No, definitely not. When games don’t integrate SteamWorks features such as friends lists (or were written by people who accounted for the features to just not be available instead of outright failing), they don’t need Steam.
When the games use GPLed engines, Steam integration may not be legally possible anyway.
Off the top of my head I can immediately name Krita, the painting app by KDE whose Steam release has no Steam integration and runs just fine without.
The game doesn’t require steam after that and usually this means the game is available elsewhere
Means you can also zip the folder and archive it for later.
Steam being proprietary DRM, and games being closed-source.
Better not tell anyone about DRM-free open source games on Steam then. Wouldn’t wanna burst anyone’s bubble.
Comment OP appears to have drank the Epic Games Kool-aid.
The world’s biggest video game, Fortnite, is only available on Epic Games Store for most platforms. Epic’s market share is gigantic, other video game developers just don’t benefit of it because Epic promotes their own stuff first and foremost. If Epic had a storefront monopoly, it would be classified as anti-competitive behaviour.
Last I heard you could buy games from GOG or Epic and install them on a Steam deck produced and subsidized by Valve.
Or get them on PlayStation, Switch, or Xbox (Earth Walker claimed Steam has a monopoly on video game distribution in general).
they have a monopoly on video game distribution
People who claim that Valve has a monopoly on PC games are already wrong but you claim that they have a monopoly on video game distribution in general is outrageously false. The 2022 overall video game revenue was a bit over US$180Bn. The PC game revenue was US$45Bn. In 2023, all of Steam was responsible for US$8.6Bn in revenue. The biggest PC games (Fortnite, Minecraft, Roblox) aren’t even on Steam and neither are any console or phone games.
Criticize Valve for actual things to criticize them for. Don’t spread misinformation.
I wish some company that wasn’t a giant asshole was working on these type devices.
The research behind such tech will proliferate no matter ho invented it first. People will be hired by other companies, they’ll apply whatever they learned, using different techniques. Specific techniques can be patented, the experience people gained cannot.
Orion combines the look and feel of a regular pair of glasses
Ah yes, “the look and feel of a regular pair of glasses”:
I want to understand where the price justification is
The justification is that people should be yearly subscribers when they can more easily forget to cancel it.
Everyone on the internet is free to go and use any other service.
Yes but that’s not the claim you made. You wrote “It’s their private website, they do on it whatever they want. Right, lemmy?” and this blanket statement is wrong. They can’t to “whatever they want” because they are bound by laws. If Google/Alphabet instituted rules on YouTube that competing video services like Nebula cannot named at all, market watchdogs would be at their heels immediately and they’d win in court if it came to it.
Can they put ads on pause screens? Yes. Can they do “whatever they want”? No.
No, commercial services with a dominant position in the market cannot do whatever they want.
I’d rather see them on pause screen than interrupting the playback but because we can’t have any nice things, interruptions will also only get worse.
I mean, I do that sometimes, and it’s honestly not hard.
Keep doing it for your stuff, don’t try to make a rule for others to do the same.
I expect the same from others.
That’s the problem. You shouldn’t. It’s not your call to make. Deal with it.
I’m explaining the sentiment I see here.
The sentiment here is that a loud minority cries about a tiny fraction of submissions when they could just not watch the videos in the first place.
All I’m saying is to put in a little effort to link a relevant text article or add a few bullet points that the video covers. That’s it.
Literally nobody is stopping you from doing that for other submissions. Don’t task unpaid community members to do work for you, just because you don’t like videos.
Exactly. And with AI tools, getting a transcript and generating a summary shouldn’t be all that hard.
Write a summary bot then.
I’m not watching a random video someone posts just based on the headline
Then don’t.
I need a bit more reason to invest my time to contribute to the discussion.
You’re not that important. If you don’t contribute to a discussion just because the submission is a video, nobody will notice.
Don’t fucking post a two hour video that contains a few paragraphs of info then
You clearly don’t know what a summary is. I can summarize Lord of the Rings in three sentences. The details are still important.
If you don’t want to watch such a video, DON’T WATCH IT! Don’t forbid others to like what they like!
There’s a lot terrible articles with clickbate titles too.
The headline here does not need to be the same as the headline in the article. Other communities have rules not to editorialize headlines, this community does not. “Review of tech gadget X by outlet Y” is a perfectly fine headline here.
The purpose is to get you to watch the video, not to actually tell you what’s in the video.
There is no rule here to copy the video title into the submission headline. The submission here could be titled “PlayStation 5 Pro benchmarks by Digital Foundry”, no matter how DF names the video on YouTube. Demanding summaries of videos that can easily be longer than 45 minutes is just not reasonable at all.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect others to do the same.
Yes, it is. For a deep dive video a summary is easily several paragraphs long. Not only takes it time to write the summary, for a deep dive it would include making notes during the video, pausing several times, etc. In such a case of a deep dive, this can be an hour of work. So if you want summaries, you do the work. Don’t demand that from others and claim this is somehow a compromise.
“Games for Windows Live”