I strongly agree with the merit of the first link's argument. Cross play is important.

The second one seems reasonable, factually accurate, and not a big deal.

I dislike the third argument regarding crypto because I think crypto is trash, but I do think Steam's (and many others) 30% cut of transactions is predatory vs. Epic's 12%. I also think it is predatory to require that games use the Steam Wallet for in app purchases meaning that steam gets a cut.

None of these are blaming Valve for being successful.

Tim's saying that Valve not supporting cross play is 'classic lock-in'

That's absolutely blame to me, but you're entitled to your own interpretation

> They have a classic lock-in strategy where they build these services that only work with their store, and they use the fact that they have the majority market share in order to encourage everybody to ship games that have a broken experience in other stores... And we were bitten by this early on with a number of multiplayer games coming to the Epic Games Store. Steamworks didn't work on our store, so they had either a reduced set of multiplayer features or none...

What's controversial about that? What's he blaming them for?

Competition is good for consumers. If Steams leadership position is making it harder to have quality, viable alternative game stores that's bad for dev's and consumers long term.

I strongly agree that it is anti-competitive and anti-consumer to not allow crossplay.

That's not blaming Valve for being successful. That's calling them out for anti-consume practices.

That's a fine opinion to have. Carry on.

"Carry on" implies superiority on your end and is a dickish thing to say.