A guy who owns a billion dollar worth fleet of mega yachts in 2024 (climate crisis and everyone getting poorer) sounds quite the villain to me.
Tons of indie devs have made it via steam.
And even more didn’t make it. Steam being so big and the market spinning around it actually works against promoting smaller games because there’s just as much you can see on steam shelf.
We are at a point where if we don’t reduce emissions humanity is doomed. A fleet of private mega yachts is a smack in the face to everyone trying to change for good and so is a smack spending billions on “toys” when the average person is struggling to pay rent.
You seem to have lost track of the plot and of reality, look around yourself there’s a disaster or a tragedy happening every single day.
Mega yachts aren’t causing our issues. 3rd world countries with no regulations for environmental impact and consumerism is. Most of these yachts just sit in a port doing nothing but collecting dust 99% of the time. Thinking that getting rid of yachts is going to even scratch the surface of our environmental problems is a joke.
All of those studies are flawed as fuck. They assume the products the rich sell as polution. Do you sit there and include farmers in it as well because they sell/grow the food you eat which is a huge contributor to climate change. The yachts they buy, sit in dry dock 99% of their lives. You bitching about it is pure ignorance.
The yachts they buy, sit in dry dock 99% of their lives. You bitching about it is pure ignorance.
In the articles is it explained how they don’t spend 99% of their live there and how they are polluting even when they are docked, they also get to show you how much of a problem that “1%” cause
You bitching about it is pure ignorance.
I really hope you are rich yourself and own a bunch of boats because otherwise you defending a billionare is as miserable as one can get.
One such owner is Amazon owner Jeff Bezos, whose $500 million superyacht Koru incorporates sails to help power its voyage. It is the largest sailing yacht in the world, according to Oceanco, the Dutch company that built it. When not under wind power, however, Koru does rely on sports diesel-powered motors. Oxfam estimates that the 127 meter vessel has emitted 7,000 tons of carbon dioxide over the past year, an amount equal to the annual emissions of 445 average US residents.
Estimates and 445 US residents…there is no way yachts are causing even a blip of climate change compared to everything. It’s the stupidest shit ever to point a fucking boats and be like “that’s why we have climate change” on any level. You could snap your fingers and make every single on of them vanish and it wouldn’t do shit to turn the climate change ship around.
Yachts spend 10% to 20% of the year sailing and relying on engine power.
So yea…they basically sit in dock like I said, doing nothing.
The report shows the stark gap between the carbon footprints of the super-rich—whose carbon-hungry lifestyles and investments in polluting industries like fossil fuels
Ah so investments are now pollution…got it.
This is why studies like these are bullshit. That right there was prefaced with “tax the rich, and it’ll magically make climate change less”…which makes no fucking sense at all.
As for your “I better be rich bullshit”… that’s such a copout. I’m not naive enough to think some boats are causing our climate change, I’m also not fool enough to think that rich people investing in industries is the reason we’re in this predicament. Trying to blame others actions while we all contribute to it is a joke. Everything you do contributes to it, you bought anything recently that has plastic? Contributor. You have a 401k? Contributor(apparently). Drive somewhere? Yep you guessed it… contributing. Eat something not grown by you? Contributing.
So let’s stop the non-sense virtue signaling. It detracts from the actual issues.
From this data, the most effective thing to focus on in combating climate change is improving efficiency of energy production (solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, etc instead of coal, gas, etc). The next most effective thing is improving efficiency of transportation, followed by improving efficiency of heating and cooling (e.g. getting people to use heat exchanges instead of separate gas and AC). Yachts, cruise ships, and other related luxury items don’t even register on the list of priorities and are merely a blip. They’re very visible wastes of energy, but they’re lately harmless.
Sure, but the number of people actually using mega yachts is vanishingly small. It’s so small that completely eradicating them would do exactly nothing to combat climate change because the amount they contribute is within a rounding error for any meaningful measure of climate change.
it’s so small that completely eradicating them would do exactly nothing to combat climate change
That’s not true, did you read any of the link posted?
We live in a society made of billions of individuals, we are not ants or robots, everyone is supposed to do is part. Billionare part count as much as millions of people, that’s how big their footprint it.
There are very few billionaires, so while their footprint is larger on an individual basis, their total footprint is absolutely dwarfed by the rest of the population. Going after billionaires may feel good because you’re “sticking to the rich” or whatever, but even if we eradicate all billionaire carbon output, it wouldn’t put a dent in global carbon emissions.
A common refrain from many progressive lawmakers is that the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes. “Fair share” is, of course, subjective. But a new Treasury study provides data showing that the rich not only pay more than the middle class, they pay more than one-third of their annual income in federal taxes and more than 45 percent when state and local taxes are included.
Indeed, the total tax
burden on the super-wealthy, especially those with large stakes in global businesses, is upwards of 60 percent of their annual income because of the taxes they pay abroad.
Financially they’re a blip, and ecologically they’re a blip as well. Punching up may be cathartic, but it’s not going to solve the climate crisis.
No billionaire has clean hands. Think beyond just Steam. If an if an indy developer wants to independently release a game they’ll probably fail. Why? Because if you’re not on Steam or one of the other big services you won’t get noticed. They’re also big enough that no competing services are going to show up. They’re priced out. You’re automatically excluded from the market. Steam, Epic, et al by default are rent extractors first. You want to play as a dev? You’re forced to pay.
You are forced to pay either way or do you think hosting (both installers/updates and some sort of multiplayer matchmaking), marketing, payment providers,… all work for free? Without something like Steam you would just likely be forced to pay someone just to manage all of that for you as an extra employee (or multiple part time employees or outsourced services).
You can absolutely do your own marketing, host your own infrastructure, etc, but that’s way more expensive than just paying Steam’s cut. Some games went that way (e.g. Minecraft), but most see a ton of success through Steam and decide their fee is worth the cut.
I don’t see how that’s a bad thing. Indie devs should focus on making a good game and creating promo content for it, and let Valve handle distribution, multiplayer, sales, etc.
Valve is successful because they make a good product that both users and developers like. EGS has a much lower profit share and provides far fewer services, and devs understandably choose Steam because it offers better value.
I wish their cut was lower, but the arrangement seems more than fair.
If devs think they can provide a better service, they’re free to sell their game directly on their website if they want. They can even sell Steam keys and not pay any cut on those from their own website, so they can compare direct sales and Steam sales easily.
The fuck? Are you suggesting there is somehow a better way for people to find indie games? Let’s say steam doesn’t exist at all, and every indie dev has to host their own website and files…tell me how you plan on getting people to find their games?
Uhh no…no they didn’t. B&Ms existed before the net and digital copies became Common place. The indie scene exploded with steam/itch/gog storefronts. The hell are you talking about, find me multiple indie games that have awards from decades ago. I’ll wait.
Steam has been around for 2 decades now, and I’ll ask again. Please find me a indie game that had success when steam wasn’t around, and find me one that made it in brick and mortar stores that didn’t take 30%+
Cool, that still doesn’t answer the question…and if you’re suggesting that people build a decentralized platform to rival steam…no one is stopping them from doing so.
Luckily your computer can run any software you want so there’s no need to build any platform to play videogames.
I was reply to your concern of people not being able to find their games, the fediverse is an example of how you can build a non centralized network and still bring people together.
Luckily your computer can run any software you want so there’s no need to build any platform to play videogames.
What’s the point of this comment? This doesn’t answer the question.
I was reply to your concern of people not being able to find their games, the fediverse is an example of how you can build a non centralized network and still bring people together.
Nobody. Valve spend millions on advertising to remain popular and outshadow competitors. As a result there are many brainwashed fools who go around defending the company like you can see in this thread
A guy who owns a billion dollar worth fleet of mega yachts in 2024 (climate crisis and everyone getting poorer) sounds quite the villain to me.
And even more didn’t make it. Steam being so big and the market spinning around it actually works against promoting smaller games because there’s just as much you can see on steam shelf.
So we’re at a point that, someone who owns something because they’re rich makes them evil?
Y’all have lost the damn plot if that’s the case.
We are at a point where if we don’t reduce emissions humanity is doomed. A fleet of private mega yachts is a smack in the face to everyone trying to change for good and so is a smack spending billions on “toys” when the average person is struggling to pay rent.
You seem to have lost track of the plot and of reality, look around yourself there’s a disaster or a tragedy happening every single day.
Mega yachts aren’t causing our issues. 3rd world countries with no regulations for environmental impact and consumerism is. Most of these yachts just sit in a port doing nothing but collecting dust 99% of the time. Thinking that getting rid of yachts is going to even scratch the surface of our environmental problems is a joke.
If a single person throw the garbage out of the window it isn’t going to cause much of pollution so why don’t you just throw trash out?
As the ceo of a company with millions of clients many of which are kids you are entitled more than everyone else to show the good example.
What you are saying is simply wrong anyway, mega yachts and billionares are indeed a big cause of pollution.
https://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/press-releases/richest-1-emit-as-much-planet-heating-pollution-as-two-thirds-of-humanity/
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/06/19/superyachts-for-the-super-rich-cause-a-whole-lot-of-environmental-damage/
https://www.oceanweb.com/superyachts-and-pollution-at-sea/
All of those studies are flawed as fuck. They assume the products the rich sell as polution. Do you sit there and include farmers in it as well because they sell/grow the food you eat which is a huge contributor to climate change. The yachts they buy, sit in dry dock 99% of their lives. You bitching about it is pure ignorance.
In the articles is it explained how they don’t spend 99% of their live there and how they are polluting even when they are docked, they also get to show you how much of a problem that “1%” cause
I really hope you are rich yourself and own a bunch of boats because otherwise you defending a billionare is as miserable as one can get.
Estimates and 445 US residents…there is no way yachts are causing even a blip of climate change compared to everything. It’s the stupidest shit ever to point a fucking boats and be like “that’s why we have climate change” on any level. You could snap your fingers and make every single on of them vanish and it wouldn’t do shit to turn the climate change ship around.
So yea…they basically sit in dock like I said, doing nothing.
Ah so investments are now pollution…got it.
This is why studies like these are bullshit. That right there was prefaced with “tax the rich, and it’ll magically make climate change less”…which makes no fucking sense at all.
As for your “I better be rich bullshit”… that’s such a copout. I’m not naive enough to think some boats are causing our climate change, I’m also not fool enough to think that rich people investing in industries is the reason we’re in this predicament. Trying to blame others actions while we all contribute to it is a joke. Everything you do contributes to it, you bought anything recently that has plastic? Contributor. You have a 401k? Contributor(apparently). Drive somewhere? Yep you guessed it… contributing. Eat something not grown by you? Contributing.
So let’s stop the non-sense virtue signaling. It detracts from the actual issues.
You are defending the biggest polluting individuals in the world and probably in history.
I really hope reincarnation is a thing and you get to be reborn as a seaturtle and choke in diesel fuel left by a mega yacht
Exactly, it’s just virtue signaling.
If you look at sources for pollution, it’s largely:
From this data, the most effective thing to focus on in combating climate change is improving efficiency of energy production (solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, etc instead of coal, gas, etc). The next most effective thing is improving efficiency of transportation, followed by improving efficiency of heating and cooling (e.g. getting people to use heat exchanges instead of separate gas and AC). Yachts, cruise ships, and other related luxury items don’t even register on the list of priorities and are merely a blip. They’re very visible wastes of energy, but they’re lately harmless.
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaires-emit-more-carbon-pollution-90-minutes-average-person-does-lifetime
Mega yachts fall into the personal transportation problem. If everyone would go around in a mega yacht we would be long time extinct.
Sure, but the number of people actually using mega yachts is vanishingly small. It’s so small that completely eradicating them would do exactly nothing to combat climate change because the amount they contribute is within a rounding error for any meaningful measure of climate change.
That’s not true, did you read any of the link posted?
We live in a society made of billions of individuals, we are not ants or robots, everyone is supposed to do is part. Billionare part count as much as millions of people, that’s how big their footprint it.
There are very few billionaires, so while their footprint is larger on an individual basis, their total footprint is absolutely dwarfed by the rest of the population. Going after billionaires may feel good because you’re “sticking to the rich” or whatever, but even if we eradicate all billionaire carbon output, it wouldn’t put a dent in global carbon emissions.
It’s the same issue as the popular notion of taxing the rich. If we took all of Elon Musk’s wealth ($486 billion from a quick check), we could fund the US government for less than a month. If we took the entire wealth of the top 400 people in the US ($5.7T combined), we still couldn’t fund the US government for a year. Here’s an article about it from the tax foundation (they have a right-center bias with high factual accuracy):
Financially they’re a blip, and ecologically they’re a blip as well. Punching up may be cathartic, but it’s not going to solve the climate crisis.
No billionaire has clean hands. Think beyond just Steam. If an if an indy developer wants to independently release a game they’ll probably fail. Why? Because if you’re not on Steam or one of the other big services you won’t get noticed. They’re also big enough that no competing services are going to show up. They’re priced out. You’re automatically excluded from the market. Steam, Epic, et al by default are rent extractors first. You want to play as a dev? You’re forced to pay.
You are forced to pay either way or do you think hosting (both installers/updates and some sort of multiplayer matchmaking), marketing, payment providers,… all work for free? Without something like Steam you would just likely be forced to pay someone just to manage all of that for you as an extra employee (or multiple part time employees or outsourced services).
People forget what it was like matchmaking pre-steam. Games would vanish if they weren’t some huge game publisher with a big following.
You can absolutely do your own marketing, host your own infrastructure, etc, but that’s way more expensive than just paying Steam’s cut. Some games went that way (e.g. Minecraft), but most see a ton of success through Steam and decide their fee is worth the cut.
I don’t see how that’s a bad thing. Indie devs should focus on making a good game and creating promo content for it, and let Valve handle distribution, multiplayer, sales, etc.
Valve is successful because they make a good product that both users and developers like. EGS has a much lower profit share and provides far fewer services, and devs understandably choose Steam because it offers better value.
I wish their cut was lower, but the arrangement seems more than fair.
If devs think they can provide a better service, they’re free to sell their game directly on their website if they want. They can even sell Steam keys and not pay any cut on those from their own website, so they can compare direct sales and Steam sales easily.
The fuck? Are you suggesting there is somehow a better way for people to find indie games? Let’s say steam doesn’t exist at all, and every indie dev has to host their own website and files…tell me how you plan on getting people to find their games?
Yes. They did that decades without sharing their profits.
Uhh no…no they didn’t. B&Ms existed before the net and digital copies became Common place. The indie scene exploded with steam/itch/gog storefronts. The hell are you talking about, find me multiple indie games that have awards from decades ago. I’ll wait.
They was selling on their websites. There was also shops and a second hand market that this platform killed.
Steam has been around for 2 decades now, and I’ll ask again. Please find me a indie game that had success when steam wasn’t around, and find me one that made it in brick and mortar stores that didn’t take 30%+
They cannot reasonably derive 30% when others take 12 at equal service and at the same time show record profits.
People usually don’t speak about the second hand market : how many shops have they closed ? How many were laid off ?
You are on lemmy, a open source and decentralized platform where thousand of different instances federate with each others…
Cool, that still doesn’t answer the question…and if you’re suggesting that people build a decentralized platform to rival steam…no one is stopping them from doing so.
Luckily your computer can run any software you want so there’s no need to build any platform to play videogames.
I was reply to your concern of people not being able to find their games, the fediverse is an example of how you can build a non centralized network and still bring people together.
What’s the point of this comment? This doesn’t answer the question.
Ok then what’s stopping people from doing that?
Nobody. Valve spend millions on advertising to remain popular and outshadow competitors. As a result there are many brainwashed fools who go around defending the company like you can see in this thread