Is STEAM app safe?

[Ertman]

10 hours ago, LOST TALE said:

So I did not mean to reply to the trust part of your post. Rather, it was the last part I took issue with: "people should not pay for some jackass's steam libary, because, you wil eventuly pay more than he paid for the games and then he wil make money on that!"

 

In regards to the grocer, the grocer charges a premium for the service of convenience over you purchasing it elsewhere, you're paying for that. The grocer doesn't make any food. Some prepare meals on the spot, and you can count that. And regardless, whether it is a service or good does not matter.

In the grocer example, if the topic is specifically about whether a party profiting off of the transaction is good or bad, then whether it be a good or service doesn’t really matter as it has no real bearing on the topic. It’s still a bit disingenuous to use the grocer example when a Netflix one works sooo much easier.

 

However, if we are talking about larger scheme and larger more generalized comparisons the transactions of goods vs services can matter and the process of how they service or good is delivered has substantive value.

 

Similar to how I outlined before if you want to take the grocer example and use it as a general and fair comparison to a guy selling access to his personal steam library, you’d have to address what grocer is, how the funds transfer is done in a similar manner, how the goods and service is obtained and/or exchanged in a similar way, how the business operates within similar legal framework. Address whether having a physical location matters to the participants of the transaction. Without reducing the scope of comparison, they are an Apple vs Orange comparison as they are not similar business models nor do they exchange their product/services similarity, basically everything but exchange of a good/service for profit is different.

[LOST TALE]

On 8/20/2020 at 7:29 AM, Ertman said:

In the grocer example, if the topic is specifically about whether a party profiting off of the transaction is good or bad, then whether it be a good or service doesn’t really matter as it has no real bearing on the topic. It’s still a bit disingenuous to use the grocer example when a Netflix one works sooo much easier.

 

However, if we are talking about larger scheme and larger more generalized comparisons the transactions of goods vs services can matter and the process of how they service or good is delivered has substantive value.

 

Similar to how I outlined before if you want to take the grocer example and use it as a general and fair comparison to a guy selling access to his personal steam library, you’d have to address what grocer is, how the funds transfer is done in a similar manner, how the goods and service is obtained and/or exchanged in a similar way, how the business operates within similar legal framework. Address whether having a physical location matters to the participants of the transaction. Without reducing the scope of comparison, they are an Apple vs Orange comparison as they are not similar business models nor do they exchange their product/services similarity, basically everything but exchange of a good/service for profit is different.

You still have yet to make a case as to how any of the differences between the two are relevant to the question. You mention differences but do not make the case that these differences have any effect on the conclusion.

 

The buyer prefers paying a subscription than buying games individually, therefore this option is more valuable to the buyer and good. All your stuff is irrelevant.

 

As well, the expected revenue from selling subscriptions drives purchases of games by the subscription broker.

[Ertman]

11 hours ago, LOST TALE said:

You still have yet to make a case as to how any of the differences between the two are relevant to the question. You mention differences but do not make the case that these differences have any effect on the conclusion.

 

The buyer prefers paying a subscription than buying games individually, therefore this option is more valuable to the buyer and good. All your stuff is irrelevant.

 

As well, the expected revenue from selling subscriptions drives purchases of games by the subscription broker.

The question was whether the two scenarios of a grocer selling grocery items and a person renting out the use of their private collection of games are equivalent. They just aren’t. Your counter argument is nothing but changing the goal posts, and claiming counter arguments are irrelevant even if they have an effect on the very nature of the economic interaction.

 

Its still a false equivalency when nearly all the elements of the economic interactions differ, especially those of intrinsic value.

 

Clearly we don’t see eye to eye, I think this just have to be a topic where we will have to just disagree.

[Potatocell]

On 8/17/2020 at 8:25 PM, Randel1980 said:

In steam launcher. When launching a game I can choose which computer to remote to or just run on " This Computer"

I think that means he shares the account with other people not just you and its asking what PC you want to launch the game on.

 

so no they cannot see your PC or remote access it. But people can launch a game you have installed on your pc so it would only annoy you to have a game start running when you do not want it to run.

 

What you are doing is a thing ive seen people who to make money. They are abusing the family share. the only bad this is the account could be one that was stolen or hacked into and changed all the info so the owner cant take it back if they have hacked the owners email to do so. I would never trust this as you dont know what you are getting into. It seems like a good deal and sure its legit but in the end you'll end up paying way more and you could be paying a criminal helping them do more bad stuff