this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
1448 points (98.5% liked)

Games

32499 readers
1992 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Now if only they could more clearly communicate when games are playable offline.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 148 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (14 children)

Adding kernel malware after the fact should entitle every single owner who requests one to a full refund no matter how long has passed.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I'd really like Valve to take an official policy on post-release changes that break games, but for what it's worth they have not given me any hassle with refunds in these scenarios.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That's a bit much... It's just not possible to guarantee that as a developer

Software is a living thing, and anything useful is made up of layer after layer of ever shifting sand. We do our best, but we are all at the mercy of our dependencies. There are trade-offs, there are bugs we can do nothing about, and sometimes moving forward means dropping support for platforms that are no longer "cheap" enough to afford while also working on the game

I love this though. I also like the idea of requiring access to earlier builds.

These mitigate anti consumer practices - dropping support for a platform is more likely to be a technical trade-off or unintentional consequence though

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I do agree with the part where software moves, dependencies yada, yada... I'm a developer myself.

But.. this is different. They eliminated a perfectly working game, where they didn't have to invest a minute of labor to get it working on Linux. The only thing they had to provide was the .so-file (for EAC) when publishing to Steam.... Valve did all the work to make EAC compatible on Linux, yes, on user-level... but still... it fucking worked.

Punishing an entire userbase, because other assholes (assumably) used Linux for cheating is discrimination. Even if there were no cheaters at all... it's still discrimination... because it used to fucking work.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Oh no, I totally agree with you that this is gross behavior - I just think your rule is too broad.

So we need more focused rules and mechanisms. I think disclosing anti-cheat on the store is a good mechanism, I think forcing them to provide previous releases is a good rule. That obviously doesn't cover nearly enough, but in the current gaming environment I think it's a good start

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)