elaborate

so are the other two. the slavic religions are more than a thousand years old.

Edit: okay the kolovrat is iffy. the new version of that religion is very racist.

tangent: when i went to vilnius a few years ago there was a lot of symbolism that weirded me out and felt kinda fascist. but it turned out it was from buildings that were built in the 1700’s, based on baltic legends and traditions. which is what the nazis co-opted. but the people there still had those symbols in their culture.

sure it does: 卐

i also got real weirded out by that, but i decided to check it out closer:

• The first one is a Kolovrat, the symbol of slavic neopaganism.
• The second is an Auseklis, symbol of the latvian pagan god of the same name
• The third is quite clearly an SS, but they just took it from the futhark. why gog decided to put two of them…

Edit: apparently this is a font thing! those last two symbols are supposed to be koppas. lots of people reacted to this so there’s quite a bit of discussion. i’m assuming gog don’t test on every email client and os combination possible, so it’s a bit more understandable.

i don’t know if that was ever the question. rather it was whether they’ve chosen to split them up or not.

last time i played a ubisoft game on steam it required uplay, i don’t know if that holds for r6s but if it does then that’s probably not something valve likes. maybe you can’t transfer items, but you can fire up uplay through steam and get cheaper dlc for your “steam version” that way?

again, i don’t know.

no, i’m just easily confused.

my reasoning is this: if players on steam and uplay can play together, and see the dlc other players have, and prices of that dlc vary between stores, that counts as “the same product” having a different price. potentially players could transfer dlc from uplay to steam if they require a uplay account everywhere. in that case, ubisoft are violating the terms.

if that doesn’t hold, then valve are overreaching.

overall it’s muddy.

r6s isn’t unreal though, it’s anvil.

well no, the integrations are what i’m talking about. not saying that valve is hosting their own r6s servers, just that by using steam features and having the same game (eg able the connect to the same server) on two stores it falls under their “parity” policy.

i was reading through the court documents earlier (i linked them in a comment) and while i don’t doubt that bloomberg knows better than me, that wasn’t the feel i got from the emails. it started with valve employees asking internally if it was a tos violation, then reaching out to ubisoft, then the demand to change the price on steam to match. the docs are heavily redacted so some details escaped me but… idk.

no, obviously i’m not saying that. i’m saying that by having content in the game that costs different amounts for different players playing together on the same platform (pc), ubisoft aren’t following the terms they agreed to for selling on steam.

okay, and you’re sure of this? thanks for clearing it up in that case.

but then surely it’s against their tos, no? like, if a hat is 50¢ on uplay but 100€ on steam and players on steam can see uplay players wearing the hat, isn’t that a case of price disparity in the product? it’s not a steam key, true, but if ubisoft were allowed to set prices like that it would almost certainly count as anticompetitive practices, right?

i was genuinely curious because i didn’t know. but it does fall in line with what i thought, which is that: if ubisoft are charging lower amounts for dlc that can also be bought through steam, and that dlc shows up for people who are playing on steam, then they’re using steam’s services and valve are in the right. if the two versions of the game do not commuticate, then ubisoft are in the right.

so they can’t play against people on steam?

so you’re saying that the steam version is not using sheam features?

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59859024/348/7/in-re-valve-antitrust-litigation/

page 120ish, section 5.2.2, footnotes 519 and forward.

it’s the emails in question. i’m reading it as “content parity” is the most important thing for valve.

sure, but rainbow six siege uses all of those things because it’s an online game. otherwise there’d be a need to have separated server infra for steam and non-steam users.

rainbow six siege is an online game that uses steam’s backend. as such, all the dlc uplay is selling is in the form of steam keys.

i would love to have cheaper games. i would also love if people learned to read.

because that’s what the lawsuit is about. valve has no problem with people selling games on their own store fronts, as long as what they’re selling isn’t just a steam key. ubisoft wants to sell games on their own store for online games which use steam as a backend without giving steam a cut. you can buy all the anno games for cheaper on uplay than on steam, and that’s not a problem. but rainbow six siege uses steamplay.