Oh, I agree with you that the loot boxes are basically gambling themselves. I still don’t think Valve is responsible for the skin gambling sites.

When I was in sixth grade, kids used to gamble their Pogs. When I was even younger, all the way back to kindergarten age, kids used to gamble their marbles by playing keepsies.

Yeah, loot boxes are shitty. But it’s a real stretch to say that Valve is responsible for what customers and third party sites do with the skins afterwards.

If you want your business to stay in business, then yes. The people worth supporting are the ones who pay enough money as a group. I'm glad you understand how things work.

We’ll go back to normal if and when the odds of dying from COVID reach parity with the odds of dying from the flu.

I have two friends who lost their sense of taste after getting COVID. Nothing is worth losing my ability to enjoy food and drink due to a mild cold.

That was a different McDonalds training game. Learn to read. It’s an essential life skill.

Why should the customer who paid for the game have to take extra steps to do so? I guess a trans persons money is worth less than a transphobic bigots.

“The outer shell is waxed, wind-resistant cotton.”

99 Luftballons peaked at the #2 position on US charts.

If the purpose of a global looking for group chat is to find people to play with, and queer people need to find people who don't hate queer people to play with, then discussing their queerness is not off topic. Such discussion fulfills the purpose of finding people to play with.

Gay, trans, and other persons who don’t conform to CisHet-normative social constructs often face discrimination or violence in their daily lives. They shouldn’t have to face it in their daily lives, and they certainly shouldn’t have to face it in games that people play as respite and refuge from their daily lives.

His job is to tell his customers that it’s unreasonable of them to expect a 70 dollar product that can’t be returned once opened to expect that product to work on launch day. I’m sorry I called him a shill, gaslighting would be a more accurate way to describe it.

Being out 70 dollars on a product that won’t be accepted as a return isn’t being harmed? Yeah, they don’t deserve death threats. But to call wanting a 70 dollar game made with a AAA budget to play well on day 1 an unreasonable demand is deserving of mockery.

That’s because “no cause of death has been revealed”, is celebrity death code for autoerotic asphyxiation.

Think of telephone scammers. We have a common scam in Canada where a conman calls a person saying they have issues with the Canada Revenue Agency and that if they don’t immediately correct this tax issue, they’ll be summoned to court.

Hey,.it’s not like these corporations are defrauding people by selling these broken games or anything. People better be polite to the con man when they get ripped off!

I didn’t buy it. I just happen to be pro-consumer instead of shill for a corporation.

I won't put any respect on the name of someone who shills for corporate fraudsters.

Why is it unethical to use chargeback to get a refund for a broken game? Shouldn’t you think it’s unethical for developers to defraud the consumer by knowingly selling a broken product?