Critical Miss: Children of Steam #1
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Honest answer? I had to go in and change the strip (some really bad typos there, I don't know how they got through) and Photoshop refused to do the accented little E for eclairs.True Nero said:
I feel a little sorry for Valve, they can't even so much as breath without someone calling Gabe Newell a fatass or complaining about episode 3.
No one ever reads the terms and conditions.Jesus Phish said:
Take a quick read, My ed games design teacher showed us.
You don't own those games, you own the right to play them.
Of course people don't read them. They're stupidly long and usually written in jargon that puts people off reading them. As someone else has said, Valve have gone on record to say they've something in place in case they ever went down.Lucifer dern said:
As opposed to all those non-factual retail discs out there. Hoo boy.Guest_Star said:
Anyways, if Steam shut down, I'd kind of be annoyed for awhile. I guess. It'd suck for awhile, but I think I'd get over it.
I doubt he'd shut down steam unless he was suicidal. Didn't even know of the guy who made Steam before this.
yes that would indeed be the end of the world for me. 160+ games goes kaputs! Id have to do go outside O.O oh the HORROR! x.X
Every time someone calls Gabe Newell fat, he adds an F to a word in the english lexicon... and everyone else has to use it too!matrix3509 said:
To be fair they only have that stranglehold because no other competitor has ever managed to "get right" every aspect of value-added that steam has, so nobody has exactly earned the right to compete seriously. Most of the other entries in the field are tripe like Games For Windows Live, which is obviously the product of multiple different development teams whose management staff either lack teamwork skills or are outright in a feud with one another.redbeta22 said:
If someone was actually capable of scraping together a competitor that didn't fail significantly at something customers currently receive from Steam, we wouldn't have that issue.
It's not like there isn't enough venture capital out there for established players to develop such a thing, either. They're just not competent enough to develop one yet. There are several good alternatives that do fewer things and do them well, but they still do fewer things, so people are going to be drawn to where the features they want are consolidated together.
A monopoly is never a good thing, but we have the competition to blame for that. Even competitors like Microsoft, which is a company that has specialized in questionably legal anti-competitive practices (and been ruled guilty of many clearly illegal ones), hasn't managed to edge their way in, because the competition has been about the appeal of the product to the customer, rather than the typical tools of monopolism: crime and subterfuge.