Basically nvidia shadowplay for linux

  • bitfucker@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    So let me get this straight. Any client that wanted to have steam features, like the forum, hosting, workshop, chat, and all the jazz, should be able to do so without paying steam any fee? Why didn’t they develop it themselves? Or should steam sell that as a service to those who wanted it? Say for example, epic wanted to have family sharing. Steam should sell their family sharing feature to epic as a service?

    • ILikeBoobies
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yes, though each of those should be their own company so if steam wants forums they should be able to put someone’s website in their launcher, if they want people to buy games then they should be able to embed someone’s store in their launcher…etc

      • bitfucker@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Uhhh, no. I think it is better to implement something akin to federation than breaking up a company just because. If anyone wanted to sue valve, then they can enforce interoperability at the very least. But not dividing their business model. We don’t force apple to split their software and hardware did we? We force apple to have a choice of interoperability. From then, it is all fair since anyone can link their data from valve and any other store that opt to implement the interoperability protocol.

        • ILikeBoobies
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Federation is bad in all use cases

          Also unix philosophy