▲ 111 ▼ The new owner of GOG [Michał Kiciński] discusses taking on Steam, the devil of DRM, and following in Nightdive's footsteps (www.gamesindustry.biz) submitted 9 months ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca 19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Holytimes@sh.itjust.works 25 points 9 months ago* (10 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 30 points 9 months ago They aren't calling Steam "the devil of DRM". The title is a list of three separate topics discussed. They spoke about competition with Steam, then with a separate question, they spoke about DRM. permalink fedilink source parent [–] iamthetot@piefed.ca 17 points 9 months ago* This is an impressive snapshot of what is wrong with pretty much all discourse today. There's a wonderful article presented here and you have very clearly only read the title, misunderstood it, and wrote a 200 word reply that is completely off base because of it. Then, at least eight other people at the time of my comment did the same thing except they just upvoted you. To anyone reading this who did not read the article... Just read the article! It will take you five minutes. It will enrich your brain. This applies to all articles you want to comment on, not just this one. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Derpenheim@lemmy.zip 14 points 9 months ago (3 children) Try opening the article. The title lists a synopsis of what its talking about, which is the three main points: The founder has issues with steam AND games that have mandatory drm. This is not a single bullet point. Read before reply, you just waste time otherwise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] shneancy@lemmy.world -4 points 9 months ago (2 children) then the title is misleading permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mmcintyre@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) Nah, if it was just referencing two things the headline wouldn't need another comma before the "and". It's clearly three separate topics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] definitemaybe@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago He completely misread it. But it's also grammatically ambiguous. It could be interpreted as a non-essential clause, essentially giving extra information about Valve that isn't necessary to understand the main sentence. It would be weird to include a non-essential, highly editorially clause in a headline, though, unless it was a direct quote. But, in that case, it should be in quotation marks. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MurrayL@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago (3 children) You misread the title. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca 8 points 9 months ago (2 children) To be fair, they're both correct interpretations of how the title is written. It's the article itself that makes it a lot clearer than a single-sentence title could. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tja@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 months ago Yes, but for that reason there is a link to the article right next to the title permalink fedilink source parent [–] MurrayL@lemmy.world 1 point 9 months ago You’re right - heaven forbid anyone would read the article before dropping a four-paragraph rant based on their incorrect understanding of the title. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 30 points 9 months ago They aren't calling Steam "the devil of DRM". The title is a list of three separate topics discussed. They spoke about competition with Steam, then with a separate question, they spoke about DRM. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] iamthetot@piefed.ca 17 points 9 months ago* This is an impressive snapshot of what is wrong with pretty much all discourse today. There's a wonderful article presented here and you have very clearly only read the title, misunderstood it, and wrote a 200 word reply that is completely off base because of it. Then, at least eight other people at the time of my comment did the same thing except they just upvoted you. To anyone reading this who did not read the article... Just read the article! It will take you five minutes. It will enrich your brain. This applies to all articles you want to comment on, not just this one. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Derpenheim@lemmy.zip 14 points 9 months ago (3 children) Try opening the article. The title lists a synopsis of what its talking about, which is the three main points: The founder has issues with steam AND games that have mandatory drm. This is not a single bullet point. Read before reply, you just waste time otherwise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] shneancy@lemmy.world -4 points 9 months ago (2 children) then the title is misleading permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mmcintyre@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) Nah, if it was just referencing two things the headline wouldn't need another comma before the "and". It's clearly three separate topics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] definitemaybe@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago He completely misread it. But it's also grammatically ambiguous. It could be interpreted as a non-essential clause, essentially giving extra information about Valve that isn't necessary to understand the main sentence. It would be weird to include a non-essential, highly editorially clause in a headline, though, unless it was a direct quote. But, in that case, it should be in quotation marks. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] shneancy@lemmy.world -4 points 9 months ago (2 children) then the title is misleading permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mmcintyre@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) Nah, if it was just referencing two things the headline wouldn't need another comma before the "and". It's clearly three separate topics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] definitemaybe@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago He completely misread it. But it's also grammatically ambiguous. It could be interpreted as a non-essential clause, essentially giving extra information about Valve that isn't necessary to understand the main sentence. It would be weird to include a non-essential, highly editorially clause in a headline, though, unless it was a direct quote. But, in that case, it should be in quotation marks. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mmcintyre@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 child) Nah, if it was just referencing two things the headline wouldn't need another comma before the "and". It's clearly three separate topics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] definitemaybe@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago He completely misread it. But it's also grammatically ambiguous. It could be interpreted as a non-essential clause, essentially giving extra information about Valve that isn't necessary to understand the main sentence. It would be weird to include a non-essential, highly editorially clause in a headline, though, unless it was a direct quote. But, in that case, it should be in quotation marks. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] definitemaybe@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago He completely misread it. But it's also grammatically ambiguous. It could be interpreted as a non-essential clause, essentially giving extra information about Valve that isn't necessary to understand the main sentence. It would be weird to include a non-essential, highly editorially clause in a headline, though, unless it was a direct quote. But, in that case, it should be in quotation marks. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MurrayL@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago (3 children) You misread the title. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca 8 points 9 months ago (2 children) To be fair, they're both correct interpretations of how the title is written. It's the article itself that makes it a lot clearer than a single-sentence title could. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tja@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 months ago Yes, but for that reason there is a link to the article right next to the title permalink fedilink source parent [–] MurrayL@lemmy.world 1 point 9 months ago You’re right - heaven forbid anyone would read the article before dropping a four-paragraph rant based on their incorrect understanding of the title. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca 8 points 9 months ago (2 children) To be fair, they're both correct interpretations of how the title is written. It's the article itself that makes it a lot clearer than a single-sentence title could. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tja@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 months ago Yes, but for that reason there is a link to the article right next to the title permalink fedilink source parent [–] MurrayL@lemmy.world 1 point 9 months ago You’re right - heaven forbid anyone would read the article before dropping a four-paragraph rant based on their incorrect understanding of the title. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tja@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 months ago Yes, but for that reason there is a link to the article right next to the title permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MurrayL@lemmy.world 1 point 9 months ago You’re right - heaven forbid anyone would read the article before dropping a four-paragraph rant based on their incorrect understanding of the title. permalink fedilink source parent