that dont work because you can put money into your steam wallet using any payment provider, so they wont accept it eitherway.

Plus that these providers will simply refuse to do business with you if your store in any way shape or form sells these items. They are not interested in "you cannot pay with VISA to buy this", they are interested in "any store that uses VISA is not allowed to sell X".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

To make it clear, I am no more in support of censorship than anyone else on this site.

But no one has addressed the elephant in the room here. Look over the list of the games being banned. The topic of these games is incest. Now, I can't speak to European regulations -- nor can I speak to Japanese ones either -- but here in North America, incest is illegal.

Could it be just as simple that the payment processors are just protecting themselves, should one of the federal governments choose to see their accepting payments for material of this nature as financially supporting illegal activities?

Is it appropriate for these corporations to be enforcing morality? No -- but do you really think that any of the North American governments are going to step in and slap their wrists for doing so? The governments have been allowing the corporations to interfere in the area of regulation more and more these days. I highly doubt they'll do even so much as peep about the matter.

Personally, I like the suggestion from @Cybolic on how Valve should handle the matter.

Performing actual incest is illegal, media showing (pretended) incest is not. This is not at all about incest, this is 100% about sex. I have personally been on the negotiation table to get access to various card payment providers and they all have stipulations that they will not support your business if you deal in weapons, drugs or porn. Steam/Valve have zero leverage here except to create their own payment platform (which is hairy and would require to seek bank licensing in all countries so also costly and a regulatory hell).

What we need are governmental regulation stipulating that payment providers cannot dictate what you sell as long as you are not breaking any laws.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

From https://80.lv/articles/playdead-s-limbo-and-inside-are-getting-removed-from-gog [External Link] :

UPD: Dino Patti has told 80 Level that the delisting is likely unrelated to the lawsuit and more likely tied to Playdead's efforts to remove Patti's name from the credits of Limbo and Inside.

"As far as I know, this had nothing to do with the court case," the Co-Founder told us. "It might have something to do with [Playdead CEO Arnt Jensen] removing me from the game credits as he's done on Steam and other stores."

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Thanks, I got it successfully activated from CDKeys now. Steam, Fanatical, GOG, Epic all wouldn't sell it to me. I hate this internet censorship that my country does

I get what you are saying but it is not really censorship, it is simply Germany being extremely hard on verifying the age restriction on media. Most stores that sell media over the Internet in Germany solves this by having buyers sending in images of their driver licenses or national id cards, but Steam, Epic, GOG and so on refuses to do this and therefore 18+ games cannot be sold there legally in Germany. This is a choice those stores did.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Still unavailable in Germany emoji You need a proxy to even view the store page, how idiotic is that. I'll probably buy it via CDKeys

Due to Steam refusing to perform the age check that Germany requires for 18+ certifications.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Still waiting for decent graphics tablet and colourspace support in Wayland.

colorspace support (far more advanced than what x11 ever could muster) have been in Wayland for a while now.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The base ROG Ally X is already $1147 here in Sweden so this beefed up version will most likely be even more.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The Twitter user forgets that Take-Two is not just the publisher for Gearbox, they are also the owner of Gearbox so Take-Two is the sole entity that determines what the price of the game is.

What several in this thread seams to miss is that games are not priced after what size the market is, what effort was put into making it or what we as gamers deserve to pay for it, it is priced after what we gamers are willing to purchase the game for and as long as millions of people are buying these games at $80 then these games will continue to be sold at $80.

Moonstone for the Amiga cost about $70 here in Sweden when accounting for inflation since 1991 and yes the vide game market was much smaller back then but then also the game was created by 6 people and took 2 years to make, meanwhile Borderlands 4 will be developed by thousands of people over several years plus that they have to employ hundreds of hours of voicework.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

That's the chain of trust. The first in the chain (Microsoft) is only responsible for their link (shim) & must ensure that vulnerable links cannot boot. That's what they've done. So it doesn't matter if the bootloader was fixed as long as the old one was still bootable, this must be prevented.

The point was that there was no vulnerability which OP claimed there was.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

To be fair here, while Microsoft dragged their feet for 9 months to improve their dual-boot detection, Linux distros dragged their feet to update the vulnerable (that is why it was blocklisted via dbx) bootloader for over 12 months.

Not true, the vulnerable bootloader was fixed ages ago, the thing was though that the blacklisted key was not in the bootloader package but in the shim and since only the bootloader was changed the shim was left untouched so when MS decided to block the old bootloader they instead blocked the shim (that was not vulnerable).

View this comment - View article - View full comments