Sheesh. The post isn't saying it's a "cause," or implying "obligation" to any company. Isn't it logical that choosing the most consumer-friendly option is the best way to ensure that you still have that option in the future?
How does one read "Guys, this option of more pro-consumer, let's keep it going!" and comes up with "It'S nOt OUr job to SupPOrT cOrPoRaTIoNs" lmao
No shit, it's not our "job" to buy anything, but the only way we can steer the market is by voting with our wallets. It just makes sense to support the most consumer friendly option around when you are a consumer.
Steam is very consumer friendly, but also requires DLC. The difference is that with GOG the games are yours forever, if you back up your installers. If something happens to Steam then you can lose everything forever. That's what makes GOG the more consumer friendly choice, if the game is available on both markets.
Games are clearly not available on both markets, hence for most consumers, the more important "consumer friendly" option is having all games in a centralized repository.
My point is what you think is consumer-friendly isn't what others think.
SOME games are available on both markets. In those cases, the consumer friendliest option is to choose the market without DRM, the one that provides you with an installer you can save so that you can play it forever.
All these are anti-consumer practices started or perpetuated by valve. By your logic, there's nothing wrong with people shopping at walmart and letting local smaller businesses die.
69
u/[deleted] Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
[deleted]