• 1 Post
  • 7 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle
  • As someone who bought Half Life 2 when it was released …

    I only remember people being excited about Steam, Web stores weren’t a thing back then and they were the future! (It was the following years of audio and ebook stores locking stuff down and evapourating that taught us to hate it).

    Game/Audio CD DRM hacking the kernel and breaking/massively slowing down your PC was pretty common back then and Steam’ s DRM didn’t do that.

    The HL2 disc installer didn’t require you to install Steam, once installed it asked you to setup Steam and there was a sticker under the DVD with the Steam code for you to enter.

    You were then rewarded with a copy of HL2 Deathmatch and Counterstrike Source.

    Steam wasn’t always on DRM, back then ADSL/DSL was relatively new and alot of people were still stuck on Dial Up modems.

    Steam let you sign in and authorize your games for 30 days at which point you would need to log into Steam again. This was incredibly helpful feature for young me.


  • stevecrox@kbin.socialtoGames@lemmy.worldWhat's up with Epic Games?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Basically Epic like every other publisher has created their own launcher/store.

    They aren’t trying to compete on features and instead using profits from their franchise to buy market share (e.g. buying store exclusives).

    The tone and strategy often comes off as aggressive and hostile.

    For example Valve was concerned Microsoft were going to leverage their store to kill Steam. Valve has invested alot in adding windows operability to Linux and ensuring Linux is a good gaming platform. To them this is the hedge against agressive Microsoft business practices.

    The Epic CEO thinks Windows is the only operating system and actively prevents Linux support and revoked Linux support from properties they bought.

    As a linux user, Valve will keep getting my money and I literally can’t give it to Epic because they don’t want it.




  • SpaceX are launching 26-52 satellites at a time and have sustained 3 launches a week for most of the year.

    The satellites are in a Low Earth Orbit, without constant thrust, atmospheric drag will force them to re enter earths atmosphere within a few months. This means they aren’t adding to junk in space.

    Unlike Nasa, ULA, Arriannespace, RoscosMos, etc… SpaceX have always performed 2nd Stage Deorbit burns, so they aren’t adding to Space junk by launching either.

    The Low Earth Orbit is to ensure low latency and the need for constant thrust means the satellites have a short life expectancy by design. That is why SpaceX fought to keep the satellites as cheap as possible (e.g. $250k)

    First stage booster reuse and fairing reuse means the majority of the launch cost is the second stage ($15 million).

    The whole lot is privately funded



  • Tesla actually market it as a positive.

    Car manufacturers have to setup different manufacturing lines to provide different feature levels. Tesla argue this makes them more expensive. Tesla cars have all features installed, just disabled and the optional extra packages are cheaper compared to their rivals as a result.

    To be honest there is a certain logic, if you’ve ever been in a Ford Focus LX (bottom range) its pretty clear they had to spend quite a bit of money on more basic systems. I honestly thought each LX was sold at a loss