This is why we got Stadia. Imagine Netflix where you pay a monthly fee and still have to buy all the movies and shows at full price. That was Stadia’s model.

Thos erodes the concept of ownership so that it is substituted for rental, without stating that clearly. Stadia failed but in doing so it probably helped Microsoft figure out how to eventually get away with doing the exact same thing.

Games should clearly say if you’re basically renting them, not have it buried in the EULA. Let publishers full price and let consumers decide if they are prepared to live with it.

Totally agree. You always leave yourself room to negotiate down.

Imagine not supporting this because you think it’s unfair to the industry, given the very specific examples that have been given.

He talks about that. I think the gist is that a lot of games that are online services could run locally, the publisher just chooses not to. That’s why Ross chose the Crew 2 as his hill to die on: there’s evidence that an offline does/did exist and just wasn’t enabled. That’s a practice that needs to be challenged.

The argument goes that a game that relies on server side technology to run in any form shouldn’t be sold as a product that you can own. This needs to be reflected in the price and licensing model. That seems fair.

The big question is why TF we’re at a point where a company should be allowed to sell you a product and say you own it then remove your right to use the product arbitrarily. I bet there’s IP in the server side code, but having a system where a corporation’s IP and ability to make money from the IP is more important that the concept of ownership is deeply fucked up.

Technology Tangents did a video where a game he bought on CD and tried to play on period-correct hardware won’t run because there was DRM that called a server to check the date and to make sure it wasn’t leaked early. Decades after the release, the server is gone and the game can’t run, ironically, because it’s so far outside of its release date. That’s the kind of bullshit that absolutely shouldn’t be tolerated.

That article is from Jan 2023 when Sony responded to a Bloomberg report that they had cut production due to lower than expected launch sales.

It’s possible they will rebut this article too, but they haven’t so far AFAIK.

*free speech if Elon agrees with you

The report shows 48 per cent find it hard to know what content is available and where, 70 per cent wish they could manage multiple subscriptions in one place and 73 per cent wish they could search and discover content across all their subscriptions in one place.

Streaming platforms make it hard to find their content outside of their apps because they don’t want to be a service, they want to be a destination. Just one of the many ways they are anti-consumer but expect they can demand premium pricing.

People want to pay a reasonable price for a reasonable service, and that’s increasingly no longer the case.

Using the terms “telemetry” and “spyware” interchangeably makes the former seem more nefarious and the latter less nefarious. I understand where you’re coming from but I wouldn’t want to see the term “spyware” diluted to include anonymised data about how users are using product features.

That’s not to say telemetry data is fine or that a company might claim to only use telemetry data isn’t actually using spyware.

One of my favourite youtubers recently quite his job to go full time on his channel. He’s been growing his audience and patreon backers and for a long time using the income from those videos to invest in his equipment and the gear he reviews. Eventually he grew the channel enough to go full independent.

It’d be really hard to do that outside of YT’s monetisation model tbh. I think most YTbers start of making videos for shits and giggles and any money they get is like passive income. Then they catch a viral video of find and audience and start the consider the channel more seriously, and explore other monetisation models and opportunities. I get the hate towards Google and YT but a lot of the oddballs I love on YT might not have a platform otherwise.

It looks like this works like Apple watch on iOS: there’s an extra security layer as the watch also has to be unlocked. Smart lock just requires a paired device to be within range.

An Apple Watch locks itself when you take it off, so if someone took your iPhone and Apple Watch from you they couldn’t unlock either device. I presume this is the same?

Edit: the article implies that this feature allows verification when you initiate the unlock, whereas Smart Lock actually keeps the deviced unlocked the entire time the paired device is nearby, which in practice is very different and less secure.

I just bought a ROG Ally.

There’s a lot of stupid stuff written/on you tube about it, but it’s great and clearly a notch up on the Steam Deck in most ways.

The comments section… Oh god, the comments section…

Password managers work perfectly well in popups. Calendars, stickies/notes, and other scensrios where the app isnt your focus but you need the utility of that app within another app.

Yeah it won’t die “soon” because it will be a zombie like Facebook for many many years to come. But retrospectively I think there’s a good chance we’ll remember the Elon takeover as the day it died.

I think the Lemmy community at large has been impacted by the actions of Reddit so it’s a fairly normal response that will fade over time.

Also, schadenfreude is a powerful drug!

Being a republican doesn’t automatically make them an asshole

I’ve never argued or suggested this. I’m enjoying this thread and exploring this idea, but not a fan of strawman arguments :(

people are probably amenable if you use the right approach

Your original point was that that people aren’t responsible for the bad ideas of their party, so lecturing on on how to change people’s minds is disingenuous in this context.

your neighbor is throwing dog shit in your yard and calling you names, yeh, direct your protest and activisim towards them

And I think this is the core contradiction in what you’re trying to argue. Imagine your dog-shit analogy in another way: if a neighbour discriminates against you because you’re gay (let’s say makes comments as you pass by), you appear to support the idea that he is responsible for that view and presumably you can tell him to get fucked to his face. But if that same neighbour votes for a party that discriminates against you, while politely waving to you in the morning, you’re saying you shouldn’t hold him responsible because he’s probably a swell guy? The outcome is the same! You’re being discriminated against.

For the record I wouldn’t yell “Fuck you Bill!” in protest if this happened. But I absolutely have the right to say “Bill, we’ve been neighbours for 10 years and I enjoy having you around for BBQ in the summer months, but the fact that you support the party that wants to see my way of life restricted in this way is really disappointing and upsets me” and I absolutely would not be OK if Bill argued that he’s not responsible for voting directly against my interests. And to be clear, I’m not saying Bill shouldn’t be allowed to vote against my interests, I am just saying that I get to call him out on that. It’s unbelievable to me that anyone would say otherwise, but circling back to OP:

if you are talking to your neighbor, don’t make his party affliation equal to his personal belief

Amen brother. Everyone should be prepared to be face criticism, because no one is altruistic and never will be if they can’t bear to be challenged about their beliefs.

you might believe this country is fucked up. Every country have people who believe their own country has a lot of problems. It doesn’t mean you don’t support it.

Agree! Supporting your country =/= being complicit in all the bad shit done by or in the name of your country. That’s why activism exists, that’s why people can and will protest.

So how come this same logic doesn’t apply if the protests and activism is being directed at your republican neighbour?

The republican platform is fucked up, but if you are talking to your neighbor, don’t make his party affliation equal to his personal belief.

…is the part of your argument I am responding to. Saying “don’t five people a hard time for supporting fucked up things” is pretty fucked up.

Wrong again:

During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that a state government could place no restrictions on women’s ability to choose to abort pregnancies other than imposing minimal medical safeguards, such as requiring abortions to be performed by licensed physicians.[7] From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother’s health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and “narrowly tailored” to protecting mothers’ health.[7] From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state’s interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother’s life or health

Is the Republicans platform not anti-abortion?