[ColdFront]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

All I have to say is what Tribesman said about you:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That's strange, I could have sworn your link for your data on that subject and the quotes you lifted to post was from a white supremacist website

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.

Way to misquote me. Outrage, not outage. "ENGLISH, ***********! DO YOU SPEAK IT!?"

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.

No such law, and TOS aren't law.

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.

Yes, they are under obligation to live up to their reputation. And considering how Valve is too busy wiping its ass with $100 bills to make Half-Life 3, they've got plenty of money to throw at Square Enix. There's nothing ethical or reasonable about tearing away a game from players who had done no wrong.

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.

Fascist much? Might makes responsibility, it does not make right. They were forced to accept TOS in order to access the vast majority of PC games, that's coercion.

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?

Here's your answer: they are a monopoly due to their massive marketshare estimated between 70%-80%. That's good enough for people to describe De Beers as a diamond monopoly when they had 85% marketshare.

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.

Again, no such law. And who is the angsty one-someone who quotes the facts, or someone who deliberately misquotes and uses stats from white supremacists?

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.

Way to miss the point. The point is that Valve never gets blamed for anything they do, others are always scapegoated.

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.

Psychologically project much? They are a monopoly. You don't think 70%-80% of PC gaming marketshare is a monopoly? Tell that to De Beers.

You don't have to like it - but making baseless and false claims doesn't win you many arguments.

Psychologically project much?