3 ms·

My comment is undoubtedly an oversimplification, there are tons of things to criticize Valve for. Microtransactions are a plague unleashed by them, for one. I

My comment is undoubtedly an oversimplification, there are tons of things to criticize Valve for. Microtransactions are a plague unleashed by them, for one. I was mostly trying to keep the comparison limited to the topic of cryptocurrencies, and the behavioural patterns observed in tech companies when it comes to them.

_aavaa_ 4y ago
My point was that it’s easy for them to ban cryptocurrencies and NFTs while saying that it’s for the good of the users, while they themselves keep supporting almost identical things on their platform. They only difference being that Valve gets a cut of the non-NFT transactions
- syzygyhack 4y ago
  That's not the only difference, it's not even the most significant difference. The difference is you don't own anything on Steam. Just like you don't own anything digital you buy on Amazon. If they want to revoke your ability to access content you paid for, they can and do. In principle (not always in practice), crypto protects you from that.
  - Herbstluft 4y ago
    > Just like you don't own anything digital True. But blockchain tech changes absolutely nothing about that in the realm of games and media, having a flag in a decentralized database does not protect me from a (game) server owner banning me, a drm system choosing to ignore said flag, or shutting down the whole game and refusing distribution. In these situation only piracy would help, and we don't need snakeoil for that. In the end there will be a centralized entity with the power to deny my access. Neither do cryptocurrencies change anything about this in the realms of finance as long as their complete existence builds on top of banks and exchanges, which it very much does. Cryptocurrencies are not an alternative, they are an addon at best.
    - syzygyhack 4y ago
      It's not a magic wand. It facilitates new decentralized systems, it doesn't somehow fix the old ones. You're assuming a world where digital content is administrated and supported by a centralized organization. If they stop respecting the license, it becomes worthless, no one can argue otherwise and no one is trying to. A world where digital content is administrated by anyone (including by the user themselves) and interops with other services (games, social apps, or otherwise) does not see the assets suffer or lose value when one such service shuts its doors. They can just be taken elsewhere. One game goes down, a fork goes up, etc. Blockchain does absolutely nothing to fix what's broken with today's systems, it provides the infrastructure for the alternative.
      - _aavaa_ 4y ago
        All of that is beside the point since the discussion is about the old system. We are talking about closed-source games being sold through Steam.
  - ignaloidas 4y ago
    > The difference is you don't own anything on Steam. Doesn't matter, because people still trade CSGO skins that they technically don't own for thousands with each other. As long as one account has something limited that can be transferred to another account, they own it. Even if the ownership is shaky as hell and dependent on corporate overlords.

_aavaa_ 4y ago

My point was that it’s easy for them to ban cryptocurrencies and NFTs while saying that it’s for the good of the users, while they themselves keep supporting almost identical things on their platform. They only difference being that Valve gets a cut of the non-NFT transactions

syzygyhack 4y ago
That's not the only difference, it's not even the most significant difference. The difference is you don't own anything on Steam. Just like you don't own anything digital you buy on Amazon. If they want to revoke your ability to access content you paid for, they can and do. In principle (not always in practice), crypto protects you from that.
- Herbstluft 4y ago
  > Just like you don't own anything digital True. But blockchain tech changes absolutely nothing about that in the realm of games and media, having a flag in a decentralized database does not protect me from a (game) server owner banning me, a drm system choosing to ignore said flag, or shutting down the whole game and refusing distribution. In these situation only piracy would help, and we don't need snakeoil for that. In the end there will be a centralized entity with the power to deny my access. Neither do cryptocurrencies change anything about this in the realms of finance as long as their complete existence builds on top of banks and exchanges, which it very much does. Cryptocurrencies are not an alternative, they are an addon at best.
  - syzygyhack 4y ago
    It's not a magic wand. It facilitates new decentralized systems, it doesn't somehow fix the old ones. You're assuming a world where digital content is administrated and supported by a centralized organization. If they stop respecting the license, it becomes worthless, no one can argue otherwise and no one is trying to. A world where digital content is administrated by anyone (including by the user themselves) and interops with other services (games, social apps, or otherwise) does not see the assets suffer or lose value when one such service shuts its doors. They can just be taken elsewhere. One game goes down, a fork goes up, etc. Blockchain does absolutely nothing to fix what's broken with today's systems, it provides the infrastructure for the alternative.
    - _aavaa_ 4y ago
      All of that is beside the point since the discussion is about the old system. We are talking about closed-source games being sold through Steam.
- ignaloidas 4y ago
  > The difference is you don't own anything on Steam. Doesn't matter, because people still trade CSGO skins that they technically don't own for thousands with each other. As long as one account has something limited that can be transferred to another account, they own it. Even if the ownership is shaky as hell and dependent on corporate overlords.