The fact that he is worth $7 billion is exactly why I personally give his explanation some side-eye. He has painted a picture where the decision is about improving the market for everyone and no about making money, but you don’t become a billion dollar businessman by being altruistic, you do it by gaming the system to…

You’re a total fool if you think being wealthy is an automatic correlation to actually knowing anything about business.

He’s singling out Steam users as the ones that are unhappy with exclusives. Who the fuck is ever actually happy with exclusives? That’s such a bullshit way to attempt a jab at Steam while also assuming every other game as being okay with exclusives.

His first priority is to make money and all else be damned. He himself admits it, people can be pissed off about his company behaviour but it doesn’t matter if it makes money for him. Steam versus Epic is a Alien versus Predator scenario.

Because he’s positioning himself as altruistic. You can call it cynical and shit, but when a CEO tells you “I’m doing this thing because it’s going to make things better for everyone”, you start looking for the razor in the candy floss.

“Insurance Institute for Highway Safety“

Technically it started out as a blatant copy of a Warcraft III mod :P

Every so often, someone pipes up, asking/complaining/whining about why they can’t enjoy a beer or glass of wine at the park.

You don't have to be original to make a great product. I hated DOTA but loved League. Sometimes it's better to let someone else take the initial investment of a startup, then you invest in enhancing it in minor ways until you have a better product .. the downside of being a first mover is the initial investment lol

Why are they making such a point to say that the loot boxes “are fun and enjoyable for people”? It’s not like that was ever part of this legal discussion. When I was in court for *allegedly* selling crack to 12 year olds I wasn’t all “but you know your honor, the kids really enjoy crack, it makes em feel good.”

Why can people not understand the difference between physical and digital? Is the concept so hard to grasp. When you buy a physical item, you own it. It’s yours to do with what you will. Digital items are “licensed”, you don’t own them, you cannot do what you want with them. They hold no post purchase value.

They way I see it, it’s just like “gems” or other form on currency in video games. Basicaly, it’s just another way to obfuscate the real value of money.

How does one turn a Libra into another form of fiat currency? Without a bank account, how does on turn the fiat currency they already have into a Libra? Am I missing something?

“Facebook promises...”

This. I use PayPal or a credit card 98% of the time anyways. This is really useless for me.

“1.7 billion adults globally remain outside of the financial system with no access to a traditional bank.”

That’s not really how value is determined in real world economic situations. Someone can put tens of thousands of hours of study into music theory and spend tens of thousands more hours composing a masterpiece symphony and make very little money on it. Someone else can loop some samples and sing a little diddy and…

That’s not really how value is determined in real world economic situations. Someone can put tens of thousands of…

I mean a lot of stuff like that, the “celebration” comes from being in a crowd with like-minded people, having fun and meeting each other without any kind of stress or any social “rules of engagement” to follow. Humans are social animals, so it feels good to be apart of a crowd.

I personally am not a fan of that kind…

You would be weird for thinking the value of a product is entirely based on that, yes. With video games, it is not unreasonable to also base one’s perceived value of a product on the amount of time one gets out of the game.

You would be weird for thinking the value of a product is entirely based on that, yes. With video games, it is not un…