Unkillable Cat
LEST WE FORGET
- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 28,570
And I agree with Fronzel Neekburm on those who defend Steam vehemently because they fear losing their Steam catalog... because that made me realize that the Steam catalog is their own personal Social Credit-system: They don't dare put it at risk or they'll lose everything, so it must be defended at all costs.
What does that even mean? Why would anyone "fear losing their Steam catalog"? They already own the games, why would they lose them? What does their "Steam catalog" have to do with a "Social Credit-system"? Social Credit is used by a Totalitarian government to measure the "social reputation" of its citizens based on their level of obedience to the state. Steam is a Digital Distribution service for games. Put what at risk? Lose everything? Are you drunk?
Not this time.
My statement is based on two facts that I should have tried to cram in there somehow: As Steam is the leading digitial distributor on PCs and has put in all these community-related shared features, people are using the platform as a status symbol. Gaining those Steam levels, owning the hottest titles, showing off various achievements etc. Some people have spent years (or even decade(s)) working on their online profile on Steam, and spent (tens of) thousands of dollars on it. They have committed, they have invested and they want to protect their investment... while simultaneously stroking their e-peen.
But that's not all, the social element of Steam means that whomever you add as a Friend there can see what you own and what you're playing... and act on it. Many years ago I had the misfortune of not only being the victim of a shaming attempt, but also accused of theft by a ex- Steam (and ex-real-life) friend as well... because I had the gall to criticize a freshly-released game that the friend was praising to high heaven. The friend responsed to my criticism by checking if I owned the game on Steam, saw that I didn't and proceeded to publicly accuse me of piracy, because he (falsely) thought I was playing the game. He didn't stop to think I might be playing it on another platform, or been following the discussion closely, or possibly even watching YT-videos of the game. No, because I hadn't bought the game on Steam I was a filthy pirate and deserved to be shamed. So yeah, if a digital distribution platform can socially condition morons into trying to snitch on their fellows, it's a Social Credit-system with parallels to that used by a Totalitarian government to control its citizens.
The second fact is that I'm not just old-fashioned, I'm borderline archaic. I believe that a man should only need to own the game in his hand, and own a machine capable of running it, to be able to play it. Any extra step interfering in that process is needless IMO and should be abolished. Obviously this does not apply to online games, but the sacrifice of the extra step there is inferred. Steam goes directly against this by acting as a gatekeeper, and those are not infallible. Not even something "as big as Steam". IIRC Steam has still not explained what it will do for its customers if it somehow ends up dead and permanently offline, so I'll remain both pessimistic and sceptical of it.