Regarding the 30% cut. Developers can actually generate steam keys and publish them on third-party sites which can be redeemed by users on Steam. Developers then get 100% of the profit.
But they're only limited to 5000 keys. beyond that requires special approval, which is not given if the game is being sold more outside Steam than inside.
The complaint is that the platform they are using for advertising, distribution and/or community isn't giving them enough free keys? Just want to make sure I understand the relationship and expectations.
> Are the developers allowed to sell those keys for less than the Steam price?
I believe so. However, even if it's not I don't see any other platform allowing you to use their service and sidestep platform fees. Someone mentioned above that there might be limitations for the number of keys, but I'm not aware.
That would require GNU/Linux distros to un-GNU themselves or even almost all Linux software un-everthing. The current Linux desktop architecture is built upon everybody compiling stuff per distro and per version. Everything is built on the assumption that "some people" will choose a subset of packages and versions and curate and do the work again and again to obtain binaries that can only work with that specific curation.
I think it is practically impossible to fix Linux desktop without reinventing it under a single entity like AOSP or BSDs.
Regardless of which way you slice it, it is really neet to be able to automate more aspects of our lives than ever before. It's not so much about the framework we use, the fact that we have the endpoints to use them.
> I'm asking this because I recently opened a PR to fix a vulnerability in an OSS project (RCE via pickle deserialization in Python). A day later, I got a fully LLM-generated comment claiming my approach was wrong and that I should rewrite it differently and telling the maintainers he could contribute "if the project is open to a more surgical refactoring."
>
> It's astonishing how often these encounters have been happening lately.
>
> I'd love to hear from contributors or maintainers whether this happens to them and how they deal with it.
Well, from the other side of the table, as somebody who helps maintain open source projects complicated by bounties. I've had automated PRs and replies from LLMs claiming to be people. I refuse to work with people or people with AIs that are unwilling to take the time to understand the challenges from a human perspective expressed in person to person discourse. People need to develop interpersonal relationships. I think what you're seeing is a response to what other maintainers are experiencing or, more than likely, the problem is as stated above, just from a different point of view.
A human-first approach doesn't exclude AI-augmented solutions for technical problems. The reason code exists is to close a gap in human experience in software.
reply