Wrong comment, sorry.

Haha the only thing they had to change between 2016 and now is replacing Pence with Vance and adding an exclamation point to the slogan.

...Holy shit... Is that why they picked Vance for VP? So they could save money on signs and shirts?

The last '20s sucked also. All of this has happened before, and it'll all happen again, but this time with ads and AI!!

I'll take a look again. Thanks!

I thought Niagra's premium was a monthly or yearly subscription.

But on fries??? 🤔

Came to see if anyone said this. I grew up with that shit and it was fantastic! Nothing compared, not even regular ice cream!

Wonder if the cables replaced by OP were user-made, not commercial cables, that were our together incorrectly.

To be fair, what else are those points for other than blowing on awards to dump on reviews and guides?

That's the same for any digital platform, though. Literally, any gaming store except for GOG won't let you take your library with you. You don't own the game as far as any of them are concerned. You're claiming Steam is some kind of monster because their platform for games you don't own is better than other platforms for games you don't own. Because their platform doesn't sucks, it earns them a lot of business. That's it. That's the magic sauce.

With options, if Stream sucked, people would go elsewhere.

If Steam had anything resembling a monopoly they'd do everything they could to remove platforms offering the same games. The number of platforms has only expanded since they started.

If Stream was a monopoly, they'd not only undercut others, they'd pay for exclusivity rights. Steam let's developers sell their own keys from anywhere the developer wants, while taking no cut when that happens, even though Steam still has to front the bandwidth and storage for the game to be played.

If Steam was a monopoly, they'd buy up smaller firms, buy businesses with similar, but competing services, or take another company's product, reverse engineer it, and make their own undercutting the original. They've done the opposite at every turn.

You really don't understand monopolistic tactics. You're not going to understand it, either, since you've continues to conflate good business decisions that earn trust and adoption with anti-consumer practices. Steam makes good business decisions, listens to their customers and developers about ways to make the service or products better, and has more business because of it. They have a better product without stooping to the air a in lot of current businesses are pulling.

That's it. 70% market dominance doesn't fucking matter. They could have 90% and it still wouldn't be a monopoly with their current strategy. Other businesses need to suck less.

You're either a troll, extremely young, naive, and/or uneducated if you think my comment above is in defense of billionaires. I literally have comments in my history to the absolute opposite*. What I'm "defending" is the definition of a monopoly when it comes to business practices; of which Valve has exuded none of the behavior of.

You think any business doing well, providing quality goods and services, not being anti-consumer, and being the most trusted platform for gaming as a result is the definition of a monopoly. Again, you use fallacy to try and argue a point.

Wait... Are you that dickhead from Epic who pays for exclusivity rights, steaks user data from Steam files, or something? I could see that guy being pissed at Steam for seemingly no reason.

* one such comment, if I recall, is about how much I hated Steam when it first came out for killing LAN parties by locking down CD keys.