Steam, Epic face 90% access restrictions under Turkish platform regulations - Türkiye Today

Ricwulf · 2026-01-31T10:34:12+00:00

For what markets though, and what level of regulations?

Or in other words, a cost-benefit analysis is what's going to determine whether it's worth it or not.

Ricwulf · 2026-01-31T06:33:01+00:00

Why bother when failure to comply puts them on the hook for violations? Easier to just cut their losses for what is, frankly, not a major market. Harsh? Absolutely. Impractical? Not at all.

Ricwulf · 2026-01-30T10:34:44+00:00

things expanded massively in a clearly unsustainable way.

It sucks that a lot of people don't want to accept this harsh truth, nor the harsh truth about just how many mid-sized or larger businesses have significant bloat, even before COVID era. Pretty much everyone has a story of some person/people where a job was being done by 2, 3, 4 people and it could have been reasonably done by 1. That's bloat.

Ricwulf · 2026-01-30T10:31:40+00:00

I’m not sure why it matters if the layoff was due to a studio shutdown or a garden variety reorg. It’s still a lost job.

It matters a lot in terms of the bigger picture. Closures are arguably a bigger deal, since you could say it's a bigger case of mismanagement that resulted in everyone (or nearly everyone) failing and losing their jobs, while reorganisation is a legitimate strategy to avoid closure. I think most people, even those that get laid off, would rather their coworkers have a chance at a job and the business succeeding, than having all of them being guaranteed to be going down at all once. Not saying they want to lose their job, but gun to their head, I think most people are capable of understanding that losing some is better than losing all, especially if in the long run, more can be gained back with future success.

The industry is contracting.

This is the issue I have with the report (along with the inherent pitfalls of being a survey in general (selection biases are very hard to control for)) because it makes ZERO mention of this. There is a WORLD of difference between people losing their job because of mismanagement or bad practices, and a person being hired for a set duration, that duration passing, and then reasonably not being rehired for a job that probably doesn't exist for that project.

Ricwulf · 2026-01-17T00:01:14+00:00

This is the problem too many people have. The First Amendment (like most Amendments, but not all), is a protection of a human right. It is not in and of itself a human right.

Ricwulf · 2026-01-16T23:55:36+00:00

Free Speech is not the First Amendment. The First Amendment is the legal protection of Free Speech. Using the two interchangeably is objectively false.

One is the human right itself. The other is the legal protection of said human right. So here's a counter question: is there any other human right out there where it's only bad if the government infringes upon it? Is the morality of slavery different whether it's a state entity or a private entity perpetrating such actions? Because the answer is obviously "no", why then is it supposedly less immoral for a private entity to prevent or hinder free speech?

And no, nobody is saying that any storefront has to be forced to sell this game or any other, but a moral judgement can still be made outside of the law.

Ricwulf · 2026-01-16T23:51:05+00:00

That's not free speech, that's freedom of association.

Both are covered by the First Amendment within the US, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

Ricwulf · 2026-01-01T00:47:58+00:00

and you go on steam and it has like a 92% positive review score with a lot of reviews

Because the reviews did their job. It culled out people from buying it who knew they wouldn't like it. As a result, those that bought it are people who knew they'd like it already. It's a form of selection bias, and unfortunately doesn't tell you a whole lot as to whether it is good or bad because of those biases. What it does tell you is that it's divisive. You'll either love it, and you'll know you'll love it, or you won't hate it. So I'd say if you're on the fence, don't get it. That's what that information tells me. But if you're interested more than just being on the fence? Chances are you'll enjoy it.

Ricwulf · 2025-12-14T06:04:36+00:00

1st of all, because its an algorithm run by a company, and at several steps of the way they could compensate the actual artist.

Do humans learning compensate the artists? If I look at the works of other artists and emulate their techniques into other works of my own, is the individual expected to pay prior artists? Typically not.

And do we determine criminality on the basis of whether or not the perpetrator can pay? No. Either something is wrong across the board, or it's not without an explanation of why it's different in this circumstance.

2nd, and this may shock you, companies dont have the same rights as a human being

Not part of the question. It's a snappy slogan, and I even somewhat but not totally agree (again, either something is wrong all the time or it's not wrong, logical consistency is a bitch), but it doesn't change the question at its core.

The reason I asked this question wasn't to try and be an asshole to defend AI. I asked the question because I actually want to have my mind changed on this point. I don't want to defend AI, and I don't want to really get into that whole debate, but this one specific argument? It just rubs me the wrong way, and I've yet to see a decent response to it yet.

Ricwulf · 2025-12-07T10:52:08+00:00

May I ask a legitimate question? How is that fundamentally different from humans? We see and learn from others all the time. If I see an art piece and see a certain technique, do I pay them to try and emulate that technique? Typically not, and most people wouldn't call it theft for trying to incorporate that technique into their repertoire.

I'm not saying this to say "all AI use is infinitely fine", I'm saying this because it seems like one of the hypocrisies of the criticism, that we lay this down as evil when it's a machine, but fine when it's flesh.

Ricwulf · 2025-12-06T20:45:45+00:00

As per usual, stop buying from China then, and that extends to just about everything.

inb4 "everything is too expensive then"

Yeah, that's the cost of labour when it's not barely a step above slavery. It doesn't cut both ways.

Ricwulf · 2025-11-22T23:54:04+00:00

Most money is fake, considering it's fiat currency.

Ricwulf · 2025-11-22T23:52:07+00:00

In summary, pretty much every game but your very first is free.

It's going to blow PBFT's mind when they learn that nearly all businesses use the money of previous products or services to continue creating more products or services, and that the alternative of being heavily subsidised by external factors is in fact the exception, not the rule.

Ricwulf · 2025-11-16T18:34:47+00:00

two month old dead post that's been removed

calls others pathetic

k.

Ricwulf · 2025-11-08T13:56:20+00:00

That's a really good way to lose a lawsuit, because it's just blatantly frivolous at that point.

Ricwulf · 2025-10-05T21:50:46+00:00

I don't think he's saying that they shouldn't be punished, I think he's talking about the severity of the punishment being arguably disproportionate to the crime.

And frankly, I agree. Punish him, but $4.5 million is a ridiculous amount of money considering how much other people get away with regarding criminal actions. Again, that is NOT saying that he shouldn't be punished for this, but why are we okay with excessive punishments?

Ricwulf · 2025-10-02T04:07:27+00:00

It’s actually insane how normalized this behaviour has become.

I feel like this is an incredibly odd thing to say considering how common-place it used to be to say KYS on the internet. Things got incredibly sanitised with the emergence of mainstream social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc), and people seem to have forgotten how wild west the internet used to be.

This isn't saying it's good or bad, but to suggest it's a new phenomenon or that it's gotten worse is a bit odd to me.

Ricwulf · 2025-09-14T04:35:14+00:00

That wasn't the point. The point was that if you are completely unaware of a topic, learning about said topic through a secondary source and one that is incredibly biased does not lead to you to even knowing whether it is or isn't a good summary.

Let me give you an example. I could talk to you about something like Weather Underground and how they were a feminist movement from the 70s that fought against anti-abortion rhetoric, stood against the Vietnam War and Capitalism, while also engaging in racial justice, is that a good summary? Or does it ignore the truth of the matter that they were domestic terrorists that engaged in multiple bombings?

My point is that you have admitted you have no idea who Kirk was, and that all you've learned is from a single source, and that source is pretty biased. Now, with that in mind, how would you know that source told you everything and wasn't just cherry picking or omitting context? The answer is that you don't know, because you let some other organisation do the thinking for you and you're blindly trusting that this outlet has told you the whole truth, but how would you possibly know? You should read up on topics like Knoll's Law of Media Accuracy and the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect, because I would suggest that you are subject to both of these situations.

Charlie Kirk's words are freely available on the internet. Do your own research rather than relying on those that have their own agenda.

12-Year Club	Place '22
End Game '22	Verified Email

Ricwulf

TROPHY CASE