[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by ColdFront

I heard from first hand sources, unlike with Ferguson, which is coming second hand from news sources.

So your data is "second hand" - since its not something you experienced yourself. My experience with Steam is firsthand knowledge. Also - regarding Ferguson, my data comes not from the media, but from hard data such as forensic analysis. The hard data is there, one must merely be willing to review it.

Now this is just plain lying. Valve only restored the singleplayer after the brief outrage, which everyone forgot about soon due to the brainwashing of Steam sales.

I admit that I can not speak to whether or not the single player game had an outage. However, I did not say there was no outage - I simply pointed out that the single player game is alive and well - and available on Steam. No lie there, so direct accusation without cause are not only uncalled for, but in this case - also inaccurate.

What Valve should have done is lived up to their can-do-no-wrong reputation and left the multiplayer community alone. They had managed to maintain multiplayer through tunneling. Or they could have tried to maintain official multiplayer.

Multiplayer to operate LEGALLY required users to play on Square Enix servers. That wasn't a steam thing - that was part of the ToS in the game from Square Enix. Thus, when the official servers where shut down, there was no LEGAL way for multiplayer to continue. To ask or expect Valve to assist (or even look the other way) while users violate the ToS of the publisher on the Steam service is just insane. That would be a sure way to make sure Square Enix never let Steam sell another game they put out.

You know, like Origin is trying to do with all their games that got affected by Gamespy shutting down.

That is an OPTION they might have been able to do - but they are under no obligation to do so. Even if they wanted to put forth the capital to build servers to support it (which is doubtful since ongoing sales would not be likely to make that expense "break even") - it is highly likely that doing so would have required licensing or at least "permission" from Square Enix to do legally. That is an awful lot of work and resources wasted - so it looks more like Valve made a business decision that you don't like - but its perfectly ethical and reasonable.

And they shouldn't have the right.

You are SO wrong here. They should and do have the right because every single person affected by the removal of the game from their library AGREED to let Valve have that right. No one made those users agree - they chose to agree voluntarily. If you agree to something knowing that a bad result down the line "could" occur - you hardly have reason to complain if the bad ending occurs. Every single user KNEW that the possibility existed, agreed to that risk, and thus has no reason to whine.

Don't like Steam's ToS? Don't agree to them and thus don't use the service. Which IS an option for people you know. Note you didn't answer Gargamel on his question about Steam being a monopoly - is that because you realize it isn't - but just don't want to admit it?

Order of War: Challenge proved that they will dump games, and that was only the beginning.

It proved that in certain circumstances, business decisions will be made to remove games in a way that complies with the ToS that every user has agreed to.

Valve is the one that destroyed a multiplayer community, not Square Enix. Square Enix failed to prevent multiplayer from surviving, and they weren't the ones who ripped out the game. Because Valve did it, the tech press covered it up for months, and the story only broke because of Forbes.

Square Enix shut down servers that were legally required for the community to play multiplayer. Steam simply enforced the Terms of Service it already had in place. I get that you don't like the rules, but no one made you or anyone else agree to them. Your angst over the "tech press" is what it is - but has nothing to do with whether Valve acted unlawfully.

Brainwashed Steam fanboys like you will blame anyone and everyone but Valve. Just like when Valve ripped many of EA's games from Steam. People blamed EA, because they can do no right, and Valve can do no wrong. http://www.maximumpc.com/article/fea...aming?page=0,1

Linking a 3+ year old article - with very outdated information, hardly bolsters your case. I am no "fanboy" - I have Origin, Capsule and a few other "gaming" apps on my machine in addition to Steam. Had you even read the article you linked, you would note that "EA's DLC practices violated Steam's ToS." They could hardly expect their consumers to abide by their ToS if publishers wouldn't.

Silent Hunter 5 was an "always on" required game. So was Assassins Creed II. Both by UBI. They decided to remove that requirement. Square Enix didn't remove that requirement. Steam has to enforce its rules - be it on EA or on the consumer who would want to "hack" the executable to get around a legal requirement of the game.

We get it - you don't like Steam. Fine. That is your right. But your arguments have no basis in law. Valve is not a monopoly. Nor did they "kill" the multiplayer community. They enforced their rules - rules everyone agreed to that was affected. You don't have to like it - but making baseless and false claims doesn't win you many arguments.