realitaetsverlust

joined 1 week ago

One of the few use cases where I see AI being great.

[โ€“] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Never heard of that tbh, I would expect that they just seal the wound with plaster or something lmao. I won't doubt it tho, medicine is wild.

[โ€“] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 42 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (11 children)

Eating a cigarette isn't going to outright kill you, some worm having a happy meal in your stomach might, or at least incapacitate you enough to get killed by something - or someone.

There's lots of things in life that you shouldn't do, but can help you in an emergency. There's chlorine tablets - not exactly healthy, but can help with gut bacteria in a pinch. Cauterizing a wound is fucking painful and is not recommended by modern physicians - but it beats bleeding out or dying to an infection.

Keep in mind that those are not "DIY at home" kind of tips, but "You got shot in the middle of nowhere and you'r close to dying. You will also find similar tips in most other army handbooks.

Of course it doesn't disprove that, I never said it was, infact, I stated quite the opposite. However, the fact that they were handing out refunds in cases where games were just outright broken or a scam proves that they have been on the consumer side. Just look at what bethesda did with FO76, where they actually denied refunds for that game when it was obvious it was a shitshow.

Again, I'm not saying that it was a great move from steam to not have a refund window, but claiming they were "abusing their power" when "no refunds" is basically the default for american companies (where refunds are not legally mandated, but each merchant can set his own refund period) is just stupid.

[โ€“] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip -1 points 3 days ago (3 children)

That is not true. I know this because I had one case where I did get a refund for a game called "War Z" - I also found an article that explains that the game was pulled by valve and they have indeed offered refunds: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/how-not-to-launch-a-video-game-starring-i-the-war-z-i-

On the same site, I also found this article talking about a ubisoft game that was pulled: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/report-ubisoft-offering-refunds-on-i-from-dust-i-through-steam

Now, it's debateable if this was a valve or a ubisoft decision - however, knowing ubisoft, I'd say they were pressured by valve to give in lmao.

I've also found this article on polygon that talks about another Early Access Title that was pulled by valve and refunded to buyers because it was shit: https://www.polygon.com/2014/5/6/5686826/earth-year-2066-refund-steam-early-access/

And that's just what I found with a few minutes of research. I'm fairly confident if I search some more, I'll find much more of those cases.

So yes, while the stance back then was "all purchases are final", you were absolutely able to get your money back if the game was truly broken and unplayable. Don't get me wrong, the current rule is significantly better, but claiming that steam hasn't been on customers side back then is just straightup wrong.

The point here is probably to get "rainbolt" into the title. He could also write "me looking like a cheater for X minutes" but that would not include rainbolt.

In the end, this is just search optimization.

[โ€“] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 18 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Steam has had this power for ages tho and never abused it to the disadvantage of customers.

Supporting companies that don't shit on consumers is equally important as boycotting companies that do.