@vamp898 @[email protected] @[email protected]
I know of Sega. They were the ones who built Out Run, if I'm not mistaken. But I know basically nothing about their home consoles, I may have seen one in a store once upon a time, but I don't know which one it was. I only remember it being black and red and looking like cheap plastic.

In short: I have no idea what you're talking about.

@vamp898 @[email protected] @[email protected]
I've been considering a Switch since the Switch 1 came out, and recently the Steam Deck started to look like an interesting alternative - and I don't like only having a single option. So when I hear something that doesn't fit what I thought the Steam Deck is, I ask questions.

Nintendo leads on games that I don't currently have available and experience building consoles, while Valve leads on familiarity and trustworthiness. But you wanted to argue number of games.

@vamp898 @[email protected] @[email protected]
Ha ha, you're not very good at being funny.

Let me rephrase, those numbers are not relevant to the numbers I was talking about.

@vamp898 @[email protected] @[email protected]
Also, if you want to argue number of games, you should only count those that don't already run on my pc, because those are the ones I'll be playing there.

@vamp898 @[email protected] @[email protected]
That's not what I said.

@maggotbrain
Sounds to me like git is what you don't understand.

From what you say, you are basically trying to recreate the commit access fights of cvs and svn. One of the things that git was supposed to do away with.

I use git for all my personal projects. I don't need an account. I could contribute to the Linux kernel - or any other open source project that uses git (as opposed to Github or Gitlab), and still not need an account. Just send a pull request.

@maggotbrain
This wan one of the things that git was supposed to do away with. Git is distributed, why should you need an account at gitlab.xfce.org unless you are an XFCE employee?

@uienia
I was answering a question about what happens when it becomes unprofitable for "powerful actors that have a literal stranglehold on the market" to keep pumping money into maintaining that strangehold.

I expected it to be obvious that the first thing that happens is that they stop doing so. THEN there is room for others to improve things.

@ajsadauskas @pluralistic @technology
"So what happens if maintaining that archival footage becomes unprofitable?"

Things improve.

Youtube does not have a monopoly because it's the only video app installed on your computer, but because it's the one everyone uses.

Plenty of people have tried to compete, but Youtube was good enough. Others had good reasons to try but concluded that Youtube was good enough.

When Youtube is no longer good enough, they get to show they can do it better.

Google search is worse, because it hasn't been good enough for a long time, but somehow every competitor has decided to be worse. Altavista 25 years ago beat what Google search is today, I can't imagine Microsoft being unable to afford to bring Bing up to Altavista levels.