Reposting my comment from the other post:

Stores should only provide DRM, and anything else that they do must be optional.

But earlier:

I would rather pay a fraction of the price to play a game for one month than pretend digitally distributed games have the lifespan of a boxed physical product.

So, DRM is bad… but acceptable if it's only DRM?

If DRM is a critical failure point for game preservation and ownership, then a store providing only DRM is still part of the problem.

In lieu of even the simplest commitment by Valve... Game Pass represent far greater value to consumers.

Game Pass is the epitome of temporary, self-updating, DRM-heavy software that you can't patch, mod, or preserve. Yet it’s presented as a solution?

Valve does not expect users to delete their account; they think... nobody will ever hold them accountable.

Then:

They claim that upon deleting your account, your community posts will remain and will be attributed to [deleted], however this is not true...

Wait, isn't it contradictory to say they didn’t expect users to delete accounts while criticizing their policy on deleted accounts?

Because the Steam client patches itself... their DRM prevents running Windows 98-era games on original hardware.

That shit is 25 years old. Does this goober really think it's reasonable to expect support for an obsolete operating system?

Also, is this really a steam-only issue?

Valve's... design deliberately hooks and blocks access to those APIs as part of Steam Input's initialization.

This is typical behavior of API abstraction layers.

If Steam Input replaces lower-level APIs, that’s exactly what it’s designed to do. Epic, Microsoft, and others do the same. The difference is the option to disable it - not the architectural behavior itself.

In summation: This dingbat is a walking contradiction with an axe to grind.