model named ‘Bomb’ that defaults to that name, whose website, humorously, has been rate limited due to I’m sure more traffic than they’ve ever had in its entire existence.

You can, however, ignore the second ability if you use your Reaction to say ‘No homo’.

So do bats. I propose we trade all of the wasps for some quantity of bats.

“No Diggity.” “Is that your final answer?” “No doubt.”

That’s a weird way to put that. Is that Perry’s fault? Shouldn’t you have equal sympathy for him as you have for every other addict? Or are you saying you have no sympathy for any of them?

PF2 is a good alternative to 5e if your players enjoy that style of world / same level of fantasy but want more control over their characters and the combat flow.

…so is this why Trump wanted to go inspect Fort Knox to make sure the gold was still there?

So if your clone decides not to pull the lever… are you equally guilty? Would you also have decided not to pull the lever at the critical moment?

Right, that’s what the canals are useful for, what did you think they meant?

Perhaps it is not the entire world who is stupid while you’re one of a select few intelligent enough to really know what’s going on.

I’m not sure where you got the impression that that was at all what I was saying, but just to restate, the complaint was that the above points never even make it into the conversation when this comes up. The discourse is always ‘Robots are taking away our jobs’, and it completely misses the ‘…and that would be okay if we took steps to ensure everyone’s prosperity’ followup.

I’m not saying we should stop opposing this stuff because an alternative exists where it’s okay, I’m saying that we should be actively talking about that alternative every time this comes up, because the vast majority of people [in the US] are not used to even hearing it.

His friends must’ve finished selling off their oil stocks.

I agree with you, I just hate that it rarely ever even makes it into the conversation. “We need to regulate this new technology until we pass this other legislation that we are actively working towards which I will now outline” would be far more productive than just “This is bad and we need to ban it.”

The reasons related to them occupying sidewalks and whatnot are totally reasonable, but I really hate when something like this is opposed because it will take jobs from delivery drivers. That’s such a backwards way of thinking. “Humans need to work because working is how we make money and we need money to live” Sure, but like… what if we didn’t need money to live? What if the increased ‘free’ labor that things like this provide was just… shared equitably among everyone in the community? What if we had UBI so people didn’t need to work gig economy jobs that could be done by robots?

But no, that’s crazy talk. The orphan crushing machine must keep running at all costs.

Wow. Saw the price and thought, “That’s not bad, really.” Then I realized that was for one die, not the whole set.

Hate to tell you…