PC Gaming

8784 readers

464 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

Be Respectful.
No Spam or Porn.
No Advertising.
No Memes.
No Tech Support.
No questions about buying/building computers.
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

167

Valve faces a £656 million lawsuit in the UK for 'overcharging 14 million PC gamers' (www.gamingonlinux.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

131 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Again, I'm not defending Gaben. If you think I'm a bootlicker, you can lick my ass. As stated, I don't agree that it affects the quality of the product to the extent you're suggesting, and going "well, it does" isn't going to change my opinion.

[–] Grimy -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You were saying it didn't affect you. Regardless of how much will go directly to shareholders, a good portion will be reinvested and lead to better games, which will affect your enjoyment.

I never talked about extent, you are the one that took the hard approach by putting the level at 0. When I pointed it out that it can affect quality and not just price, you came back with "well it doesn't".

I'm pretty sure in this context, saying a 30% increase of funds won't lead to a jump of any kind in either the amount or the quality of products is being willfully blind.

I guess it might be hard to admit that some of these billionaires are directly stealing from us.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

I maintain that it wouldn't affect me. As for what would be reinvested, you say "a good portion," I say an amount so low that its impact will be immeasurably low.

You talked about extent in that you're suggesting the improvement in quality would be worth caring about; this is just you being pedantic. Allow me to be pedantic as well: I never retorted "well, it doesn't" because, unlike you, I've made it very clear that I'm giving my opinion rather than speaking in absolutes.

I can admit that billionaires are getting more than their fair share, never having expressed otherwise here, which is also why I believe the money would largely be going from one well-padded pocket to another.

We've both expressed our views so I won't be continuing this conversation.