Talisorn wrote on Mar 15, 2010, 16:56:
I was reading a story on another forum from a guy who accidentally maxxed out his credit card making a purchase on Steam. The amount was basically the exchange rate difference between US and Aussie dollars; Steam advertises all games in US dollars ... so it was a fair an honest mistake. Steam banned him and locked out his account forever because of the Credit Card chargeback.

Talisorn wrote on Mar 15, 2010, 16:56:
I was reading a story on another forum from a guy who accidentally maxxed out his credit card making a purchase on Steam. The amount was basically the exchange rate difference between US and Aussie dollars; Steam advertises all games in US dollars ... so it was a fair an honest mistake. Steam banned him and locked out his account forever because of the Credit Card chargeback.

I'm sorry Gabe, but how can you be on your high horse when YOUR company can performs practices that lock out people from legitimate purposes PERMANENTLY? How is that better than companies like Ubisoft?

All Gabe is really doing is disagreeing with Ubi's DRM methods, he's not necessarily strongly opposing it.

Elessar wrote on Mar 15, 2010, 12:45:
All Gabe is really doing is disagreeing with Ubi's DRM methods, he's not necessarily strongly opposing it. Selling games that have intrusive DRM would only make him a hypocrite if he was championing an anti-intrusive DRM cause.

In this case, he just seems to be suggesting that Ubi's way is not really good.

Jerykk wrote on Mar 14, 2010, 23:01:
Distribution is a form of support.

Just because Gabe has an opinion on something does not necessitate a call-to-action, as you seem to think it does.

If Gabe said, "I think FPS games are stupid", does this mean Valve is somehow morally obligated to remove FPS games from its catalogue?

It informs all the decisions we make, and once you get into that mindset it helps you avoid things like some of the Digital Rights Management problems that actually make your entertainment products worth less by wrapping those negatives around them.

Jerykk wrote on Mar 14, 2010, 21:17:
They choose to sell Ubisoft games, even though Gabe publicly criticized overly restrictive DRM. I don't really understand your logic on this. It sounds like you believe that the desire for profit can somehow make someone objective and neutral regardless of whatever opinions and beliefs they actually have.

Except this has nothing to do with "moral positions". It has to do with catering to a specific audience and driving profit. Take Wal-Mart as an example. They cater to the "family friendly" crowd, hence their positions on movies, games, etc. It has to do with doing what the majority of their customers want and trying to maximize profits and avoid consumer backlash.

There is nothing that suggests that Valve must actively seek to supress/take a stand/whatever over this.

Jerykk wrote on Mar 14, 2010, 18:43:
Except theaters DO decide what movies to show. This why you typically don't see porn movies in regular theaters. You keep making these statements that don't correlate at all with reality. You may not want theaters and retailers to take moral positions but the fact of the matter is that they can and do. This is why Wal-Mart, Best Buy and most other big retailers won't sell AO-rated games. This is why Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony won't license AO-rated games. This is why you will never see Rapelay or Ethnic Cleansing on Steam.

Valve decides what they put on Steam. They make an active, conscious, subjective choice. If they truly believed that DRM should be beneficial, they wouldn't support publishers or games that use overly restrictive DRM. This is a choice they can and do make, whether or not it's their responsibility to do so. They choose to support the publishers that use overly restrictive DRM because they are more interested in profit than upholding their own beliefs. This isn't difficult to understand.

Talisorn wrote on Mar 14, 2010, 18:08:
Whoa. Time to get back on the meds man. If you don't like the DRM, don't buy the game. Simple.

Jerykk wrote on Mar 14, 2010, 18:43:
Valve decides what they put on Steam. They make an active, conscious, subjective choice. If they truly believed that DRM should be beneficial, they wouldn't support publishers or games that use overly restrictive DRM. This is a choice they can and do make, whether or not it's their responsibility to do so. They choose to support the publishers that use overly restrictive DRM because they are more interested in profit than upholding their own beliefs. This isn't difficult to understand.

Small budget games with a nice return are still tempting for large publishers, look at the success of Steam, Xbox Live and PSN in this area, or even the DS and PSP.

It's like suggesting that a theater owner doesn't like a particular movie, therefore they shouldn't show that movie in their theater. That doesn't make any kind of sense whatsoever. It's not their position to make those decisions for other people.

ForgedReality wrote on Mar 14, 2010, 01:13:
How about, STAY THE FUCK OUT OF TELLING ME HOW THE FUCK I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PLAY THE GAME I JUST BOUGHT UBI! If I want to play on the fucking plane trip to wherever-the-fuck, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT. It's a single player game for Christ's sakes! Why are you dictating how and where I can play it by requiring me to be online at all times? Eat a fat bag of sausages, Ubisoft! >:\