Why would they sell it for cheap, if they can sell it for just a little but under current market value and maximize the profit? People would buy it, if it is the cheapest option. Which does not mean it will be cheap overall, if its constantly sold out.

My old computer is 16gb DDR-3, as I used it long time before jumping over to 32gb DDR-5 based systems. And thanks to consoles and rising handhelds (first gen Steam Deck <3), 16gb will be still the base floor for long time it seems.

I can still support the companies that support me and what I care. And Steam is the only gaming company that does that. I would rather buy and play on Steam than on any other platform. No one says its a perfect place. Doing profit for the company is what I want them to do, otherwise I wouldn’t trust the company exist in the future. And compared to most other gaming companies, Valve is still a private company that does not need to bend its knees for investors. They are very much interested into surviving long term with happy customers. And they support Open Source and Linux. These are very important values to me.

How? Also my statement is correct. Just because you don’t like the company does not change the fact that lot of Indie game developers and game stars get famous in Steam. If they sign an exclusive contract on Epic, it will most likely die (as we seen it again and again). Valve (Steam) on the other hand support the things I like and want to use, like Linux and Open Source. They pay open source developers to do stuff and it benefits me, the eco system, the community and other companies.

So what is the problem you have?

Edit: In other words: Don’t tell me what to do, convince me.

The point is, does it someone? This archive is doing exactly what you say someone could do, copying the software to a place that most likely will survive. They give some examples to what dangers are there, even for open source software. In example, are all Git repositories on Github and other personal repositories backed up on a safe place that will be available to the public at same place? All versions of it?

Not all code is big and used as often and secured like the Linux code in example. 20 years from now, there will be software, that most individuals and companies will not have anymore on their servers and may not even care. Hardware fails, services disappear and so on. It’s like arguing that anyone can do a website copy to archive it, but does anyone do it? Same thing applies here.

What exactly is the problem? What would be different if it wasn’t sponsored by Microsoft and Google? It would be sponsored by others and they do the exact same job. I am not saying you have to use it. I just don’t get the point as a reason to avoid. I mean look, maybe if you have good reasoning maybe I will change my mind and avoid it too. But would you avoid Linux too then?

Sponsored just means its giving money to do the job. Otherwise, Linux and many other open source projects are sponsored by Microsoft and Google.

I think this is the right page that addresses this question: https://www.softwareheritage.org/mission/software-is-fragile/

Don’t tell me what to do.

Steam is where Indie stars are born. Epic is where games die.

Just like big corporations. Money is the reason why they go closed source… the fear of using their open source code, while using others open source software.

Not all of them.

Well Deadlock didn’t officially launch yet.