Valve is not literally the first but they played a big part in normalizing both lootboxes and micro transactions. Don't rewrite history just because you are a fan.
Not to mention their role in you not owning your games.
> Not to mention their role in you not owning your games.
I do use Steam to "purchase" games, and it irks me that they're still allowed to show "Buy" when in reality you're essentially leasing/renting the game, can't believe it's legal for them (and others) to trick people like this still.
A Steam purchase I have more confidence in than a physical game copy to survive. I trust Steam to honor its agreement with me more than I trust in myself and my feline overlords to keep a game CD alive.
In a previous timeline, this has led to me going on ebay to find CDs of a long lost game (EarthSiege 2), which I promptly uploaded to the Internet Archive as the one distributed by the current license-holder at the time had an older, unstable version with bugs and, more importantly, no audio and my own original copy got damaged to hell and beyond...
Sure, I agree with all of those things, but the fact still stands, Steam is actively lying to customers as the store pages say "Buy" and "Purchase", not "Rent" or "Lease", which are more accurate. You don't actually own the product.
Don't get me wrong, as mentioned, I use Steam and like Steam/Valve, but that move is a bit shitty regardless.
How could it be confusing when that's actually what happens? Imagine HN showed "Delete comment" instead of "Reply" under the comment input, don't you agree that be misleading?
There is a product in the cart, which is a game, and the button says "Purchase", no where does it say anywhere that it's a license (although that's obvious), nor that I don't actually "own" this game after I "purchase" it.
Sure, minor detail perhaps, but I'd still argue that something Steam could do better, and since the industry is lacking self-regulation about this, I'd argue more regulations are needed for this even.
It's on the cart page, before you check out. And I do agree that it should be much more front-and-center, rather than the sort of fine-print thing they have now.
What? Valve basically invented making money with skins and lootboxes, it started with TF2 hats. There is an insane amount of money in the CS2 skin market.
It amazes me how productive it's possible to be using AI, but I also has this nagging feeling that we are being reeled into being so reliant on this that when the price starts going up, we will simply eat the cost.
The math is pretty simple, and it's easy to justify still paying the price even if it goes up 10 fold, when compared to hirering more resources its still cheap.
So I guess having multiple players and competition in the market is the key?
Going forward, models will start specializing. Anthropic will build a BioMed model for large drug companies. A math/compsci model for frontier theoretical research. A physics modelf or nuclear research. They can communicate each other for synergy effects e.g. for areas where math meets biomed etc. This will be cost reducing as well. We plebs don't need advanced models for our plumbing software work. Following example applied to AI capabilies will make it clear.
Does everyone need a graphing calculator?
Does everyone need a scientific calculator?
Does everyone need a normal calculator?
Does everyone need GeoGebra or Desmos ?
Do you know Zuckerberg well enough to be able to engage in an interesting conversation about his hypothetical behavior if he was a bartender?
Do you know Zuckerberg well enough to be able to engage in an interesting conversation about whether or not he would continue to grant a specific person access to filters, knowing that they're harming that specific person?
I guess not. Speculating about it seems pointless at best.
I've been working with physics engine (cannon then rapier) + three js recently using Claude and found that AI was struggling quite when it came to fine tuning physics constants (friction, weights etc.) quite a lot. A human touch was needed - ended up vibe coding a small debug / admin panel where I could adjust those manually.
The premise of the project is he doesn't want to run code he doesn't know + in an insecure way, so having the setup step to install dependencies etc, done by an LLM seems like an odd choice.
Like what part about the setup step is so fluffy and different per environment, that using an LLM for it makes sense?
Everyone is using Cursor, model preference varies. The best performers have large context in their repository, make very detailed plans using Planning mode and then execute. Use different models to individually review the work.
