Quoting: Whitewolfe80mmmm but that does kind of defeat one of the main features of linux choice.

I assume this was a reply to what I wrote?

In that case: How so?
The choice of the myriads of other distros not forcing updates would still be there ;)
But for a system aimed at users with very limited experience, I don't see any downside in taking that choice away.

After all, there is a very clear good and bad choice here. This would merely eliminate the terrible choice of not keeping your software up-to-date.
"But it's running fine!" is what got us ancient software on ancient servers and PCs coming apart at the seams all around the office world.
You can always make it so that someone who knows their way around the terminal and config files can disable the automatic updating of critical packages - but by doing so, that person would have proven they know what they are doing and thus eliminating the user not pressing update "just because".

Either way, before forcing anything, there should be days or weeks of clear notifications shown to the user about what should be updated and why.
At the moment - at least if it is anything like Manjaro - you just get a notification saying "There are updates available" and that's about it. Not exactly a lot of emphasis - which is fine for an Arch distro, but that's not the target audience for Mint I think.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Linux distros aimed at non-techies really need to step up their update game.
You don't have to go the Windows-route of being completely obnoxious about it (that's pretty much impossible anyway, as most updates don't require a restart in contrast to Windows), but some reminders with an eventual forced update of critical packages shouldn't be impossible.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Yeah, that's not exactly surprising.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.UltraNot trying to defend Google here (I have no love for them) but the problem on Youtube is the DMCA itself and not Google/YouTube. As a provider you are not allowed to judge if a DMCA request is valid or fraudulent, you have to obey the request at all times.

Yes and no.
YouTube only has to enable such tools for the industry because they are reliant on ad revenue from the industry. Other services that function without ad revenue are much friendlier towards content creators and not so much towards others.

Of course, there are some legal concerns about copyright here, but those would not have to be ruled in favor of the plaintiff by default as is the case on Google. It is absurdly easy to file a DMCA request, but next to impossible to fight it, even if it is nonsense - every content creator can sing you a song about this.
It should be exactly the other way around.

That anyone can just file such a claim and the video gets taken down immediately is totally bonkers.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MalAlso, since the product is technically valid, I don't understand why they are killing it.

That's just Google for you...

Technically valid? Yes.
Can be fixed to be otherwise valid as well? Yes.
Is actually used by people? Yes.
Was an immediate great success and is on a trajectory to the moon? No - cancel it!

Stadia still has yet to be cancelled, of course, but I don't know many people who are very optimistic about it. Which might turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: kuhpunktIt doesn't THEORETICALLY count for everyone. It counts practically for everyone.

True, definitely used that word wrong.

Quoting: kuhpunktThat only big ones can make use of it, is a) not true and b) not relevant.

A) Please point me towards all those indie devs that benefited from that in earning more than 10 million USD or then 50 million... I wonder if that'll even let you count to 10.
B) So a measure that lowers (with maybe a handful of exceptions) only big publishers' cuts is not relevant in an argument about how big publishers already have lower cuts on Steam, proving that Steam can in fact afford to lower the cut? Okay...

Quoting: kuhpunktCalling others fanboys in this thread here for bringing up simple facts... that's neutral, yeah.

Calling a fanboy a fanboy is neutral in itself, it's not like they are hard to identify. You need only look at the extremes they go to try and push back any and all points being made against their darling.
Just like calling a dog a dog or an apple an apple.

Quoting: kuhpunktI can't do the math, because I have no insight about the costs and what all the factors are.

You could, though. It can all be approximated well enough by numbers publicly available, especially because Steam is so large, you'll end up with so high numbers that a few million here and there simply won't make much of a dent.
Average wages in the industry & location, prices on Steam, the cut, user numbers, employee numbers, stats from games themselves, hosting costs, taxes, etc. It's a lot, but it's not rocket science. You'll have a low and a high end when you input lower/higher approximations and in the end you'll know you are getting there when you end up with numbers that make sense.
That's what I did and ended up in the same ballpark as Epic's numbers. Higher, actually, 10-20%.

You might be too lazy to do it - and I'm fully with you on that one, so am I! Once was enough.
But don't claim you can't do something that you could indeed do.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: kuhpunktThis is not the argument you made. You are disingenuous.

My argument was that Steam already offers lower cuts to big publishers - which it does, publicly visible to anyone via that 30/25/20 system.
That this theoretically counts for everyone is besides the point as only the big ones can even make use of it.

My argument was also that Steam had specific deals with big publishers that are not disclosed to the public.
Which is, as I said, an open secret in the industry.

Now, what I don't know for certain is if both are active at the same time for how many publishers. I'm not THAT close to the source anymore.
That staggered system is relatively new (2018) and it might have replaced some of the older deals with big publishers.

Quoting: kuhpunktSo you can't offer any proof. And I'm the one who has a narrative?

I don't have a narrative - I don't care about painting Valve in any light - positive or negative. As I said, I am neutral.
I only have what I know due to what I've seen from working close to the industry as well as my own knowledge about digital infrastructures and its cost, which is the truth.
If you believe it or not is - as I said - up to you.
But if all you're going to parrot from now on is just "I don't believe you", you should probably not bother as I think that much has become clear from your side.

Quoting: kuhpunktI didn't say it was a lie. And I'm the one with a problem in my perception?

Please tell me how else you could interpret this:

(About the Epic numbers)You don't know if Epic can run their store at 5-8%... you have no insight into the costs.
(About the GOG numbers)Of course they sell much less than Steam, but that's at least still some actual data.

To me that sounds as if the Epic numbers are not "actual" data to you i.e. they are a lie.
And btw: I don't need to have insights into Epic's costs if they are nice enough to give me these numbers on Twitter of all places.

Quoting: kuhpunktYes, I asked what would be appropriate and you didn't offer a proper answer. You threw out a random number without a reason. I could just do the same and say that Steam deserves 49% and keep the explanation to myself. That wouldn't help either.

I answered the question "What cut would be appropriate?". The answer to that question is a number. I gave you a number and an idea for a calculation of it with what I think would be appropriate.
My hint for future discussions for you: Be precise. Don't expect people to read your mind. My telepathy only works within 3m eyesight.

If you really wanted to get a full calculation of WHY exactly that cut is appropriate (which is not the question that you asked): I already anwered that.
Do the math yourself, all the numbers are out there in good enough estimations (partly very precise) to end up with something in a +/- 5% range.
I'm not here to be your convenience business and maths consultant and what you're asking is a full approximate rundown of maintaining a storefront like Steam. The last time I did this calculation (about two years ago, as I said), it took almost a day - and yes, I should have saved it but didn't. Trust me, I begin to regret that right now.
But that doesn't mean I'll do it again just to convince some random users on a website.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: DrMcCoyYes, and then Google just randomly throws half the mails you send to people with gmail accounts into their spam folder, where the recipients never see them...

Didn't happen to me a single time in 10+ years.

The provider is https://www.df.eu/int/ [External Link] and the email hosting is part of a whole package including webserver, etc. It's actually a German provider, back from when I still lived in Germany.
I don't really run a webserver where I got some PHP service running with my self-signed certificate or anything like that, if that's what you thought :wink:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I wonder what's the story behind this.
Google not replying to a medium-sized fish in the pond (who is no less developing for their thirsty-for-good-news-service) for three weeks straight is slightly concerning.

I'm just glad I never relied too much on Google services to begin with - other than Chrome, but that would definitely be replaceable. And the App Store, obviously, but I never spend money there, anyway.
Lucky me, I guess!

E-mail wise, I thankfully host my own (or, well, pay a provider to host it for me). It's just more professional if you have your own email domain ;)

Video-wise I try to get into a habit to look at odysee.com first before I have to go to YouTube since most people I follow are unfortunately not on both.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: kuhpunktThat is not what you claimed. You said that Valve makes deals with big publishers so that the 20/25/30% cut rule doesn't apply. This applies to everybody.

So you do not see how this is just a veiled deal with all big publishers as those are the only ones (bar a few indie successes maybe?) who can even fulfill it?
The goal with this was - and it was successful, too - to get big publishers to come back to Steam instead of running their own exclusive stores which they started doing prior to this. There was this period of a year or so (not entirely sure how long it was) where for example EA did not release anything big on Steam.

Quoting: kuhpunktSo you make baseless claims and just say that this is an open secret.

It is very obvious from this comment and most of your others that you do not work in the industry or even close to it.
I cannot show you any definite proof of this as that would be a rather stupid thing to do in my position and some of the people I work with.
Believe me or not - it's your choice, but I think we all know you're going to go with the choice that fits into your narrative.

Quoting: kuhpunktWho does this apply to? Why doesn't this apply to CD Projekt Red, a big money maker for Steam?

Hmmm... why would Valve not cut deals with their direct competitors at GOG?
Yeah, no idea. It is a mystery of which only the brightest detectives would be worthy.

Quoting: kuhpunktIt's what they said. You don't know if Epic can run their store at 5-8%... you have no insight into the costs.

Quoting: kuhpunktOf course they sell much less than Steam, but that's at least still some actual data.

Ah, so if Epic (well, the person who runs it, anyway) gives you some numbers, that must be a lie.
But if GOG gives you some numbers, that must be true.
I truly hope that you can see the problem in your perception here.

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: kuhpunktHow do you know it's a way too big cut? What cut would be appropriate?

Quoting: thesheeepMy suggestion would be to not have one-cut-fits-all, but a minimal cut, say 10-15%.
And then developers can add packages on top. Want a forum with it? +1%. Want multiplayer servers/matchmaking, etc.?+1-4% Other stuff? +1% each.
You get the idea.
This might actually end up with something close to 30% in the end for the premium package, but it's a fact that most developers don't even need half the services Steam supposedly takes such a large chunk for.

That's not what I asked.

You asked what cut would be appropriate. How my answer is not what you asked remains your secret so far.
You also asked how I know it's a way too big cut - I already answered that, multiple times over. You just chose to either ignore it or not believe me. Not much more I can do for you there. I'm not in the habit of repeating myself.

View this comment - View article - View full comments