So they’re not DRM free then if you need Steam to download them. You also need to be connected to the internet at least once to confirm ownership, so even if you download it once and think that you can now just transfer the game from one PC to another without an internet connection or without Steam, you can’t.
DRM free and actual ownership means physical. The closest you’ll get to that with digital games is through GOG or Itch.io or anything similar where you can download the actual install files and you don’t need any launcher at all.
Again, they can afford their R&D while paying their employees more than the industry average and while making the owner a multibillionaire, they 100% could afford to lower their cut without any negative impact on everyone but Gabe Newell.
The lower % starts if a game sells enough copies to make 10m$, Valve has made 3m$ at that point.
Stop defending the people that make you poorer, they’re not your friends, all billionaires exist at the expense of our wealth. All. Of. Them. Are. Evil.
Ubisoft is nothing compared to Valve… You don’t own anything you purchase on Steam and it’s the biggest store by a huge margin, don’t know why Ubisoft is mentioned specifically…
I’ve had this conversation so many times and some people just can’t imagine that they might be paying more than they need to just so Gabe can collect yachts… People feel they’re getting their money’s worth because everything they’ve ever bought is priced based on the fact that there’s multimillionaires and billionaires higher up the chain…
You could create the best launcher in the world and people would ignore it because they don’t want multiple launchers and their library is already centralized on Steam.
The more people mine, the more decentralized it is, the more energy is necessary because difficulty is increased. The more transactions happen, the more blocks are required, the more energy needs to be spent to confirm all the transactions. The more it’s used, the higher the value, the more people mine.
There’s a limit to the number of transactions per block as well, so no, your can’t just say “1 or 1000 it’s the same”.
Visa is already able to handle 24000 transactions per second as is, no need for more infrastructure.
Crypto uses 1% of the world’s energy production for a couple trillions in assets, the financial system uses 2.5% for quadrillions in assets, multiple thousands more than crypto, no, crypto can’t scale to that without a huge environmental impact.
Yes you are trying to greenwash crypto, just stop.
Crypto energy usage goes up the more it’s being used and the more decentralized it becomes. Centralized services like Visa can increase the network load while barely increasing the energy requirements.
Crypto bros always forget that to replace the banking system, crypto would need to replace the infrastructure as well, but because of decentralization it would be less energy efficient for the same result.
You can just stop, there’s no way to greenwash crypto and decentralization. The amount of transactions happening on all crypto networks at the moment could be handled by one server if it was centralized. There’s benefits to it, stop trying to sell it as being green, it’s not and never will be.
Ok, I was in agreement with you (the concept of NFTs is great, what people do with it is dumb) until the environment part
Crypto, even proof of stake, isn’t energy efficient and never will be, the banking sector uses more energy but it also manages quadrillion in funds and transactions, crypto’s value as a whole is orders of magnitude less than that and there’s more energy spent per transaction than in the traditional financial sector. Crypto replacing banks and cash would be an environmental disaster.
Next, even if mining is done using green energy, it means that this energy isn’t used to reduce emissions in other, actually essential, sectors. There’s an environmental cost to green energy (what do you think was under the dam’s reservoir?) so having to produce more infrastructure just for crypto is wasteful.