[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by ColdFront

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

Had you been following along, I have posted 3 links - one to a paper/booklet that some claim was written by a racist, one that linked to the FBI crime data numbers and one that linked to the Department of Justice. All three backed the assertion I made, so trying to paint me as racist simply isn't going succeed or make your argument any stronger. My data specific to Ferguson I have not linked - but if you want to actually review the stuff like autopsy reports, toxicology results, investigative findings, etc - just ask.

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

You stated that the game was removed from people's libraries. I stated that while the game may have been unavailable for a time (I don't know if it was or wasn't) - it has resurfaced on Steam as a playable game - minus multiplayer. Thus I used the term OUTAGE. I did not claim that there was not some "outrage" - I simply didn't feel it necessary. Rather I took your claim of the game being "gone" and demonstrated it to be less that completely factual.

"No such law, and TOS aren't law.

Good thing you are not a lawyer. Intellectual Property Law applies to software (aka - copyright) and makes the Terms of Service for usage a legally enforceable contract. Using software in ways not allowed under the Terms of Service can result in a number of legal remedies being pursued. Anything from a "cease and desist" order to fines and even imprisonment can be the results.

Yes, they are under obligation to live up to their reputation.

They have an obligation to live up to their side of the contract. They did so. Their reputation is theirs to lift or destroy as they see fit - whether you approve or not. Unless you own a controlling interest in the company, which seems rather unlikely.

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.

So in your angst and hatred you feel like you know what wise business decisions they should be making are.... So why don't you own a competing product then? Go on, show those no good bums how to do it right!

There's nothing ethical or reasonable about tearing away a game from players who had done no wrong.

Again, the game is available - just without multiplayer. Steam has no ethical, moral or business obligation to spend its resources on a game going forward that won't make them a profit. They DO have the obligation to spend their capital wisely so that the shareholders and investors make money. That's why its a BUSINESS. To claim that the players had "done no wrong" is a falsehood - they had gone outside the intended use of the software by trying or successfully making it play/work in a way that did not conform to the ToS - namely using the Square Enix servers. Doing that is no different than "cracking" an exe to get around DRM.

Fascist much? Might makes responsibility, it does not make right.

Well, you have now called me fascist and racist. Nice... I can tell you are going to go far here at Subsim....

They were forced to accept TOS in order to access the vast majority of PC games, that's coercion.

You seriously need to understand what coercion is. Go read and then explain where Valve has used force or threats to make people sign up with them.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion

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.

Microsoft has a roughly 90% share in the desktop market - yet they are not a monopoly. The NFL has a 100% market share on professional football in the US, but they are not violating anti-trust laws. The NBA, PGA, NHL all are the same. Market share is not the ONLY measure of a monopoly. Steam is not a monopoly because they do not directly interfere with, threaten or use force to destroy their rivals. Many other game services exist and are very viable. Something that a monopoly would never allow....

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?

Terms of service are a legally enforceable contract. Considering your having to reach into the bag of consistent namecalling - I would wager that your the angsty one.... Add in your vehement and misplaced attacks on Steam - pretty much locks it in.

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

Your new here, so let me help you in learning something. Steam doesn't get a pass on this forum. For a very long time (2010 period) many of us were anti-steam. Much of the actions they and other services took (like stealing pc specs) without permission were significantly and hotly debated.

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.

This again? Read the answer earlier in the post, get educated on the topic, then if you still disagree, come back and discuss it without the venom you have right now.

Psychologically project much?

Careful - you are repeating yourself. I have given example of why your claim regarding Steam is false. Rebut it if you can, or break out your "in case of a lack of good argument, launch personal attacks" emergency manual. The choice is yours.