I wouldn't count on millions of people suddenly all deciding to boycott now, if all the egregious practices of this industry weren't enough to get them to do it already.
Seems like any customer rights now only exist in direct defiance of corporations and whatever unreasonable unilateral rules they set without consulting anyone else.
Enshittification advances. Consoles already are the prime example of devices that act as if they are still owned by the company rather than the customer, but they somehow find even more ways to make it worse...
Definitely, technical problems are another reason not to be overly strict.
Ironman mode absolutely has value, but this gets into a greater discussion that I feel more gamers should keep in mind. The value of these restrictions and challenges are your entertainment as well as fairness towards the people you are actively playing with. Game rules are all arbitrary by definition. It doesn't really matter if someone playing by themselves completes an Ironman mode fairly or cheats at it.
It's because gamers were convinced to take game rules more seriously than they deserve that today some believe that fictional items in a remote server they don't control can be worth hundreds of dollars. That hundreds of hours of RPG grind are somehow a necessary requirement to play a match of a game with someone else, and also that paying to rush this entirely artificial aspect of the game is worthwhile.
If the developers of a game prefer that it's played in Ironman that's fair, but there is no need to come up with exceedingly complex and restrictive solutions to police how people play. If they don't want to play differently, that's fine too.
At the point the game allows multiple manual saves, rewinding decisions is trivial. There is not much of a point in restricting autosaves too.
The only way a game can enforce permanent decisions is if it only has auto-saves, in which case it could have a couple hidden backup saves just to prevent any issue from ruining people's progress. Even then that's not enough if players are willing to tinker, but at least it's not trivial.
Online saves are an option too but I wouldn't be too fond of a game that is needlessly restricted to online-only just to make decisions permanent.
Collectible tracker after getting to a certain threshold. I get that people don't like maps cluttered with stuff, but if someone gets to a point they got over 60% of a thing, it's likely they want to go for all of them, so the option to give them at least a general searching area should be provided.
Magic: The Gathering and Dice Throne get regular updates. These are tabletop games. Are they live services? Of course not.
Well... MTG is as close as a live service game can be as a physical object, including questionable monetization practices. The booster pack is very similar in principle to the lootbox. They also can ensure continuous sales through power creep and controlling what cards are allowed in official competitive formats. It's not the absolute control that digital live services allow, but it's nearly there. As a more practical comparison, MTG is more manipulative than card games that allow players to pick full sets that they want.
Then we have MTG Arena that is a Live Service in every aspect. They don't let you freely host those games either.
This question, I can't deal with it. It just kills a bit more of hope for the future that people are thinking like this.
First of all it's trivial to copy and distribute digital media. There's no great obstacle that impedes players to run games effectively indefinitely, it's a matter of unwillingness. The game is not ephemeral, company support is ephemeral.
Don't you like the games that you play today? Do you really think nobody will want to play them in the future?
There are people running Quake 3 Arena servers still today. That's a game from 1999. That's not even bringing up how people figured out how to run even older couch multiplayer games online.
Can you imagine if that was said out of any other medium? "Why not just acknowledge that books are ephemeral?" That would be an outrageous notion and it would be regarded as a massive failure of society towards culture. Yet we have a whole new medium that would be trivial to preserve if not for deliberate obstacles put in the way, and there are people treating it as a lost cause. It boggles my mind!
Not necessarily, but there's some correlation. Games widely praised either are quality games or they resonate with their audience in some particular way, which can be itself an indication of value. Conversely a game that is widely panned might have some significant flaws or be lacking in some fundamental way.
Sure, there is always the odd Garfield Kart meme and some controversy skewing that. But because lists of reviews are easily available on the store page you can look at what is it that the other customers are praising or criticizing, and make your mind based on whether you see merits in these opinions.
Overall, even if you don't trust popular opinion, it's still a very useful tool. Frankly, often more useful than mainstream game reviews that tend to be overly lenient with triple-A publishers, and neglect indies.
A chance to win the access to use a fictional character/weapon that will be revoked as soon as the game closes. Seems like even more of a scam than regular gambling, and that's already pretty iffy.
In principle I agree that it's preferable to have the old game as a visible download on the store but you should understand that it's unusual for evolving online games to offer older versions in any manner these days, nevermind let players host games independently. That Valve provides this possibility at all, even if in a convoluted way, already puts them miles above Blizzard.
CS 2 even allows for players to carry over their whole collection of skins, which is something many players care deeply about and even invested significant money on. Which is itself a questionable matter but I can't deny that this is important for the players. Maybe this is why it was made into a new version of CS:GO rather than a separate thing.
I think it's fair to demand that old CS:GO is added to Steam in a more transparent form, but it's a matter of convenience rather than them taking anything away from the players like Blizzard did.