Counter Stri… no not that.

Yeah, imo they fumbled at the start very bad but all these continuous updates really made it one of the rare open universe space games.

Your T is already capital!

There’s nothing to be afraid of.

Busta!

Thanks a lot, this makes a whole lot more contextual awareness for the situation.

Thanks for the detailed explanation about publicly traded companies, but what I wonder is the privately owned ones being forced to sell out, if there is such a thing.

For example, lets say Proton is owned by a few shareholders or just one, and it is not openly traded unless the shareholders make personal agreements to sell out or anything like that. If Google came with a truckload of cash and told these shareholders to sell their shares to Google, can they simply refuse the offer no matter how big is the pile of cash or the benefits of the offer, or do they have to find a legal reason to keep their shares? I mean, even the question sounds stupid and the answer should be “yeah you can just keep your share and run the company however you like, as long as you don’t go public listing”, but with all the concerns about the buyouts talked all around this last few years, the premise looks like it is hard to hold out.

What is this buying out talked about something not escapable if not some legal reorganization is made? It has been being talked about other companies, too, and it sounds like if you have a form of a company, you can’t legally refuse monetary offers from someone to buy your company.

Is there such a legal mechanism that forces an owner to sell out if an offer is made, or is this more about proofing a company against CEO/shareholder personal sell out decision?

Is it hard to interpret running to Russia has the core benefit of not being extradited to the U.S. almost certainly, or at least with higher probability than any other country?

When the competition is trying to bring in scummy, sugar-mommy approach to gaming by luring unsuspecting players with sweets, a company that has consistently proved to be rationally pro-consumer is bound to earn the right to be defended, as long as they keep their pro-consumer approach intact. Which Valve still does, while others are quite shit.

Except GOG, but I’m gonna presume GOG had higher currency conversation rates or advised rates, which made the games there 3-4 times more expensive than Steam in many 3rd world countries. Still cheaper than most other storefronts, but it was more expensive than Steam till the latest currency change.

Me omw to risk catching a mindless bomb or a shot in the back to use the internet. Maybe if I’m lucky, I’ll have a chance to surrender without either happening.

Thanks, this solution worked for me.

Edit: What the hell, I’m trying to reply to a parent comment below.

Steam is anti consumer and only wishs to kill their competition by locking you in.

There is a 30% tax being exerted on all games by like three companies.

First of all, your two sentences in two comments conflict. If there are already other companies practicing the same prices as with Steam, Steam can’t be killing competition by pricing, but with other things like superior service, which is the only benefit sought from competition.

Second, although I agree in general that no private person or company should hoard massive wealth, in a lot of situations owning capital is the only way in current economic workings of the world to develop new things and not stagnate with the same old, years later outdated service. I mentioned very low profit Steam Deck, a push for VR with both hardware and an actual game rather than a tech demo, very low profit Linux gaming, completely unnecessary (profit-wise) indie game fests, that mean out-of-pocket expenses or development time that is not with utmost shareholder profit in mind. For defense of this point’s main premise of accumulating wealth beyond meeting regular interval maintenance work, I would ask that do you deride any taxes or extra price on products that go to government for funding undeveloped or harsh sectors like agriculture, medicine, better transportation ways, etc. that none of which you may utilize but pay a cut for? I’m not staying Valve is a public institute, but it also does research and development with consumers as main beneficiaries on its own scale.

Third, Valve making 10B through 30% cut means Valve held their responsibility and successfully finalized the sales of the games before they cut their share, not in advance of games being sold. This means that developers already got their 70% in their accounts. I’m not saying it is still a just amount of cut when the effort between developing a game and distributing it is compared, but Valve isn’t obligated to just take maintenance fees. They are a private company, like their competitors, and they also have a right to make profit, as their competitors do. Unlike most of their competitors, they actually provide wide variety of quality services and consumer-focused R&D. Sure I’d like to buy games for 10-20% cheaper with Valve going down on its cut, but it is for my best interest that I’m not limited to Windows, most-advertised games only are shoved down my brain but actually good but less advertised games are shown to me, I have very easy access to multiplayer and game related content easily through integrated utilities, etc., none of which their same-percentage-cut having competitors nor their lower-percentage-competitors do and seem to intend to do.

Fourth, Gaben is a weird choice of target for attacking personally for earning huge money through their company and service. I don’t know how many rich CEOs or shareholders you can count that have as little ego Gaben shown to have through his personal deliveries of Steam Deck packages, his constant highlight and emphasis on the team members who he worked with and reached success on many project by name basis and not as a general “as a last thought, I’d like to make random comment to thank my team” in all of his interviews, personally taking time to answer a huge amount of direct consumer emails.

If Valve took a lesser cut, could they achieve all these? Maybe. Would I, the customer, buy games for cheaper? Yes. Would I be deprived of the services that are better for my best interest? Maybe. Do their competitors with same cuts or lower cuts achieve or strive to achieve at least a closer level of what Valve provided to its customers and open internet? No indication of that at all for years now.

I seriously doubt hosting all game files, literally accessible version history and old depots, discussion-artwork-mod forums and files, very customizable profiles besides also hosting plethora of game servers warrant an anti-consumer or monopoly considerations for the cost.

Add to this the actual no-extra cost of developing compatibility for extended OSs and environments like Proton for Linux, platform-wide controller and other input support (including shitty aftermarket and off-brand controllers), native VR support without limiting it to Index.

Also add the access of all information contained to the open internet, promoting various niche genres and games through oft-held week-long “XYZ fests”, encouraging the return of free game demos for people to try out, an automatic refund system with actually rather quick and understanding human support, and not forcing exclusive releases for its platform.

Did I mention the rather cheap Steam Deck and also Valve still being self-sustaining and apparently being able to continue its services for years to come solely thanks to the customer base and not rich sugardaddy rich parent companies?

Do I also need to mention most of the services directly and indirectly help all developers releasing their games in steam? By forums, refund policies allowing consumers to try out games without fears, unified server systems, etc?

I apologize if my tone is harsh, but in the face all the services of Valve, now tell me again how this 30% is an unfair and anti consumer, anti competitive cut and stealing from the devs, please.

I’m pretty content with them making an absolutely excellent and pro-customer online store instead of good games. Even though we have a lot of the good games, and there are never enough of them at the same time, we have just one or two good gaming stores thanks to Steam and GOG.

While I don’t touch anything Meta (formerly Facebook) at any time, what is the explicit route of data gathering here?

From what I understand, these companies willingly give user data to Facebook, which then utilizes the data to: Use the provided information to match your Facebook user id with the other companies’ user id, so it can understand when you made an activity in the other companies’ sites, games etc. and show you stuff (ads only if you are naive, or propaganda through engineered post and ad visibility jf know at least about Cambridge Analytica) about it when you are in Facebook.

Is this the route user data follows and is utilized? If so, shouldn’t these mentioned other companies including Facebook’s and whatnot’s 3rd party tracking pixels n their own domains, and also sharing your data to themselves directly be the focus of privacy concerns as they “leak” your user data? Doesn’t the most of the blame fall on these other companies, or does the implied blame here that user data transfer is mutual and Facebook forwards these user data from company A to company B in the list, as well?

Dude barged in Lemmy 2 months ago, made 40+ posts with average of 20 comments. I’d consider that performance, translated to Reddit size over 5 years, to earn quite the lower percentile among the posters. So yeah, Reddit is probably sitting on a small fortune thanks to this generous person.

That should be the only way, but I seriously doubt that Reddit admins would keep the links intact in that case. Out of their greed and malice they would probably mess with the Lemmy link, then put the blame narrative on the poster for deleting/making the information unavailable.

It can be a bit annoying like how c/hackernews post only external links with topic titles, but that is the (temporary) cost of freedom and privacy.

It is also an honorable course of action. Developer gets paid for their work, you use quality service with convenience.

It is an action to emphasize the piracy is illegal and they will hunt you down for it using state resources, not matter the sentence.

This guy will be on their shitlist at least for a decade now. The next sentence would be times worse. But the best effect of this is that you sentence one guy, no matter how light the sentence is, then 1000 teens are afraid of ever thinking of piracy. Surely some of them will say “lol look at the joke of a sentence, so keep on pirating” but a lot won’t.

What’s better yet, a lot of those afraid teenagers will internalize piracy as both illegal and immoral.