> I've read that Valve just ignores emails from game developers they're not interested in
Details on that would be interesting. I have to say my first thought is that they probably get a lot of indie developers that want on the Network, and don't want to devote and entire position to explaining why not every publisher gets in Steam just because they want to.
> In Team Fortress 2 ... they ruined the game's integrity through introducing a microtransaction economy
So, they take their free to play game, and add the ability to customize your characters in ways that don't affect gameplay that make them money, and they have all of a sudden ruined the integrity of the game? Is it ruined because they want to make some money from it? I seem to remember that when they were just starting the hats, they were also putting out large updates for the player classes, for free.
> take advantage of to promote other Steam games.
You state that like it's bad for it's own sake. What's wrong with them promoting their other games?
> So, they take their free to play game, and add the ability to customize your characters in ways that don't affect gameplay that make them money, and they have all of a sudden ruined the integrity of the game?
I haven't played any TF2 and don't have any strong opinions on it, I just wanted to point out that it wasn't originally free to play. It was released as part of The Orange Box in 2007 and went free about 4 years later.
As wlesieutre mentioned, Team Fortress 2 wasn't free until after microtransactions have been around for some time.
Early on, the game had a consistent 1960s theme and each character had a consistent distinct sillhouette and behavior, so the game was easy to pick up and it was reasonable to play it competitively. It had great game design. Over time they ruined all of that for the sake of profiting off of addicted players.
I really can't muster much support for your indignation.
I can't help but think that the hats actually add to the game, by allowing players to choose a semi-custom look for their character while playing, making a specific character easily identifiable.
Your reasoning make it sound like you're just upset that they took something that you had been accustomed to, and changed it. I note how you didn't mention any stats, or even a hunch as to whether most players liked or disliked the hats.
Additionally, you cast the players as "addicted", and Valve as somehow taking advantage of their addiction. Let's get this straight. The players aren't addicted to TF2 (even if you somehow proved they could be addicted to competitive FPS muliplayer, there's plenty of alternatives), and Valve isn't taking advantage. To do so they would have to be preventing play unless people bought something, which they aren't. They simply provided an additional, fully opt-in set of features.
Finally, if you don't like playing with hats because it ruins some behavior you had come to rely on, find other people that feel the same way and start your own server and enforce a strict policy of exactly what's allowed. That's done often in serious competitive play anyways, isn't it?
Details on that would be interesting. I have to say my first thought is that they probably get a lot of indie developers that want on the Network, and don't want to devote and entire position to explaining why not every publisher gets in Steam just because they want to.
> In Team Fortress 2 ... they ruined the game's integrity through introducing a microtransaction economy
So, they take their free to play game, and add the ability to customize your characters in ways that don't affect gameplay that make them money, and they have all of a sudden ruined the integrity of the game? Is it ruined because they want to make some money from it? I seem to remember that when they were just starting the hats, they were also putting out large updates for the player classes, for free.
> take advantage of to promote other Steam games.
You state that like it's bad for it's own sake. What's wrong with them promoting their other games?