Better off watching CGP Grey's video "The Better Boarding Method Airlines Won't Use" which has more discussion of the topic, more simulations, and puts forward better methods that are either faster or allow families to remain grouped.
This is basically https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0733 but differs to the paper in that it doesn't consider: alternating odd-and-even row disembarkment, which would give passengers more aisle space to potentially speed-up luggage handling.
If I were the hacker, I'd edit maxwellhill to have email address ghislainemaxwell@gmail.com just for the shitstorm it'd create, context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29838084
Aside from that, email addresses to usernames might be valuable - you could identify high-value targets from finance, crypto, or luxury item subs.
Or you could just make lists of people who post on specific subs for targeted harrassment.
I'll ask the dumb question - he'd already taken his money out, what financial advantage is he meant to have then gained by encouraging others to do the same?
> what financial advantage is he meant to have then gained by encouraging others to do the same?
Assuming the FDIC doesn't make everyone whole, then all of his portfolio companies using SVB will see themselves with valuations lessened by whatever amount of money was lost.
i.e his investments would burn.
That said, we may very well see an outcome where everyone's just fine and instead his investments see a more difficult lending environment. There was once a california law about encouraging bank runs, but it was struck down in 2012 apparently. So not sure what else might apply in criminal or civil code.
> Fintech startup Brex received billions of dollars in deposits from Silicon Valley Bank customers on Thursday, CNBC has learned.
>The company, itself a high-flying startup, has benefited after venture capital firms advised their portfolio companies to withdraw funds from Silicon Valley Bank this week.
And once again, I can't believe I'm saying this in defense of Peter Thiel, but isn't the Occam's razor answer here just that... he was giving his friends good advice? Anyone with money in that bank should have gotten it out, that's not a controversial fact. Surely even Thiel has people he'd rather see not lose their shirts.
Depends on the relevant margin. If you get adequate sleep then sleeping more won't help (and may actually hurt) but exercise can actually raise the baseline. To use a very rough analogy, sleep is like the fan in your computer. If it's working optimally it ensures you can utilize the CPU close to its physical limit. But exercise is like upgrading the CPU.
Microtransactions, real money loot-boxes, gambling, NFT marketplace, battlepasses
doesn't milk it's users?
Dota used to have $35 "arcanas", a high quality skin for a single hero which were released intermittently - but that wasn't enough money, they're now placed $200+ deep in the yearly battlepass. If you played any of their games, you'd realise they're one of greediest in the business.
They also pioneered 2 hour no question return policy, Linux support and a store that was mostly global in a world where everyone else treated us non-americans like crap.
When Nintendo sold me a game thats unplayably busted on the Switch they just shrugged and told me to suck it up. Steam didn't.
They also pioneered a store that plays less of a moral police than any others.
(Despite all that, I usually prefer GoG these days because I despise DRM and Steams login limit.)
The regional pricing cannot be overstated - when I lived in a country with a PPP ratio of 0.5 (vs US), Steam always felt to have realistic local prices while other stores were 2x or more expensive. It really drove the normalization of non-piracy in various countries IMHO.
Most of the people in this thread won’t understand the pain of having to buy something denominated in dollars, especially as a kid with no money. That’s probably why I’ll be loyal to Steam forever.
Most people on this site don't know and don't care externalized cost of dollar denominated currency and reserve currency status so long as their goods and vacations come cheap.
To be fair, Valve were sued into enacting their return policy by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC), and no longer offer flash sales because of it.
That doesn't change the fact that noone else really offers this. I accidentally bought a wrong copy of a game on PS5 and they just told me to go away because I "already downloaded it". The download started automatically. I didn't even boot up the PS5 from the time I did the purchase and the time I contacted support (which also gave me a runaround of "oh, you're on UK store not EU store, go away and wait for another 45 minutes).
Seems like Australia should sue other stores as well.
That's just not true, GoG offer a 30 day refund even if you played the game with no maximum time, Xbox say you get a refund if you haven't "accumulated a significant amount of play time", Epic offer a under 2 hour refund and Origin seem to have a similar stance.
Looks to me like 2 hours play time is a industry standard and Steam aren't doing anything special.
These windows appeared after Steam pioneered them and most of them require contacting support which can literally take hours if you're not from US (if you can even get it).
Haven't tried with GoG though, never needed it there.
And as another person (and if my own memory serves) mentioned, Steam's move was nearly entirely driven by pending lawsuits.
Don't get me wrong, I primarily use Steam and support them because they're the only company really caring about Linux, but I don't think they can be given the credit for pioneering the current refund landscape.
When SimCity was an unplayable mess that basically couldn't deliver on most of the features for weeks after launch, I emailed EA, said it didn't match the quality or features they advertised. Within 2-3 days I had a refund.
This was years before Valve would issue refunds even for other similarly broken titles.
I requested refunds from them before they got sued by the ACCC, got told to take it up with the game developer. Contact the game developer who told me to take it up with Valve.
Afterwards they just tell me I played too many hours (ironically because I was trying to repro the issue on a few maps to demonstrate it wasn't me/my computer/etc that was shit)
Fwiw Meta offers this on the quest store. But that might just be that it's a new space. And my personal experience is this policy made me buy more stuff. Every game has basically a 2hour demo for 14 days
I don't care if they offer or not, if a company refuses me a refund as per consumer law in Germany, I will file a complaint against them on the Consumer Protection Agency and let their legal team handle it.
Guess what, I usually get my refunds back from companies that tell me to f** off.
I purchased movies to watch with my kids on Google Play after which I found out they did not come with Dutch subtitles, which was unexpected for me. Asked for a refund and received it immediately, unexpectedly!!
The whole point of Brexit was to boldly charge ahead into a bright future, unburdened by EU's anti-innovation laws (some of which are known as "consumer protection laws").
I don't know - the issue wasn't the laws in my case. It was that I opened my local PSN page, clicked "get support" and it somehow connected me with UK support chat. Which then, after 45 minutes of waiting, just told me that I need to try again on my local support page with no helpful link. Back in line for me it was. I never noticed at which point exactly did the PSN page redirect me to UK page...
Sure, they did that because they got forced to by a specific regulatory body, but most companies when something like that happens enable it only the regions they're legally required to do so. Valve appear to have just implemented it, then turned on worldwide because it seems like a good idea.
Australia only requires returns for defective products. Valve used to be in violation but now they are well beyond the legal requirements in allowing change of mind refunds as well.
And to give credit where credit is due, EA Origin was earlier to the punch at refunding digital sales. In fact that was one of it's selling points when it initially started.
They only added the refund policy because they were breaking consumer rights in some counties and they even got fined by Australia for it. It's funny that people think they did it out of care for the customer.
It was actually Sexy Brutale which consistently runs with less than 15fps, looks blurry to the point where it's hard to see things and occasionally crashes. It's really not playable.
I've tried a refund when the studio publicly stated they have no intention of patching the game after launch.
And a whole host of other games: Hatred, Active Shooter, Rape Day, Super Seducer 3. In many cases, Valve retroactively edited its content policies to justify banning such games.
Like that's better than the 14 day no questions asked return policy the EU already had. The one they smeared to buy a new law allowing such malpractice?
Long time steam user and have never felt compelled to buy any of that. I get an absolutely massive amount of value out of Steam and I'm yet to see another store that even runs on Linux, let alone actually boosting the whole ecosystem with Proton and other efforts.
I bought a new racing wheel a while ago and it wasn't quite working on linux, after doing some searching I found that a Valve employee was working on a patch to the kernel to fix this racing wheel just to make gaming on linux better.
It's an indie store, the natural successor to the flash game websites of yore. Getting games from there sight unseen is like picking up some games from the bargain bin - a lot of rubbish but the occasional gem.
It doesn't need 'good commercial titles', it needs to be seen as the preferred option for supporting Indies over steam (i.e. if you are presented with the choice, go for itch. If you're already on steam then steam has earned its money).
Most of the high end of itch is on steam, so you could life a happy and fulfilled life without hearing about itch at all.
On the other hand, if you're someone who is frustrated with the commercial nature of current stores and are pining for the simpler times - itch is very much going to scratch that... Itch.
I personally end up mostly on Steam, but on the occasion that I've really wanted to support a developer (usually puzzle games like Patrick's Parabox) I'll go to itch. The bundle for Ukraine recently also had some excellent finds in there.
tl; dr - if you are an indie connoisseur then yes, if you just want to game then probably not.
This Linux thing can't be over-stated. I'm a dad with 2 teenage daughters and yet aside from school devices and their phones they never touch anything but Linux. Steam is a huge reason why that's possible.
Ok, but that's specific to CSGO, not steam in general. No game I own seems to have gambling or micro transactions, or they're just not blatantly trying to shove it into my face so that I didn't even notice. Compare this to any mobile game or pay2win games that aren't even really playable without constantly pouring in money.
Valve certainly isn't a saint, but when it comes to steam, it's a decent platform that gets the job done and doesn't get in your way, no dark patterns there.
I played Dota for years without ever feeling the need to spend on cosmetics. Valve prides themselves on a free-to-play, pay-to-look-fancy-in-game model. I didn’t care about the looks, so I played the game for free.
Other games have a free-to-play but pay-to-win model. League of Legends requires you to pay if you want to play with the newer, more powerful characters. Hearthstone is free to play but adds newer, more powerful cards every season. Building a competitive deck of cards could cost $150-200 per season.
That’s not to say I like this lootbox bullshit. It preys on people who have a weakness for gambling. If I were wired differently I could have spent thousands on them. I think they should be regulated out of existence.
It’s true, but new characters are very “expensive”, even in the free currency. I have an embarrassing number of hours in league (4 digits) and do not have all the characters unlocked. Compare to Dota where I had every character unlocked at hour zero.
> Microtransactions, real money loot-boxes, gambling, NFT marketplace, battlepasses
I feel like I'm out of the loop here. Didn't those come more from mobile gaming and Asian free to play MMOs or Battle Royales? Didn't Valve make the "traditional" buy-once games like Half-Life, Portal, HL-derivatives like Team Fortress/CS?
As for milking its users, Steam (the platform) is an incredible value (for purchases, refunds, reseller ecosystem, etc.) and an awesome utility (community mods, auto updates, reviews, cloud sync, streaming, Proton, multiplayer APIs, etc.). I think the one fair gripe about them is that they take a pretty large cut from developers and force them to use the Steam payment processing, which takes another big cut. But for end users (players) it's a wonderful platform, especially compared to its peers like GOG Galaxy, the EA/Ubi/Microsoft clients, the Epic Game Stores... none of those come close in usability.
Individual titles within the platform might choose to use lootboxes and other crappy monetization schemes, but that's on them, not Steam. There are thousands of games that have better monetization models, and Steam helped revive the dormant indie PC gaming industry and then blew it up a thousandfold... almost none of those games have predatory pricing models.
As for cosmetic skins, what's wrong with that? Who cares how much they charge for those if it doesn't provide a gameplay advantage of any sort, just blinky particles? Compared to any ACTUAL predatory P2W game, I'd so much rather support games that only sell cosmetics.
It seems so unfair to reduce all that Valve has done for the PC gaming to "lootboxes and high priced skins". Without Steam PC gaming would probably have died by now, and with it the most amazing renaissance in indie titles since the shareware days.
> Didn't Valve make the "traditional" buy-once games like Half-Life, Portal, HL-derivatives like Team Fortress/CS?
There's a reason that the slogan "we used to make games, now we make money" has been half-jokingly attributed to Valve. For years, their biggest revenue producers have been their free-to-play games with cosmetic microtransactions such as CS:GO, DOTA2, and TF2. As far as I know, their last "traditional" game was Portal 2 in 2011. Half-Life: Alyx could be argued to have similar production value, but was released as more of an erstwhile "pack-in title" for the Valve Index headset.
Oh wow, I didn't realize those games evolved into cosmetic marketplaces. (I bought TF2 and CS:GO when they were still one-time purchases).
But they're purely cosmetic? That sounds like a wonderful business model for all involved, especially vs the predatory P2W crap that's really infesting the market (especially in mobiles and MMOs). I'd probably also rather than a F2P cosmetics-only game over a buy-once game... if only because that usually implies there will be a proper server farm hosting the games, lessening cheaters or peer to peer hosts with terrible connections.
TF2 has functional items, but you can generally receive them from playing or buying them for a fixed price, around $1 each. Realistically for $30 you won't lack items.
Valve pioneered most of that stuff, just that they sorta let go of the accelerator at some point and let other companies who were initially following their lead surpass them in exploitativeness so theyre not too associated with it nowadays.
Although I suppose its dubious whether real world money gambling (valve) is more or less exploitative than the gambling directly implemented into game design that the rest of the industry took up.
I have a hard time accepting TF2 hats were exploitative. The cosmetic items have no impact on gameplay, and I played the game while completely ignoring trading items. It never felt like gambling, unlike in EA games.
Isn't there a pretty big difference between gambling for cosmetics and gambling for gameplay advantage? The former is like buying clothes... sure, you can spend as much money as you want on them, but it doesn't really affect anyone else. Whereas P2W gambling totally screws up game balance for all the other players because it monetizes the power curve.
They certainly offer a lot of ways to send them money, but it doesn't feel like they're pushing particularly hard. All that Dota stuff is cosmetics, is it not? No gameplay boosts?
Plus, they were talking about Steam the platform, not individual games Valve has developed.
No, dota has a paid subscription ($5 p/m) which gates gameplay features, many of which would be really useful for newer players - ingame coaching, item suggestions, hero pick suggestions, death summary, live gameplay tips, avoid player list, ranked mmr double downs that can be used after drafting phase, exclusive modes, and live spectating (free users have to use discord streaming or spectate with 2 minutes delay).
You're talking about features that were all developed extra (aka they weren't gated), all of them using some kind of AI.
And none of which are even close to necessary.
The problem with selling convenience in F2P games is that the developers themselves created the issue they are selling the solution to. For example, having little inventory space. This isn't something that requires development resources to fix, so it's very clearly just there as a problem you can pay to solve. None of this applies to Dotas stuff.
> many of which would be really useful for newer players
Some of it is outright bad if you blindly rely on it because it goes by global statistics. How was that old story about the air force trying to create a perfect seat for the "average" pilot again? They measured everyone and averaged the results and then they couldn't find a single pilot that fit. The static list of suggested items is interesting, but the "dynamic" suggestions for the next item to build are something I mostly ignore.
I meant more like gameplay power boosts, but that's fair, those things are sorta gameplay.
But in any case, while you could argue that that's kinda pushy, that's Valve the game dev, not Valve the platform owner. I don't play Dota so that stuff doesn't affect me at all.
As a dota player who played dota 1 and dota 2, i dont have to spend a single penny to enjoy dota 2. And i get to play it for free on linux. Good lord, im grateful for that.
I have hundreds of hours in most games they developed, and i never ever felt like purchasing any of the microtransactions, or that their gameplay was optimized in a way that you would be compelled to spend money.
There is a huge difference between cosmetics only and gameplay affecting microtransactions.
With current prices they are not micro anymore anyway.
You mean the company that pioneered the single most fair microtransactions in existence? I've played many F2P games, and not a single one has ever been as fair as Dota 2. Short of giving away everything for free, there is no way they could've monetized more fairly.
Also the fact that it is one of the few where you can sell your lootbox results... Albeit for store credit with 15% tax. But still, that alone puts it beyond others.
"Milking" doesn't simply mean charging for services, it means collecting money in unfair or abusive way.
I'm not sure that Steam pioneered them but microtransactions are great, they enabled high quality games be free or at least cheap to access for casual players and the few who really dive deep into the content pay accordingly.
Loot boxes and other stuff are things that people want and enjoy. Can be unhealthy for some people but let's not pretend that there are large number of people living on the streets because Steam milked them away like an illegal casino.
Their ways are not designed to make you sell your car to buy a skin.
You're talking about Valve, while OP is talking about Steam.
As someone who only uses Steam (and used to play TF2 before all the hat things, but not DotA), I still see Steam in a good way. And I actually discovered that Valve indeed created all the things you mentioned (except NFT markeplace, which I believe is an exaggeration).
I believe that it's good that EGS is trying to compete with Steam, but on the other hand, I'm scared that EGS's tactics will force Steam to use the same tactics and make it less user-friendly.
Fair comment, but steam is, or at least used to be, worse in this regard than valve. They gamified sales. Flash sales, loot boxes for buying stuff, trading said loot on steam marketplace, etc.
I e, they pushed gambling and gacha stuff to children. I've always felt they had come up with a perverse incentive s structure with these sales.
It is 2022, we have the internet and long histories of everything everyone has said and done. A 5 point list of things you don't like isn't really an argument in the modern era. You really should put the effort in to link that into an actual complaint. Anyone or any company that has done anything of note has got a few points about them that aren't pure and perfect.
Valve pioneered a lot of those things before anyone even realised that they were profitable. The way they stumbled into the gambling market looked, from where I sat, like an accidental evolution of a company that was experimental and evidence based. Particularly on DOTA - unless something really changed since the last time I looked you can play the whole game for free and the winner is determined purely by skill. Valve is being entirely reasonable in how they make money - giving people who are huge fans of the game a way to spend money on it.
Real money in exchange for non-cosmetic items (weapons, characters, skills, more attempts per day on boss X or dungeon Y) is awful and must die, I do not condone it. It should be outright outlawed.
Real money in exchange for convenience (storage space in PoE) or purely cosmetic items (non-combat pets, hats, angel wings, whatever) ? Fine.
Agreed, as long as the items are only cosmetic, I don't care how much they cost. They're entirely optional, unlike the "optional" pay-to-win items that cost you thousands of hours of grinding if you don't pay.
Steam did not pioneer these things. They were a thing in MMO's since around 2000, then rose to ridiculous properties in the early 2010's with Facebook (farmville) and mobile (clash of clans) games. The current spat, I believe, started in 2016 with Overwatch, quickly followed by the series of "live service" games like Fortnite.
It's literally a free game, with no strings attached. The only downside is the game gets heavier on resources with these items when you play with players with these items.
Valve is certainly doing(has done) better than the market ethically, you need to look into their competition to see the state.
Can't agree more on the DOTA2 part. Valve doesn't invest much on the community, tournaments and even the game itself. Now the game is already dead in NA, CN coming next. Let alone the derivatives, like Artifact and AutoChess (DOTA Underloads)
Yeah, Steam is not looking out for users. It locks everything behind DRM too.
The "good for users" alternative to Steam is GOG, but it's basically an also-ran in the market.
I have a love/hate relationship with Steam. I love that it "just works" on Linux, but I hate the DRM and lock-in. When I mostly used a PC I'd always favor GOG or some other distribution method, although I did have lots of Steam games as well. Now that I own a Steam Deck - and playing non-steam games is a bit of a pain in the rear (but at least possible) - I find myself buying into the platform even more (which, no doubt, was the entire purpose of the Steam Deck).
I agree with what you're saying but just to note, the DRM is optional although most devs take them up on it. Kerbal Space Program is one example of a game where iirc you can just copy the folder out and run it on any machine.
Good point. It facilitates DRM, but it doesn't mandate it.
I feel like this exemplifies Steam. It's not unambiguously anti-consumer, and it does provide some real value, so many of us are willing to accept the tradeoffs involved.
Even with DRM, historical context is important. Steams DRM usually had better terms (family sharing etc) than the competition and it was also more lightweight. It was DRM which really did not get in most gamers way compared to say the abominations that Ubisoft shipped. They're not GoG but they're far from the worst and I always felt like Valve cared a lot more about these sort of things then they had to given their market dominance.
Battlepasses where a cut is added to the price pools of events. I agree they are pioneers. Why is everyone else just pocketing their battlepass earnings still 5 years later and offering tiny price pools?
Blizzard once crowdfunded a prize pool and ran away with the money.
If valve is milking users, then everyone else is butchering them.
I think the key is that it feels like Steam-the-marketplace is merely making such tools available to individual developers/publishers of specific games.
Then if a game is an exploitative grindfest, blame falls on the dev/publisher for choosing to implement whatever-it-is.
It's not profound to say that sustained (infinite) growth is unsustainable, but it is of interest when it's within a conceivable timeframe.
It's not worth reading however, because the author whimsically extrapolates energy usage starting from 230 years before the invention of the lightbulb to get their exponential growth argument which doesn't hold at all for modern data.
You should instead be asking, what are the odds that that X voters could change their vote.