5 ms·

I'm not a Sourcehut user (yet), but the more I hear and read about it, the more it seems like the creators and owner(s) care. Glad to read this. The whole topi

I'm not a Sourcehut user (yet), but the more I hear and read about it, the more it seems like the creators and owner(s) care. Glad to read this. The whole topic of cryptocurrencies and blockchain has become a good marker to identify companies that actually care about their users, technology, and the product they build. Another good example here would be the (highly skilled) devs over at Valve [1]. Not just when it comes to cryptocurrencies, but many other things they do as well, like having the steam deck (mostly) open and Linux based, which would probably cause violent reactions from devs at most other companies. (Let's hope they never decide to become a publicly traded company...). On the opposite end we have the corporations and devs who just chase after the next buzzword to run after investors and to appease her holiness, the stock market. What I am trying to say is that a clear pattern has emerged when it comes to different companies and their approach to "blockchain technologies". [1]:https://www.eurogamer.net/valve-bans-blockchain-and-nft-games-from-steam-but-epic-is-on-board https://www.eurogamer.net/valve-bans-blockchain-and-nft-game...

_aavaa_ 4y ago
Seems conspicuous of valve given tf2 hats and cs:go skins.
- Herbstluft 4y ago
  My comment is undoubtedly an oversimplification, there are tons of things to criticize Valve for. Microtransactions are a plague unleashed by them, for one. I was mostly trying to keep the comparison limited to the topic of cryptocurrencies, and the behavioural patterns observed in tech companies when it comes to them.
  - _aavaa_ 4y ago
    My point was that it’s easy for them to ban cryptocurrencies and NFTs while saying that it’s for the good of the users, while they themselves keep supporting almost identical things on their platform. They only difference being that Valve gets a cut of the non-NFT transactions
    - syzygyhack 4y ago
      That's not the only difference, it's not even the most significant difference. The difference is you don't own anything on Steam. Just like you don't own anything digital you buy on Amazon. If they want to revoke your ability to access content you paid for, they can and do. In principle (not always in practice), crypto protects you from that.
      - Herbstluft 4y ago
        > Just like you don't own anything digital True. But blockchain tech changes absolutely nothing about that in the realm of games and media, having a flag in a decentralized database does not protect me from a (game) server owner banning me, a drm system choosing to ignore said flag, or shutting down the whole game and refusing distribution. In these situation only piracy would help, and we don't need snakeoil for that. In the end there will be a centralized entity with the power to deny my access. Neither do cryptocurrencies change anything about this in the realms of finance as long as their complete existence builds on top of banks and exchanges, which it very much does. Cryptocurrencies are not an alternative, they are an addon at best.
        syzygyhack 4y ago
        It's not a magic wand. It facilitates new decentralized systems, it doesn't somehow fix the old ones. You're assuming a world where digital content is administrated and supported by a centralized organization. If they stop respecting the license, it becomes worthless, no one can argue otherwise and no one is trying to. A world where digital content is administrated by anyone (including by the user themselves) and interops with other services (games, social apps, or otherwise) does not see the assets suffer or lose value when one such service shuts its doors. They can just be taken elsewhere. One game goes down, a fork goes up, etc. Blockchain does absolutely nothing to fix what's broken with today's systems, it provides the infrastructure for the alternative.
        _aavaa_ 4y ago
        All of that is beside the point since the discussion is about the old system. We are talking about closed-source games being sold through Steam.
- threatofrain 4y ago
  What's wrong with in-game cosmetics as a funding model? They don't purport to be a stand-in for currency or anything useful at all, and thus are purely for cosmetics. What's worse is buying something that does matter to the game AKA pay-to-win; compare to Diablo where you pay to beat other players. This is just a "pay what you want" model in disguise, and not surprisingly some people pay nothing and will face no competitive disadvantage in the game.
  - _aavaa_ 4y ago
    A) Being better than pay-to-win is a very low bar B) This is not "pay what you want" it's "pay what you want for gambling". You can buy those items, but not from the developer directly. From the developer you can buy the privilege of gambling for what you want. You can only buy them directly if they allow a secondary market. C) My initial point had nothing to do with whether it was good or bad. It was that Valve already had proto-NFTs in several of their games.

_aavaa_ 4y ago

Seems conspicuous of valve given tf2 hats and cs:go skins.

Herbstluft 4y ago
My comment is undoubtedly an oversimplification, there are tons of things to criticize Valve for. Microtransactions are a plague unleashed by them, for one. I was mostly trying to keep the comparison limited to the topic of cryptocurrencies, and the behavioural patterns observed in tech companies when it comes to them.
- _aavaa_ 4y ago
  My point was that it’s easy for them to ban cryptocurrencies and NFTs while saying that it’s for the good of the users, while they themselves keep supporting almost identical things on their platform. They only difference being that Valve gets a cut of the non-NFT transactions
  - syzygyhack 4y ago
    That's not the only difference, it's not even the most significant difference. The difference is you don't own anything on Steam. Just like you don't own anything digital you buy on Amazon. If they want to revoke your ability to access content you paid for, they can and do. In principle (not always in practice), crypto protects you from that.
    - Herbstluft 4y ago
      > Just like you don't own anything digital True. But blockchain tech changes absolutely nothing about that in the realm of games and media, having a flag in a decentralized database does not protect me from a (game) server owner banning me, a drm system choosing to ignore said flag, or shutting down the whole game and refusing distribution. In these situation only piracy would help, and we don't need snakeoil for that. In the end there will be a centralized entity with the power to deny my access. Neither do cryptocurrencies change anything about this in the realms of finance as long as their complete existence builds on top of banks and exchanges, which it very much does. Cryptocurrencies are not an alternative, they are an addon at best.
      - syzygyhack 4y ago
        It's not a magic wand. It facilitates new decentralized systems, it doesn't somehow fix the old ones. You're assuming a world where digital content is administrated and supported by a centralized organization. If they stop respecting the license, it becomes worthless, no one can argue otherwise and no one is trying to. A world where digital content is administrated by anyone (including by the user themselves) and interops with other services (games, social apps, or otherwise) does not see the assets suffer or lose value when one such service shuts its doors. They can just be taken elsewhere. One game goes down, a fork goes up, etc. Blockchain does absolutely nothing to fix what's broken with today's systems, it provides the infrastructure for the alternative.
        _aavaa_ 4y ago
        All of that is beside the point since the discussion is about the old system. We are talking about closed-source games being sold through Steam.
threatofrain 4y ago
What's wrong with in-game cosmetics as a funding model? They don't purport to be a stand-in for currency or anything useful at all, and thus are purely for cosmetics. What's worse is buying something that does matter to the game AKA pay-to-win; compare to Diablo where you pay to beat other players. This is just a "pay what you want" model in disguise, and not surprisingly some people pay nothing and will face no competitive disadvantage in the game.
- _aavaa_ 4y ago
  A) Being better than pay-to-win is a very low bar B) This is not "pay what you want" it's "pay what you want for gambling". You can buy those items, but not from the developer directly. From the developer you can buy the privilege of gambling for what you want. You can only buy them directly if they allow a secondary market. C) My initial point had nothing to do with whether it was good or bad. It was that Valve already had proto-NFTs in several of their games.