You are not being realistic you are being stupid. You are indeed defending a evil corporation and a billionare with a fleet of mega yachts by stating that their work is necessary. They are needed for what? For a long time before they rolled in and started misleading kids tossing money in marketing you didn’t need a third party proprietary launcher to run software and you still don’t need it now.
The original comment was that without them you would probably still own the games you paid for and you argued that if not them someone else would have do the same thus giving the idea like others have expressed here that steam is somewhat fine where it is.
Well you are wrong. I am not saying that this situation is fine. I am saying that it is not the individual company that is the main problem but the system that enables them to begin with.
Just dismantling valve is not a long term solution. It’s short sighted. Without them there would be others in their footsteps. One needs to change the system to change that. Give companies opportunities and they will exploit them. I actually agree with the above comment that legislation / regulation is a solution to this problem.
That is why I am pissed off that I am called stupid and bootlicker. That is not a good way to discuss things and especially not a good way to get to an understanding.
And yes I do think that there is a high chance other big tech companies would’ve done worse than valve. Which is not a great endorsement for them to be clear.
I am saying that it is not the individual company that is the main problem but the system that enables them to begin with.
They are the company who pioneered this shit, back in the day they had almost 0 competitors. There’s no law forcing you to use steam. What you are saying is something among the lines that without microsoft some one else would be in charge of a proprietary os.
You are not being realistic you are being stupid. You are indeed defending a evil corporation and a billionare with a fleet of mega yachts by stating that their work is necessary. They are needed for what? For a long time before they rolled in and started misleading kids tossing money in marketing you didn’t need a third party proprietary launcher to run software and you still don’t need it now.
Where did I say they are necessary? Where did I say you need a proprietary third party launcher?
What other statements do you want to put in my mouth?
The original comment was that without them you would probably still own the games you paid for and you argued that if not them someone else would have do the same thus giving the idea like others have expressed here that steam is somewhat fine where it is.
Well you are wrong. I am not saying that this situation is fine. I am saying that it is not the individual company that is the main problem but the system that enables them to begin with.
Just dismantling valve is not a long term solution. It’s short sighted. Without them there would be others in their footsteps. One needs to change the system to change that. Give companies opportunities and they will exploit them. I actually agree with the above comment that legislation / regulation is a solution to this problem.
That is why I am pissed off that I am called stupid and bootlicker. That is not a good way to discuss things and especially not a good way to get to an understanding.
And yes I do think that there is a high chance other big tech companies would’ve done worse than valve. Which is not a great endorsement for them to be clear.
They are the company who pioneered this shit, back in the day they had almost 0 competitors. There’s no law forcing you to use steam. What you are saying is something among the lines that without microsoft some one else would be in charge of a proprietary os.
Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying.
Edit: And with Microsoft it’s even more apparent as there were large proprietary operating systems before Microsoft got big.