This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Would you pay $9.99 a month for Steam?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Would you pay $9.99 a month for Steam?

User Info: MUD VIPER

MUD VIPER
4 months ago#81
arleas posted...
I know I'm late to the game but...

MUD VIPER posted...
Because now you're going to have to do that.

Really wish there was a rolling eyes emoji.


🙄

It does not have to be Valve, Comcast/Cable companies can now charge that to access Steam/Uplay/ect.


Yep, just like they did prior to 2015... oh wait.


They didn't charge extra... they just flat out blocked or throttled anything they didn't like, and mostly what they didn't like were services like ones they offered but didn't control.

They also could just go straight to valve and say "pay us, b****". That's pretty much what they did to Netflix and the League of Legends guys.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/21/16010766/verizon-netflix-throttling-statement-net-neutrality-title-ii

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/291284/New_York_sues_Time_Warner_over_throttled_League_of_Legends_speeds.php

And there were all these incidents (someone else already listed them so I'm just gonna link you to it)
https://np.reddit.com/r/KeepOurNetFree/comments/7ej1nd/fcc_unveils_its_plan_to_repeal_net_neutrality/dq5hlwd/?sh=45a33b81&st=JAA62V5F

Oh but no, this stuff won't happen again and again and again, because everyone is so damned trustworthy that silly laws aren't necessary.

Here's the problem though, they were still doing these types of things when *GASP* NN was reclassified under title 2 in 2015 until now, again, begging the question of what was NN under title 2's purpose.
Console bug testing has been outsourced to gamers now. For $60 you too can become a game tester.

User Info: KillerTruffle

KillerTruffle
4 months ago#82
vlado_e posted...
You are focusing on only one aspect seemingly as a way to disregard the point.

Totally common tactic for him - he moves the goalposts for his arguments so much they might as well be made of jello.

MUD VIPER posted...
Here's the problem though, they were still doing these types of things when *GASP* NN was reclassified under title 2 in 2015 until now, again, begging the question of what was NN under title 2's purpose.

ISPs were still throttling specific sites even while NN was in effect? Do you have evidence of this? Because it did stop for me. I understand I'm only one anecdotal case, but I don't recall seeing any complaints about specific sites being throttled while NN was going...
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23

User Info: BearShrooms

BearShrooms
4 months ago#83
Actually everything people are freaking about in this thread is illegal, NN or not, throttling and charging per access is a violation of FTC anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws. But good job spreading that misinformation.

User Info: BearShrooms

BearShrooms
4 months ago#84
MUD VIPER posted...
arleas posted...
I know I'm late to the game but...

MUD VIPER posted...
Because now you're going to have to do that.

Really wish there was a rolling eyes emoji.


🙄

It does not have to be Valve, Comcast/Cable companies can now charge that to access Steam/Uplay/ect.


Yep, just like they did prior to 2015... oh wait.


They didn't charge extra... they just flat out blocked or throttled anything they didn't like, and mostly what they didn't like were services like ones they offered but didn't control.

They also could just go straight to valve and say "pay us, b****". That's pretty much what they did to Netflix and the League of Legends guys.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/21/16010766/verizon-netflix-throttling-statement-net-neutrality-title-ii

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/291284/New_York_sues_Time_Warner_over_throttled_League_of_Legends_speeds.php

And there were all these incidents (someone else already listed them so I'm just gonna link you to it)
https://np.reddit.com/r/KeepOurNetFree/comments/7ej1nd/fcc_unveils_its_plan_to_repeal_net_neutrality/dq5hlwd/?sh=45a33b81&st=JAA62V5F

Oh but no, this stuff won't happen again and again and again, because everyone is so damned trustworthy that silly laws aren't necessary.

Here's the problem though, they were still doing these types of things when *GASP* NN was reclassified under title 2 in 2015 until now, again, begging the question of what was NN under title 2's purpose.


Title II didn't do anything to prevent what everyone is clamoring about, all of that was literally already illegal under the FTC. Companies that were "throttling" and what not were already breaking the law. Title II gave the government the unfettered ability to control the internet to THEIR liking.

User Info: khunki

khunki
4 months ago#85
vlado_e posted...

So, people can live without most of what's on the internet, however, having a paywall to access most of what's on the internet will make the internet suck. Huh, it seems like you're contradicting yourself there.


No, I'm not. My point is that most people use most of the internet because they can, not because they HAVE to. For example, most of it is used for things like free porn, reddit, imgur, twitter, facebook, etc. Put those things behind a paywall and most of that traffic would plummet. No more browsing Reddit or GameFAQs at work.

vlado_e posted...

You are focusing on only one aspect seemingly as a way to disregard the point. ISPs would be able to control what you do and what you do not have access to. That's some serious 1984 stuff there.

You don't even seem to offer a reason for why this should be allowed. The entire point you've made so far is "it's fine if people will be forced to pay more, because the ISPs can charge them more, anyway". So, care to provide an argument why that is a good idea? I've already shown you it's not only a matter of the customer paying more, so that's out the window.


You brought up the political aspect! I was just addressing it. As for the other point, I haven't commented on whether I think this is good or bad but I think I can assume that you think this is bad. The whole issue seems to be that some people think that the government should come in and control businesses to make people's internet access better as if it is a human right, while other people think that the government should let ISPs do what the ISPs want to do with their own business models and let consumers/market will decide what is right. Personally, as a consumer if I REALLY want something, I find a provider and pay the required price.

KillerTruffle posted...

Totally common tactic for him - he moves the goalposts for his arguments so much they might as well be made of jello.


Somebody's got a crush on me!
X

User Info: BearShrooms

BearShrooms
4 months ago#86
vlado_e posted...
You are focusing on only one aspect seemingly as a way to disregard the point. ISPs would be able to control what you do and what you do not have access to. That's some serious 1984 stuff there.


But Title II granting the government the ability to do the same thing isn't "some serious 1984 stuff"?

Do you even know what the Net-Neutrality laws actually did?

User Info: vlado_e

vlado_e
4 months ago#87
khunki posted...
Personally, as a consumer if I REALLY want something, I find a provider and pay the required price.

I still don't see an argument for ISPs having free reign. You are just saying "if an ISP is being bad, I should be able to bail", why would you want he ISP to be able to be bad in the first place?
We do what we must / because we can. / For the good of all of us. / Except the ones who are dead.

User Info: khunki

khunki
4 months ago#88
vlado_e posted...
khunki posted...
Personally, as a consumer if I REALLY want something, I find a provider and pay the required price.

I still don't see an argument for ISPs having free reign. You are just saying "if an ISP is being bad, I should be able to bail", why would you want he ISP to be able to be bad in the first place?


I thought I made it clear that I don't think they are being "bad" or "good". I think if they were being "bad" then the majority of people in the country would stop using that service as punishment. I think people can make that choice because I don't believe that the internet is a human right, it's a service which is mostly used for leisure activities.
X

User Info: KillerTruffle

KillerTruffle
4 months ago#89
khunki posted...
I think if they were being "bad" then the majority of people in the country would stop using that service as punishment. I think people can make that choice because I don't believe that the internet is a human right, it's a service which is mostly used for leisure activities.

Human right? Of course not. No more than electricity, running water, phone service, etc. It IS as essential for modern society as many of those other things though, and as such, should be treated and regulated as a common carrier utility accordingly.
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23
#90
(message deleted)
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Would you pay $9.99 a month for Steam?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived