this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
77 points (88.1% liked)
PC Gaming
8800 readers
222 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think what it certainly means is they've looked at the analysis of how the traditional family sharing has been working. And they see lots of geographically dispersed groups sharing libraries.
I have a credible source tell me the original idea was that parents and children could share libraries. Because having multiple children and repurchasing your library multiple times is a burden for families.
I think they've both improved the system, by allowing games to run concurrently, and reduced the unintended usage of their household sharing program. A program that only exists by the good grace of the publishers, by not being a threat into game revenue. If you can make the argument it's a family sharing, and they would have bought the game once anyway, then it's not a problem to share the game.
I think they took the minimal cut that made this work, they could have done something ownerous like require everybody to upload IDs and prove a family relationship. But that wouldn't scale, and it probably exclude lots of different odd family scenarios. This way they're very inclusive. The only limitation is geographic pricing boundaries. They don't want the one family member in Ukraine buying games for their distant family in the US at a discount. They are trying to do geofencing of the pricing.
Like you said, if it is a big problem for adults, they can just pirate the games. Steam's trying to make it as convenient as possible for a household to not have to repurchase games without becoming a pirate
None of that is a requirement. They could have just left the old system in. This was a choice.
Yes it was a choice. It was not a choice based on people sexuality. You can dislike it, you can move to other platforms, you can pirate. But it wasn't transphobic. They do not care about people's sex organs
If you understand drag's point that transphobia isn't about intent, then why are you trying to persuade drag of your opinion by assigning intent?
Okay dragon fucker,
I understand your point, I do not agree with it. Phobia requires a state of mind. Phobia. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/phobia
Was steam's actions driven by their fear/hate of transsexuals? Clearly not. Therefore this action is not an act of transphobia.
Words have meaning, the written in the dictionary for a reason, bending them for your political advantage may feel good, but it weakens your entire argument.
I've made it as clear as I can.
The convo has gone way off topic and is better discussed somewhere else.
Yes transphobia is a thing and needs to be discussed, just not here. drag, you got your point in/across and was rebutted. let it end here, make a thread somewhere and continue if your really want but its gone way past PC gaming and onto other issues.
im fairly easy on the moderation here as I feel its better for the community (mostly) and very little reports come in so I let everyone do their thing. im not going to remove comments or ban you, but please let it die here.