How is it objectively good?. Valve are already making games, just not games *you* want. When are Ubisoft going to start making games *I* want?. DO you see how that works?.

It's not fair if you get your way and I don't get mine, but life in general isn't fair, so Valve does what it wants to do. It's a private company, not a publicly traded one like Epic and Ubisoft. 

Console level exclusivity in the PC space is disgusting, and IO wish the cancer would be cut out from the body. 

Well seeing as how it's been seen and talked about, that buying up exclusivity on PC isn't a good practice, it really isn't to be counted as a good one.

In the console space, you need to sell those plastic boxes, but on PC you don't need to sell hw, you don't even need to sell a storefront as signing up for one costs literally nothing. ALl this does is force people back and forth in a game of musical chairs, only they get yanked around with less and less benefits each time, while publishers and studios reap more and more. That's not a good thing, it's never a good thing for the consumer to lose out,m even in the slightest. Why should the consumer ever have to lose out in any sort of deal?.

What exactly would Valve do to gain back the likes of Ubisoft?, a company that still thinks PC gamers as pirates (their 4 layer DRM and Uplay requirement state this boldy) and wants more and more money. You can't pull the "develop more games" tactic, because they are already making games and have released one recently. They already have tools on Steam for you to use in order to filter out games you don't like as well.

Also another thing, since when has your idea (or anyone else's for that matter) of "curation" been objectively better for me?. I ask this, because every time someone mentions that X store needs "curation", they seemingly forget that said "curation" requires subjective input and subjective action to be taken. You're effectively using a small group, or single person's bias, in determining what I should play, vs what we all could play.

I've seen Jim sterling argue about curation and how it mucks things up. We've also seen how this rolled over on GoG, when a moderator disallowed a game onto their storefront, simply because they thought it was a mobile game, when in reality it was a puzzle game from a known puzzle game dev. Curation is subjective, it is also very flawed on it's own. It's never objective and it always serves for one particular groups tastes. 

If Steam was to heavily or even "lightly" curate itself, we wouldn't get one hit wonders like Undertale or Stardew Valley, simply because they look like a typical RPG maker game. 

I do not agree with Epic doing this, and I absolutely hate Tencent with a passion. I strongly feel that Tencent just wants to own everything and control what they can get a hold of. Has Chinese gaming ever truly cared about what th West wants?. Have they been totally legit fair on their side of the games industry, with zero MT's in their games, and plenty of fully fledged, well written SP games, ones that aren't complete and utter copyrighted ripoffs?. 

What I want are more effective filters for me to use so I don't have to search through tons of shovelware games when looking for deals. If there is a method where I can ignore these on their lists then by all means tell me. I would be thrilled. That being said, there is nothing wrong with someone wanting to not see a ton of these little games. I'm not advocating that Steam block or make these games hard to find. I simply want a tool I can use to not have to sift through hundreds of "Oppai Girl" or "Elder Killer" games. I don't have any issue with these games existing. Hell I was fine with AIDS Simulator or Active Shooter. They just don't have any relevance to my interests and it's a pain in the ass for me to browse their lists because of it.