cross-posted from: https://pawb.social/post/40147461

Source

Have you ever found yourself in a conversation with people about Valve's anti-competitive practices? Well, I have. And I defended Valve's requirement to let customers choose their preferred storefront when buying games, as long as Steam keys were involved. After all, you end up getting to use all of Steam's features and services when you activate the game on Steam. We can argue about this, but it turns out, that was a red herring!

I've spend the better part of today digging through this newest class action lawsuit, again made by Wolfire, against Valve. (This has been going for a while.) I was compiling a response to each of the points in the overview (can't go through the whole thing, sorry), and there was one thing that stood out after searching for the "Price Veto Provision". I had heard people make claims to the same effect before, but they were never able to back it up. (And it being conflated with the "Steam Key Price Parity Provision" made it worse.) So here it is:

Valve pressures developers into price parity across different storefronts, even if Steam keys are NOT part of the equation.

We basically see any selling of the game on PC, Steam key or not, as a part of the same shared PC market- so even if you weren’t using Steam keys, we’d just choose to stop selling a game if it was always running discounts of 75% off on one store but 50% off on ours. . . . That stays true, even for DRM-free sales or sales on a store with its own keys like UPLAY or Origin.

When I looked for this quote, I found a podcast episode that I hadn't listened to (The Hated One, Episode 228 - More evidence of Valve enforcing price parity beyond Steam keys), but that thankfully provided some sources for more related quotes, from earlier lawsuits, such as:

“The biggest takeaway is, don’t disadvantage Steam customers. For instance, it wouldn’t be fair to sell your DLC for $10 on Steam if you’re selling it for $5 or giving it as a reward for $5 donations. We would ask that Steam customers get that lower $5 price as well.”

“If the offer you’re making fundamentally disadvantages someone who bought your game on Steam, it’s probably not a great thing for us or our customers (even if you don’t find a specific rule describing precisely that scenario).”

a Steam account manager, Tom Giardino, reportedly told publisher Wolfire that Steam would delist any games available for sale at a lower price elsewhere, whether or not using Steam keys.

The developer asked, “Regarding the pricing policy, can a non-Steam variant of a game be sold at a different price than on the Steam store page?” Steam’s response was “Selling the game off Steam at a lower price wouldn’t be considered giving Steam users a fair deal.”

These were apparently from 2017 and 2018, so things might've changed since then, but it's reason enough to question Valve. I unfortunately haven't been able to find much on these other quotes (search engine enshittification, or has this really not been talked about?), and I'm unsure why they're not also included in this newest lawsuit, but there they are. Hopefully this helps anyone who was misinformed or lacked proof, like myself. Also if anyone has related stories from gamedevs or articles that actually get to the core of the problem, I'd love it if you could share them.

Quoting the rule from the community for reference:

1. You must follow the Egg Prime Directive. You may not push or coerce people into identifying or not identifying a certain way. You must respect them as the gender they claim to identify as. In addition it is extremely in poor taste to make assumptions about other people’s identities based on external factors, we understand it cannot be helped but it is best not to as it can affect the way you treat others in noticeable ways.

Honestly, I've been anxious about this for a while, not sure if or how to bring this up. I understand the importance of the rule when it involves real people. But I've been seeing comics and memes getting criticized of breaking the Directive a couple of times now. But aren't they just being shared from the creator's perspective? Making fun of their own experience, such as, looking back, pointing out how obvious things seemed? When you see any other comic making fun of some situation, that doesn't mean that applies to everyone. That's not the statement the comic makes. It's just something that may end up being, or having been, true for some people.

Am I wrong in feeling like the Egg Prime Directive is being invoked too easily when it comes to memes and comics?

edit: I hope this is the right place to make this post. (Also, technically, it's breaking the title rule? Are meta posts allowed?) To be fair, I don't recall where this has been happening the most, I've just seen it in my time browsing Lemmy and the many trans memes communities over the last few months. Also, note: The stickied post did not answer my question.

cross-posted from: https://pawb.social/post/13665271

Source: Furaffinity

I don't see a way to block individual users' posts from showing up in my feeds. There is no "Block" button on any user's page like there is for communities. For some reason I thought there was a way to do this before, but maybe I was just using another frontend? I see some users are blocked when checking my settings. I made sure to disable uBlock Origin to check if it could be an element hiding rule.

For the record these aren't rule breaking users or anything, but instead bots that automatically post things, some of them pulling links straight from reddit. I prefer my Lemmy being populated by humans.

Thank you!

Create Aeronautics, along with other mods from the "Create Simulated" family, are addons for Create that push the mod into the realm of physics. This video talks about the state of the mods, what to expect, and some teaser clips and pictures.

There was also a blog post by the creators themselves that contains some of the same information and teasers, if you prefer that format.