throw10920
I want a million dollars and a DGX Spark. That's not a point, that's just a personal desire or opinion, which isn't an argument.
Where are they specifically targeting children? Citation needed.
> A big NFT market
Where's this "Valve NFT" you're describing? I've never seen it.
> microtransactions and paid battlepasses
I have no issues with either of those.
Two bad things (lootboxes and refunds needing legislation, that are far exceeded by most of their competitors) out of the dozens of good things they've done.
I wouldn't recommend you install Epic, though. Steam and GOG and Itch are happy to coexist - Epic eagerly weaponizes exclusivity agreements and sinks millions of dollars into anti-competitive practices.
> Sweeney has himself said that Epic is catering to Publishers and not consumers/gamers.
Well, it's clear now that you've neither used Steam nor developed a game yourself (or, you have, but you're engaging in propaganda), because the value that Steam provides for someone either playing or developing/selling games is insane.
Local currencies, regional pricing/payment methods, gift cards, Steam Wallet, game gifting, product keys, wallet/credit system (Steam wallet), bundles, DLC, complex storefront (topics/labels, discovery queue, wishlist, sale notifications), user reviews, game refunds, CDN, a really good download/update system, player metrics, shader pre-caching, shared runtime management, cloud saves, game management across multiple drives, LAN downloads/updates, beta/release/build management, DRM and anticheat, game collections, developer updates, forums, Big Picture/Steam Deck UI, Proton, Steam Input, a complex social system (friends, text chat, voice chat, add codes, profiles), social integration with games, account 2FA, and many, many, many more things. (go and ask a LLM and I'm sure it'll be more than happy to give you a far longer list :)
The fact is that, right now, there are multiple digital storefronts that directly compete with Steam, including offering some of the exact same games, and you can create accounts, install, and use multiple stores simultaneously.
Yet consumers choose to use Steam even when the game is available on other storefronts.
This is the most "free market" mechanism possible, and it shows extremely clearly that Steam is the best option available.
I am extremely glad that your highly irrational desire to make one of the best platforms in existence (among a wasteland of highly abusive ones) go away will not be realized anytime soon.
One doesn't "switch" clients like they do operating systems.
You can install more than one at once. They're not mutually exclusive.
Anticheat comes with the game. That has absolutely nothing to do with Steam - you can have games on Steam with or without anticheat, you can have games on Epic with or without anticheat, you can have games sold directly with or without anticheat.
How is this not blatantly obvious to anyone who has ever played a game?
That's a funny way of saying "I can't think up any arguments against this position, so I'm just going to commit an ad hominem against a wildly diverse set of people for no reason other than to perpetuate flamewars and/or virtue-signal".
This particular set of beached data could stop existing if, instead of reusing a set of fixed data for payments, your bank allowed you to generate a unique code that sent a one-time (or recurring, locked to a single vendor) payment to the recipient.
Now we know you're operating in bad faith.
There was nothing about my comment that remotely motivated a question like the one you asked - but you were, quite knowingly, implying that I believed that. This is known as a loaded question, and it's unambiguously malicious.
When I link this comment in other threads in the future, you'll be able to see that others can see it for what it is. Even on HN, only a vanishingly small fraction of individuals can't recognize a loaded question when they see one.
Edit: And, because you're acting in bad faith and will likely claim that there's no loaded question, I asked Gemini, Claude, ChatGPT, and Grok whether there was a loaded question in our exchange, and every single one of them said said that you embedded a loaded question (with ChatGPT also correctly identifying the implied accusation bundled in). Full prompt below - future HN readers, feel free to reproduce yourself :)
-------
is there a loaded question in this exchange?
A: This model is not for you or me. This model is for Google AI engineers to put on their perf review at the end of the year. How you find or not find it, it doesn't matter. It goes into the "designed and developed Gemini 4 Carbon Ultra Pro" paragraph and people get a promotion, get to keep their jobs and hope to not get replaced by Gemini 4 Carbon next year.
B: Uh, proof needed for this outlandish claim.
A: You want an executive to issue a press release about how dysfunctional and bureaucratic their company is and that’s why it’s so hard for users to actually use these new models?
Factually incorrect.
You wrote:
> You want an executive to issue a press release about how dysfunctional and bureaucratic their company is and that’s why it’s so hard for users to actually use these new models?
In this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50284948
Which I quoted in my comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50288198
There we go. That's the quotation. Your claim that I never quoted is objectively, factually, trivially false.
This is wild. You literally not only forgot your own words that you wrote less than 12 hours ago, but you were incapable of reading the comment where I very clearly cited them right back to you.
This is sub-grade-school levels of memory and reading comprehension. That's not even an exaggeration - grade schoolers are easily capable of doing the ctrl-f levels of "find this exact string of text in this other string of text" that you just failed.
Your comment is exceptionally low effort by the standards of sarcasm. llama-3-8b-level, in that it's trivial, uninteresting, unamusing, uninformative, not clever, and incorrect.
> Who is assigning what beliefs to you?
You did, in the comment that I quoted from you immediately before my statement.
> Not sure what you're after here but sounds like you're a bit upset.
We've established that you have either a severe lack of reading comprehension or are maliciously lying, given that someone with rather below average intelligence would be able to tell that your comment assigns a belief to me that I never held, by reading the two sentences immediately adjacent to each other.
Most HN readers are capable of this reading comprehension, so anyone reading this thread will be able to tell that you're wrong, and I can link to this in the future if you make similarly deceptive comments.
Your sarcasm is as low-effort as your original post.
Anyone with a functioning brain can see how
> You want an executive to issue a press release about how dysfunctional and bureaucratic their company is and that’s why it’s so hard for users to actually use these new models?
...is intentionally assigning beliefs to me purely from your own imagination without any connection to reality.
Your childish pretending that you didn't say something that is literally on record immediately above is a tactic employed by kindergartners, caught by their parents eating a cookie, who claim that they're not eating a cookie.
Hardware? Why would anyone change their hardware based on this? That's completely unrelated.
And as for Chinese LLMs - there's already evidence that the Chinese are training malicious behavior into their models. I think most countries would rather train their own models than risk that.
Sound clueless? It was trumpeted from the rooftops when they made the utterly deranged claim that "rich" -> "no damages".
Is it possible it's a troll account?
No, it's entirely fair. There's absolutely no obligation to include the rest of it.
> If someone thinks a feature can be useful
Still unnecessary. Nobody is under any sort of obligation to contribute if they point out limitations of something.
> especially in the era of agentic coding
Agentic coding requires effort, unless you're advocating for slop.
Irrelevant. HN is not the place to randomly inject flamewars about politics. It's explicitly against both the purpose and guidelines of HN.
Seems like you need to review the guidelines again, because they're pretty clear:
> Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
That's speculative to the point of being conspiratorial.
> Are you honestly suggesting that the end user doesn't care about having to throw exponentially more money at stuffing RAM into their PC just to make the game all their friends are playing online function?
I'm extremely clearly not suggesting that. Don't make up things and pretend that other people said them. Engage honestly or not at all.