- 0 Posts
- 4 Comments
Instead of Steam forcing any disputes with them to go through an “impartial” 3rd party company they choose and pay for to oversee and rule on disputes, they are saying that disputes must go through the courts.
Basically forced arbitration has always been seen as anti-consumer and unfair because the company is paying for the arbitration and is thus considered more likely to be found in favor of. Steam is doing the opposite and as such this is seen as pro-consumer and a good thing
In my opinion it depends on the game. Games as good as BG3, with no micro-transaction crap and a bit of updates for bugs and some patches? I would pay more for it and gladly. BG3 feels easily worth $120 to me.
The problem is, other studios will see BG3 able to charge that, then go try doing it themselves, riddle it full of micro-transactions, release it half baked, and then gaslight us by telling us we’re being unrealistic with our expectations.
This is the boat I’m in. I still have 6 months left to not deal with it, so until then, as far as Windows is concerned there is no TPM chip and I can’t upgrade! I’m so very particular about how I like my computers setup and I’m dreading when windows 11 inevitably breaks everything. I just don’t want to deal with it until they REALLY make me. Besides the laziness, the settings menus in Win 10 are hot garbage enough, and I hear 11 is infinitely worse. Nah, I’m good until I have no other choice.