Developers can and almost always do close to offer their games on multiple platforms and can even choose self hosted direct distribution of they do choose. Customers can choose to purchase their games on steam, itch, epic, Microsoft, or any of the many places they're often hosted simultaneously. Steam is more often than not the choice people choose to use of their own free will because they perceive it as being the superior service.

Why do you believe excellence should be punished?

If someone says they're not interested in dating Republicans, it doesn't mean they are any better than the average person at picking one out from a crowd.

Valve is profitable because of the reputation they've built up over many years as being an incredibly consumer friendly storefront. Avoiding corporate bloat, and focusing their attention on the core aspects of their business consumers care about has allowed them to thrive where many others failed. Valve created and maintained a fantastic product. So yes.

Stream created and maintains a platform that gamers and developers want to use but more importantly, they've built up a reputation that people believe in and trust.

Gamers and developers are so eager to use steam because in all the years they've been operating, they still support and expand upon family sharing, have a fantastic refund policy (for consumers), don't employ aggressive exclusivity deals, don't limit download speeds behind paywalls, and provide a great review and recommendation system.

They've become successful due to this reputation, why should we punish them for that?

Valve created a fantastic entertainment product that people voluntarily choose to use. Why would you want to turn something people already love into something completely different? Counterproductive - especially when direct distribution is essentially free and universally accessible.

Flaked sea salt actually dissolves slower, not faster than standard table salt on account of its larger crystals!

The pyramids were built over two thousand years before the coliseum. Saying they are of the same time period is like claiming the Eiffel tower and the coliseum are of the same period too!

Hi! I think your misunderstanding comes from the fact that religion, is not a mechanism for creating new knowledge, it is a collection of shared beliefs between people.

A better comparison would be faith VS science, or religion VS scientific understanding.

While most religious beliefs are faith based at their core, it's easy to speculate that certain religious and cultural stigma arose after repeated observation of the natural world (Alice ate shrimp, Alice falls ill -> eating shrimp is against the will of God). Not as efficient as controlled scientific testing, but it ultimately lands you on the true statement "Eating shrimp is unwise and likely to get you sick".

Another way you could achieve this is by hiring bakers of equal skill level and splitting all the tasks evenly among us!

The question becomes who determines the size of the stake. Without equal ownership in the business isn't the relationship between me and the other workers more akin to an owner -> employee relationship as opposed to a co-ownership? If I'm the only one who can make execuitive decisions, determine the rates of profit sharing, choose who gets hired and who gets let go, it doesn't seem that much different than how things might look in America today, for instance.

Suppose the contract I draft up is for $5 an hour and 1% of the excess profits, split evenly among all non-owners, I see no difference than hire things look like in Starbucks.

Thanks for the response! Would the idea then be that over time, the other two workers would eventually have to be given equal ownership over the operation?

As an asside, regarding the unanimous minus one vote policy as well, it seems like all you'd need to ensure that you never got removed was to ally yourself with one other person who would promise to never vote against you.

Thanks for the response! In my scenario I consider ownership to be the ability to make executive decisions surrounding the business. This could range from what products we choose to sell, what the sign on the front says, who we buy our ingredients from, how much we charge customers for, how much we spend on cleaning supplies, the color of the wallpaper, when we decide to look for new employees, ect...

If I'm the sole worker at my operation, I have full authority over all these things!

What about partially sighted or dyslexic individuals? Sure, a game like halo would need a lot of modification to be fully blind accessible, but a visual novel, for instance, might not. In my experience most visual novels are built as passion projects on shoestring budgets.

Lots of existing games have robotic narrators already (e.g minecraft), they just speak with a monotone voice. By incorporating more advance machine learning capabilities the same narrator could be capable of outputting a more nuanced and pleasant delivery for those that need it.

Using a robotic voice could make the game more accessible to blind, partially sighted, and dyslexic individuals. I'm not sure how an AI voice is inherently different than the voice that comes out of a screen reader, especially if it's trained on the voice of employees or volunteers.

When you vote for a candidate you hate you're telling them that they don't have to change their platform to have your support. People making safe votes against their own interests is precisely why the people in power get away with all this bullshit. Don't waste your vote by giving it to someone who doesn't stand for what you believe in.

Either way I'm not sure why it's anyone else's business whether or not I simply own the thing. If I'm the only one who uses it, it's not harming anyone else.

If I don't feel like ploughing the fields by hand, shouldn't it be my decision to invest my labour into something that will make my life easier, regardless of what others think?

Is not the tractor itself is the product of labour? Someone put in the work to build it, and I compensated them with the product of my own labour. I don't think the people who constructed the tractor were entitled to my labor any more than someone who compensates me for tilling their field is.

If I understand correctly, society would democratically decide that lightbulbs are approved for private ownership but that tractors would not be?

Thanks for the comment! I agree that owning ten tractors that I don't personally use VS leasing out my one personal vehicle in the off season feels different, but I'm not exactly clear on where the line is drawn and by what standards it is.

Isn't me being the sole person who can decide who can and can't lease my equipment and at what rate / how much compensation I expect to receive for the privilege of doing so kind of make me a boss already, even if I don't formally employ anyone in a business?

I think we both understand that some form of compensation is fair, as use of the equipment will gradually degrade it's quality, presents an inconvenience to me (no option to use it on the days it's gone), and an increased risk of the tractor becoming inoperable (catching fire, catastrophic failure, falling off a cliff, ect...) all of which as the sole owner of the equipment I am expected to absorb the cost of.

I'm also sure that whomever I'm leasing the equipment out to understands what fair compensation is and won't likely take me up on an offer if I ask for too much. (Half of whatever is harvested with my machine! Mwahaha!)

But I can also see a case where perhaps the equipment is so much more efficient that over time, choosing not to lease from me will result in me being four or five times more productive than you are, creating a big resource disparity between us and giving me extra bargaining power over you.

Thanks for your response! I'm imagining in my scenario, perhaps the tractor doesn't exist until someone decides that one is desired and then a cooperative of fabricators builds one in exchange for what its workers consider to be fair compensation for their labour. As a farmer, perhaps I agree to exchange several years worth of grain for one of their tractors. As the individual who grew and harvested the grain personally, wouldn't it make sense saying that I have a greater right to "own" the tractor over my peers who maybe chose to use their share of grain to purchase different things?

Perhaps they didn't feel like a tractor was as necessary a use of resources as say a silo or mill would be? Or maybe collectively we agreed to purchase those things and it was with only the resources out of the whole I have been permitted to expend for personal use that I purchased the tractor with - others spending it on home improvements or a nicer car for example?