PotentialProblem

Thanks for the explanation!

Thanks! Your last argument was a pretty clear and good argument for why it feels a bit icky. I think it’s most convincing when comparing against the developers personal site.

It’s less clearly bad (to me) when comparing epic games vs steam or some other storefront. In what is probably a bad move, I mostly use Steam for gaming. It’s convenient and just works. Having a game available for less on a different, but considerably worse, platform would be a hassle.(because the platform has a better kickback for that developer as a temporary way to boost their platform) At least this way, they’ll have to offer it for the same price on Steam in most cases.

I’m a dumb dumb. Can someone explain why this is bad?

I’m sure there’s some reason. I’m just missing it. Wouldn’t this mean that steam will always have the lowest/same price as other storefronts and I’m most likely to pick the storefront that I prefer?

I assume this doesn’t apply to temporary sales?

I mean I guess I could have left it empty while I myself rented from someone? I don’t see how that’d make me a better person though.

I’m not really buying your argument. You’re not making any real argument of how I hurt anyone or even caused a net negative on society. You’re speculating that because I didn’t hand the house to someone “who needed it”, that I somehow did wrong. I didn’t price gouge. I didn’t raise the rent. I repair things in a timely manner. The renter pays less than they would if they bought the house, aren’t responsible for anything major, and can leave at just about anytime. Seems like a net positive in my book? Sure, they paid me… but am I supposed to give it away for free? Selling it probably would have landed me more money. Are you pitching a world where everyone has to lock in to a 30 year loan and be stuck there? Or is this an argument where housing should be free or something? (Sure, whatever… but that’s a different topic)

You aren't saving people money by taking rental payments, you aren't a hero for potentially stopping someone from using the property as an airbnb, you are a landlord.

I don’t think I’m a hero. I do think I’m saving them money. They could have foregone a rental and bought a house. They chose not to to save money for a business.

Had to move for my job, but didn’t want to sell our house.

Decided to rent it. Lucked into some awesome renters.

We haven’t raised the rent on them in 7 years. We fix things when they ask. They respect the property.

If they moved or bought a house they’d be paying significantly more monthly. Instead they’re using their extra money to save for their own house and to get their business off the ground.

This feels like a win win? If we had sold, it’d probably be an AirBnB now. How does this make me shit?

And killing fig trees

You forgot healthcare!

My kids played this co-op and loved it

Seemed like a pretty solid coop game to me!

I see where you’re going, I just don’t agree. I’d rather normalize having open conversations with your partner(s) about sensitive and taboo topics, which I think is a prerequisite for multiple partners anyway. (Two people in a relationship can be tricky enough. Attempting to deal with the insecurities, feelings, and values of multiple partners seems like it would require open dialogue to have any real chance of success.)

I have a knee jerk negative reaction to your argument because it sounds like “I’d like to sleep with multiple people but my partner is brainwashed by society/their friends to believe we shouldn’t have multiple partners. If society decided this was normal, I wouldn’t have to work through this difficulty.”

(I fully support people having multiple partners if that’s what they want to do.)

What’s to stop anyone today from having an open conversation with their partner about opening their relationship? In the examples above, no one is vilifying having an open relationship… it’s vilifying lying and dishonesty.

Even if we were to normalize infidelity, that doesn’t mean anyone should be beholden to accepting it in their relationship. Your argument is akin to saying “lying is widespread because it comes from human nature” so we should just normalize lying.

F that noise.

Limiting the scope doesn’t mean copying. It means keeping the feature list low so that you have something workable in a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise you’ll get overwhelmed and likely never finish.

This is one of the reasons I’m a big fan of the pico-8 “fantasy console”. It nearly forces you to limit the scope of your game. There’s plenty of interesting and fun games on that platform that are heavily limited in scope.

Unless you’re talking about somewhere other than the US or you have some crazy locality, this doesn’t sound right.

In the US, the employer is legally obligated to make up the difference between what the employee earned (wage plus claimed tips) and minimum wage. In fairness to your point, that’s not a big help since the federal minimum wage is a joke. If they’re failing to do that, they’re breaking the law.

Additionally, taxes should be a percentage of their earnings. How would they be ending up with zero dollar paychecks after 40 hours?