• 2 Posts
  • 125 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle

  • Perfect. Finally. I understand needing two copies of the game to play online (one game code per user). But local split screen shouldn’t be that way and neither should playing seperate games force me into individual play sessions. Each game code should have capacity to run an individual account. Not one account to each owned game.

    This has been my gripe with steam and purchased digital games vs physical games since it’s concept. It felt like I was renting play sessions with my ID license rather than owning the games I paid for.


  • Aermis@lemmy.worldtoSteam@lemmy.mlSteam Families is here
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    What is this. Because I’m pretty upset that the games I paid for can’t be played on different pc’s. My daughter wants to pay stardew valley while I’m online with family on satisfactory. I have to take the other pc and go into offline mode. This wasn’t the solution. Even with adding members I didn’t think I did it right. So does this fix it? Can my family member log into stardew online with her cousin while I’m on another lan game?












  • Man it doesn’t even need to devolve into a debate. You get berated just for having an opinion on something more and more. That’s the problem with the voting system anyways. People that don’t share an opinion with you shouldn’t even have an option to down vote. Just don’t vote at all. Up votes are for shared opinions. But even then the biggest gripe I had with reddit was the system has the up voted “popular” comments as the most viewed as well, leaving the opinions of people unseen without looking for them.

    People are impressionable. If they see everyone agreeing with a comment they feel they need to skew their opinion towards the common dissent or risk being alienated. We’re communal creatures. And social media screwed with our heads with the need to fit in.



  • Is it because Microsoft is the big dog with money and Linux is no dog because there is no company backing Linux? Windows sells solely because Windows can push the product?

    Would it be benificial (albeit this will be extremely frowned upon by this community I believe) for a Linux distro to be backed and monetized via a corporation with a legal team to help push a Linux product on the shelves? In the short run it’s a bad idea, but in the long run it’ll familiarize the public, and push software developers for compatability. The incentive being that there’s money now involved and it won’t be a project for people.

    Because right now to use Linux for the majority of user case operations you’d need at least computer science 101 to start installing a distro, partitions, manual software installation, to get running. Or am I wrong on this part?



  • So if you did open a computer shop and are selling this plethora of Linux options, doesn’t that leave you liable if there are issues with the operating system?

    If I buy a laptop and my windows is running poorly don’t I have windows support taking care of my windows problems?

    If I buy a laptop from you with mint installed and am having problems I can’t contact Linux for support, I’ll have to contact you the shop owner.

    Won’t this liability discourage shop owners from selling laptops/desktops with Linux?