The only annoying bit of this is that I’ve seen Steam labeled as the latest hive of unregulated social networking. Valve has often been very hands off in their moderation, which allows for some pretty extreme far right types to post content and conspiracies in bubbles around Steam Community.

It could be a good thing, though, could lead to Steam also getting positive change.

Seems like there’s moderate risk of aggression for everyone getting around, given all the road rage about.

If you’re attacked on the bus, at least other people can defend you. The survivability of crazies on the bus vs the road seems very nebulous to me otherwise.

And has also advocated for increasing taxes on the rich such as himself.

Not that it succeeded long term, but I salute Apple Arcade’s venture on this. It’s a subscription service that aimed to highlight iPhone games that had no monetization, and were usually small indie games with a fun idea.

If you hate Windows 11 and don’t mind tinkering, I’d almost think Linux would be a better option especially if your preference is for retro games.

Since everyone’s posting their anecdotes:

I tried out Bazzite, a distro intended for gaming. Much of it was great, but often after coming back from sleep mode, the whole desktop would be suffering from graphical corruption; something I’d largely chalk up to bad drivers.

And, somewhat ironically, I’m also a cyclist, who needs to plan out winter trips when it’s often going to be dark and people are drunk.

Decentralization is a bit like showing people “Here’s how to make friends. I won’t actually introduce you to anyone, though.” I kind of want to at least get a starting point off a general topic.

No, was not directed at you. I was agreeing; Nintendo is stupid and trigger-happy with its lawsuits, but going after this guy makes sense.

I imagine a lawsuit would likely bring up the topic of how hard it would be for a developer to keep the game around past purchase.

For instance, imagine a massively multiplayer online game; everyone playing the game is acutely aware of how much server hardware is needed to maintain that online presence, and it’s unrealistic to assume it would exist forever.

That’s probably why attention was pushed onto The Crew. It’s a racing game that shouldn’t need much from a server, so it’s arguably unfair to tie it to that access and take it offline.

It annoys me how often my standpoint on topics on Lemmy has been “I hate the same people you do, but your reasoning for hating them makes so little sense.”

Silly, but sitcom silly:

All week, Hank had been receiving hints from his wife that he was going to get “the roast of his life”. Finally, at the end of the week, he’s attending a community gala with all their neighbors and friends. Hank, worried that all his darkest secrets are going to be exposed, decides to take the chance to get ahead of his wife’s belittling, and takes the stage to mock her for her terrible spending habits and overpoweringly obnoxious perfume.

His wife, mortified, leaves the room in tears and the room turns against him; but he simply deflects the hecklers by stating she was going to do the same to him - that she’d give him the roast of his life. Finally, he gets an inkling of what he’s done wrong. While his wife goes out for drinks with her friends to console her, he and his friend rush to his home. There, this scene plays.

I think the reason the advice is so pointed to one group is, there’s many people who disrespect the opinion of every minority, and think they’re all in a sympathetic league against them. Being belittled by another white man baffles them and makes them worry about being disincluded.

The people you’re protecting also didn’t necessarily answer that dumb bear question.

Or, it says a lot about the intentions of each and every person that either voted for him, or didn’t vote.

“It’s Alice’s fault for not reminding Bob to pay the heating bill”. And I do mean reminding - as in an extremely obvious thing.

I think “Disclaimer: Product may explode and take out your eye” only goes so far in terms of warning consumers. Better to actually have something protecting them.

EDIT: My tired mind when I wrote that was just specifically annoyed at the use of disclaimers to excuse a negative trait of software/products. Basically, I was reminded of when Cyberpunk hit the issue of seizure content, and all they did was add a generic warning to the game. But, I really should have added: Sony attempting to use consumer protection to excuse PSN is also stupid. Basically, I’d gotten off topic.

My own argument to these people has been that I’d prefer they go out and cast their (wasted) votes for a third party, rather than simply stay home. A lot of Lemmy disagrees with me on that, focusing on the (true) realization that their third parties won’t get elected.

In this election’s current aftermath, much of the blame has been stating that voters were just lazy or unmotivated. The only thing this message encourages is to repeat more rallies, make more promises by demographics and region so people know to get out and vote.

If you vote third party, it sends a message that you are motivated to vote, but you are not pleased with the current messages of the party. That results in a very different change of action.

Unfortunately, this whole practice is extremely long-term-focused. Many people in this election have been desperate for short-term solutions, like the Ukraine/Gaza wars. Ideally, this kind of reaction would have started in 2016/2020 - but third-party votes have been miniscule in those elections too.

No matter how many times I reread this comment, I don’t see how this reasoning would convince anyone - including yourself - of its position. The point about translation, for instance, not only feels like a non-sequitor but ignores the wealth of subjectivity that inherently goes into translating text to other languages.

I’m not trying to reject you just out of spite; I genuinely don’t think internet arguments like this are ever “winnable” for anyone. If you come up with a better description for what it is you oppose, feel free to mention it, but otherwise, I’d say do some self-reflecting.

I hadn’t realized the court was within Japan. Does Palworld conduct business inside the country? I’d think if it was never released there, Japan would have no basis to pull them into a foreign case.

Naughty Dog’s most famous games (containing humans) are based around white male leads. It’s basically just Uncharted Lost Legacy and TLOU2 that have diverged from that, and not by very much.

Literally the only game of Insomniac’s I can find (outside of anthropomorphic games like Ratchet&Clank) that even leans to minorities is Spider-Man: Miles Morales, which is based on a comic character that was already popular. Even the games based around Peter were going to acknowledge he’s the type of person to work at food banks and embrace New York’s diversity; that’s the pre-existing character.

Nobody complained when Assassin’s Creed had Leonardo da Vinci hand you a tank or a glider, or a female Spartan mysthios fight mythical gods, or have London gang runners that fight in hoods from rooftops. Assassin’s Creed has always ventured into the unrealistically cinematic extensions of common historical myths, and they’re not even the first to turn Yasuke into a samurai. Netflix put out an animated series on that a while back and it was awesome.

I do not expect an answer, but I genuinely think you should quietly ask yourself the question: Are you a racist?

I’d even consider the possibility he’s right, but not for reasons that support his argument.

Games and media present transgender and minority groups in an unobtrusive way, and bigots create 17 articles complaining about their basic inclusion for the sake of “DEI”.

I don’t really get this sentiment.

Elves being racist towards dwarves is acceptable in a game, but white humans being racist towards hispanic humans is “pushing agendas”?

I fault Bioware for a lot of things, but failing to invent a fantasy equivalent of the concept of gender is not one of them. Not everything needs to be moved to an otherworldly analogy just to avoid hurting the feelings of bigots.