Yep, I actually own 7,255 games on Steam. I’ve played 23% of my library. I regret nothing.

Why do I play all these games? Because it’s important that they’re played.

Because every game is a story, a world, a moment in time crafted by someone who cared enough to create it.

Because each one teaches me something new—about design, about culture, about myself.

Because in a sea of pixels, there’s magic waiting to be found.

And because, honestly? Sometimes I just want to escape, explore, and lose myself in different worlds.

So yeah. I own thousands of games, and I’ll keep playing them.

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

105 comments

The most recent ones I've noticed are Riders Republic and Borderlands 2. Helldivers also introduced a bunch of new microtransactions years after it's launch.
- And what there is steam's doing? Borderland's a greedy IP from a greedy company. What do you expect?
  
  And since Steam won't let you play older versions, those games are effectively dead.
  
  So it's the fault of the delivery-device? Why didn't you make a backup of an older version just in case? Besides, last time I checked, you can. With a bit more hassle. All not the case for a "live" online-game. Which borderlands wants to be.
  
  So it's the fault of the delivery-device?
  ...yeah? Of course it is.
  Why didn't you make a backup of an older version just in case?
  I pay Steam to do that.
  Besides, last time I checked, you can. With a bit more hassle.
  Not interested.
  All not the case for a "live" online-game. Which borderlands wants to be.
  That's exactly the problem.
  
  If BL is "exactly the problem". And GOG does it better. Why is it still steam's fault? Use GOG then? Where is it the delivery-device's fault? As BL2 offers online-coop, and is also the major selling point of that game, a fragmented market is impossible.
  
  Why would you think another company doing it better makes Valve not responsible? I don't understand the logic.
  As BL2 offers online-coop, and is also the major selling point of that game, a fragmented market is impossible.
  ...no? It's not. You don't have to play it online.
  
  It doesn't matter if you prefer offline or not or that you CAN play solo, it is online coop. I never played it coop either, but that's what it is and hence everyone has to have the same version. Simple as that.
  Point with gog was that they do it better. Vastly so. Yet only a tiny fraction of devs choose them. Hence it begs the question whether it's the platform's fault per se.
  
  It doesn't matter if you prefer offline or not or that you CAN play solo, it is online coop.
  Of course it does?
  Hence it begs the question whether it's the platform's fault per se.
  There is no question. GOG is proof that you can do it. Therefore if others don't do it, it's their fault.
  Once again, all of this is beside the point. The point is that those games are effectively gone.
  
  It only matters in the sense that you're allowed to not purchase online games.
  Otherwise we're circling here.
  
  It only matters in the sense that you're allowed to not purchase online games.
  Virtually every game in existence has some sort of online element. But what you seem to be unable to grasp is that many of them have single player modes that don't require any internet connection.
  It's as simple has having a server that checks the version of the game installed before allowing access to online services.
- I have to say I never played those. Do these microtransactions lock content that was previously available out of the box?

105 comments