According to these new numbers from Valve, the Linux customer base is up to 1.96%, or a 0.52% jump over June! That’s a huge jump with normally just moving 0.1% or so in either direction most months… It’s also near an all-time high on a percentage basis going back to the early days of Steam on Linux when it had around a 2% marketshare but at that time the Steam customer size in absolute numbers was much smaller a decade ago than it is now. So if the percentage numbers are accurate, this is likely the largest in absolute terms that the Linux gaming marketshare has ever been.

Data from Valve: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam?platform=combined

  • Metaright
    2•2 years ago

    Rights are not a purely legal concept. You can have rights that are not codified by law.

    • sickday
      1•2 years ago

      Sure, but in that case it should absolutely be specified what type of “right” we’re referring to. I’m guessing this falls in category of moral rights? They’re breaking our moral rights by operating the same way each other digital storefront does.

      • Metaright
        2•2 years ago

        More clarification would be helpful, I agree.

        the same way each other digital storefront does

        I’m not sure if I’m understanding you correctly, but “everyone else is doing evil too” is not an incredibly effective defense against doing evil.

        • sickday
          1•2 years ago

          I’m not defending their activities; I was looking for clarification on what the OP was claiming. My last sentence summary is essentially that.

            • sickday
              1•2 years ago

              All good. Just wanted to add that its nice we can have this convo without insulting eachother lol.

        • sickday
          1•2 years ago

          That has nothing to do with the multiple different meanings of the word “rights”. Plus anyone spending any significant amount of time in a legal field is going to have a much different interpretation than what you’re implying here. That’s why I said you should have been explicit with what you meant.