4 ms·

Yes, they have said that, and with the best intentions. But one can never predict what will actually happen with a company in the throes of shutting down. The

by T-hawk 14y ago

Yes, they have said that, and with the best intentions. But one can never predict what will actually happen with a company in the throes of shutting down. The lawyers could kick out the programmers before they can throw the killswitch, or even obtain an injunction against doing so. Picture a hypothetical event where Valve enters bankruptcy and shuts down service, but an acquirer intends to resume it, but the case gets stuck in the courts for years. (IANAL and I'm exaggerating to make the point, but you get the idea.) We're dependent on Valve's good will and intentions for Steam. There is no technical solution that the community can implement without Valve's blessing. All of the above should be factored into the grandparent post about factoring DRM into discounting the price you're willing to pay. Valve's reassurance reduces but does not eliminate my personal DRM discount. By contrast but also comparison with Valve/Steam, the attitude of EA and many other publishers and platforms instantly pegs my personal DRM discount at 100%.

nemof 14y ago
Not just with the best of intentions. Valve have always treated their customers pretty well. They're not viewed like EA or Activision for a good reason, they've garnered a great deal of good will by behaving in an exemplary way. You're envisioning a hypothetical of the all the worst possible outcomes. At the moment we have no reason to imagine anything other than them keeping their word. I do agree that it's not ideal having no solution we can implement ourselves. My criteria for price is actually mainly dependent on how many hours of enjoyment I get out of something. I'm not willing to spend the cost of a triple A game for 10-12 hours gameplay. If it's got something upwards of 40+ hours then I'm quite happy to spend money on it.
sirclueless 14y ago
One thing that could be a big factor in their favor that such a claim could be credible, is that Valve is privately owned. While that doesn't necessarily mean that greed won't rule the day, but it does mean that if the company leadership prioritizes something besides fiscal performance as it goes through its death throes, it won't be considered criminal negligence.

by T-hawk 14y ago

nemof 14y ago

Not just with the best of intentions. Valve have always treated their customers pretty well. They're not viewed like EA or Activision for a good reason, they've garnered a great deal of good will by behaving in an exemplary way. You're envisioning a hypothetical of the all the worst possible outcomes. At the moment we have no reason to imagine anything other than them keeping their word. I do agree that it's not ideal having no solution we can implement ourselves. My criteria for price is actually mainly dependent on how many hours of enjoyment I get out of something. I'm not willing to spend the cost of a triple A game for 10-12 hours gameplay. If it's got something upwards of 40+ hours then I'm quite happy to spend money on it.

sirclueless 14y ago

One thing that could be a big factor in their favor that such a claim could be credible, is that Valve is privately owned. While that doesn't necessarily mean that greed won't rule the day, but it does mean that if the company leadership prioritizes something besides fiscal performance as it goes through its death throes, it won't be considered criminal negligence.