I would say it’s worse than that. Like knowing that you are selling exp boosters changes the calculus on how exp is earned. If the game played smoothly, there would be no need to sell the boosters and creating the eco system to support it would have been wasted. A system where certain items are nft based would push for these items to be better then the non nft items both for expectation of value, and to raise the trade value to siphon from. This already happens with games with dlc cosmetics. The gear in the games looks increasingly shit compared to the DLC. And that is a natural consequence of polluting the game space.

But why honor other companies tokens? Hell why honor your old tokens? You make the effort to create assets in your new game, are you going to just give it to a limited number of players who play both game for free, or resell it to all players? If you buy an nft for a game that then gets ignored, was it any different then a DLC, or using the steam market place to trade the item? After all i have read i don’t see where this helps players at all, and for companies, the only benefit i can see is if they pump and dump their players.

Damn, i only just learned how to close the darn thing! Didn’t know the rabbit hole goes so deep.

I got mine from MIRA. Though now i am getting their end of the world news letter…

Yes there is. Because it gives the games companies the ability to sell however they like. What to make the game sellable privately? No problem. What to sell an apple version, go for it.

So what part of the open market covers preventing the consumers from being able to choose which launcher they prefer, if any? Valve didn’t do that. EGS did. You should blame the competitors for failing to meet market standards

When you are upset at Valve for not doing for apple what they did for Linux, who you are really mad at is Apple for having terrible… everything, and game developers who don’t want to put the needed effort in for such a modest return.

You are upset at everyone BUT Valve. Or at least you should be.

Its the “if you build it they will come” type of scenario. I want to switch to Linux really badly, but my driver is for gaming, i don’t want to adopt a pet project of getting my games to run in the first place.

Though i know valves interest in Linux is not completely motivated in philanthropy. They want to be able to separate from the dependence of Microsoft, for the safety of their businesses future. But so far our interests align

I am not aware of any stream agreement with game developers that prevents them from releasing their game using any other method. Your argument about streams “” monopoly “” is 100% due to market forces working as advertised. They offer a service that no other company either can or will match. And that is not the fault of steam and was not achieved by illegal means. There’s dissent even need to be a launcher at all! Game companies can just sell us the game alone without a launcher. What other companies want is market dominance, not a fair market place. Because the fair market place gave steam the current win

What it does make invalid is the argument that valve is enshitifying because they don’t cater to apple users. You can put that blame on apple all day. Valve? Not at all. Its a huge waste of time, and all efforts tword Linux advancement is much better spent.