I don't think it's a very good point to make. "I'm a consumer, but it doesn't affect MY bottom line, so it's not anti-consumer". Well, sure, I guess.

>I don't think it's a good thing to only point out a systematic issue when it's inconviient. That's how these "but it worked here" sorts of issues become abused. I'd rather point out how this snowball is rolling before it becomes a boulder later on, especially when boulders have already formed and gone not nearly as mentioned.

That's how you appear tone deaf. You're making your "hot take" under a legitimate case of review systems working as they were intended, it's not part of the systematic issue.

>Pet peeve: "anti-consumer" has lost all meaning. Paying $10 more was "anti consumer", downloading a store of your own preference is "anti-consumer". Now making an account you don't like is "anti-consumer"? You see how this word has gotten diluted in the gaming community, no? I miss when inconveniences were just that, inconvient. Not a declaration of war for capitalism.

I'm not sure what war you think anyone is declaring, this is merely a bunch of frustrated paid customers voicing their opinion. There are many things in gaming, and well everywhere else, that are indeed anti-consumer. I think it's why it may appear to you that the word is diluted. Ultimately, it's down to communication between the company and their customers: if the market views something anti-consumer as "acceptable", then those things would not cause a negative reaction of this scale. I'm not saying Sony was unjustified in requiring a PSN link, but it was communicated poorly and after the game has already been sold to people who would be losing their access a result of it. It's not a new practice either: many games do require you to create an account with their or someone else's service to enable different online features, like crossplay. It's not really a problem until it's handled in a way that it becomes one.

There are probably times when you could make an argument like this, but this isn't one of them. A company pulled something very anti-consumer, and the review system was instrumental in holding them accountable.

It's mostly DXVK/Proton's VKD3D that actually allowed a lot of games to work on Linux with little overhead, both are funded by Valve. So I don't think calling upon Pareto principle in regards to Valve is fair either.