3 ms·

Your argument amounts to, "Murder is stabbing, only stabbing. Valve shot people, never stabbed!" I remain bemused, and unimpressed both by your argument, and y

• Mithaldu 10y ago
  Valve is providing parts of the game that as far as i know are 100% and unequivocally optional and provide the user no benefit whatsoever. How does this hurt people? How does it compare to the hurt caused by F2P strategies i described?
  • M_Grey 10y ago
    In the same way that a casino does. This is really not complicated.
    • Mithaldu 10y ago
      Is your complaint that Valve is just as evil because they entice people to throw money at them to buy random loot that has a chance of being converted into a big pay day by way of being sold on to other players? If so, then that would be a very strong, but quite accurate complaint that i actually agree with. It would be good if you stated it directly and clearly in the future instead of throwing it out as implications of something that "everyone knows". It is not complicated once stated explicitly, but if you aren't fully aware of it already, it is not obvious in the least.
      • M_Grey 10y ago
        It's simple... I was responding to: "Valve has made more money catering to traditional video game types than Fee2PlayRobbery#8816732 ever has or will." I disagreed with that statement, and still do... it's that simple. Valve has not been a force for "traditional video game types" as much as they've been a forerunner of F2P models. You're welcome to split hairs between "Abusive" and merely "Scummy"... I'm utterly disinterested in that.