The shop has a page where it tells you how many you’ve spent as well.

If your account is less than about 5 years old (and you live in the US) you can also just look at the points shop. Each Steam Point corresponds to one cent spent on Steam.

That’s called an asset flip, and they are rightfully mocked.

Never heard of that, I assume it’s an emulator. Emulation is different from running a game natively. Yeah, Nintendo probably could get AMD hardware to work as a replacement for Nvidia hardware, but I would guess either compatibility would be imperfect, there would be a performance hit, or both.

There is the used games market, if you are willing to engage with it, though that does need you to be really patient.

Backwards compatibility means they might not be able to talk to AMD unfortunately, depending on how the software is set up I’d assume.

That would work if serial numbers weren’t visible without even opening the box the device came in, and I’m they are even included on the receipt for the device. Scalpers would absolutely have a ton of serial numbers just lying around from unsold devices, or even devices they sold and just hope the owner of won’t bother attempting a purchase of the thing they are scalping.

That’s a fine solution long term I guess, but things take time to be made.

Can you think of a better way to keep it mostly out of the hands of scalpers?

I suspect it’s more that the time people can and do spend playing phone games has just about zero overlap with PC games. You play phone games while on the bus or on the toilet, you play PC games while at home behind your desk.

Nope, it was so they could take the 30% cut of every penny that is spent on one of their platforms, and also so that it would be extremely inconvenient to leave their ecosystem since doing so would mean leaving behind most of your data.

If you use public roads, have an insurance policy of any kind, rely on the fact that public services like police and firemen are around in case you need them, or live in a suburb at all, you are having some aspects of your life subsidized by the public at large.

That’s how you get a population decline, which is actually probably worse in the long run.

I am going to assume you also live in the US here, because that’s the environment I’m most familiar with and is where I’ve heard the most complaints about highways for. The problem is partly that they were built to go directly through city centers rather than around cities, and it’s way too late to change that, and partly because General Motors propaganda meant that everyone considers cars to just be the default way of getting anywhere to the extent that other options often just don’t exist. For getting between cities, and especially for getting good and produce between cities, highways are a fine option to exist. I would absolutely prefer that high speed rail existed as an alternative, but even if it did I am certain there are some people that would still find it more convenient to drive.

I think most people here agree that a ban is inappropriate for saying that. As for why needing to pay only for your own kids would result in poor education, it’s because an absolutely massive amount of the population just outright couldn’t afford it. Schools are expensive to run, even more so if you want them to actually give a decent education.

I am of the opinion that Highways existing in general are a net good, but definitely shouldn’t be built the way they have been and need to be given viable alternatives in most cases. I would have used the example of paying for roads without owning a car, but I made a few assumptions about the kind of person I was replying to and tried to tailor my argument to the kind of person I figured they were (as in, the kind of person that definitely owns a car and uses it extensively).

And also what if they do eventually have kids, how fair would it be if they took advantage of an institution that they hadn’t been paying into the success of.

To be clear, I don’t think a ban is an appropriate response to saying something like that, but it does have the same implications as saying “why should I pay for car insurance, I’m not going to get in a crash” or “why pay for highways, I never leave my suburb”. Even if you don’t directly benefit from those services existing and being paid for, other people do and you actually do benefit from those other people being better off. For the educating kids subject specifically, think about when you’re 60, do you want to be taken care of by doctors that got a subpar education, or for your retirement funds to run out because the institutions they rely on collapsed due to a lack of educated workers. It is to everyone’s personal benefit in the long run to pay for public services that help the community even if they don’t take advantage of them personally and directly.

To answer that question, it’s because it is in the best interest of society as a whole including the people that don’t have children for the next generation to grow up educated and able to contribute productively to society.

I’ve always said if money can’t buy happiness then what’s the point in having it.