So I agree that you can kinda twist around the definition of product, and things get complicated when a product includes other services. But (and maybe this is what you meant by reduction to absurdity) I'm not sure how its possible to think the product of a game is actually not just a game, but also everything else that the game requires in order to achieve some level of use-value. I mean, I feel like most people recognize that the computer is a separate product than the game. Or that when you buy a car -- you're not also buying the gas to run the car.

I think one of the nice things about LTV is that it allows for subjective valuation of some thing or service, use-value, that is completely separate from a more objective (though, not completely) valuation of that thing or service that is based on a concrete number of raw materials + a somewhat concrete number of labor price.

So, you're saying you can't accept a theory of value that holds that a multiplayer game that cannot be played. I think that is reasonable, in this instance, but the issue is that isn't scalable to other instances. The use-value of a particular product or service to you may be different from the use-value for another. For example, a non-working vintage camera or street-illegal car -- you may say "well, it's a camera that doesn't take pictures, therefore it has no value. It's a car that doesn't drive, it's got no value." but it's apparent that people will pay for these things, so they must have some value, right? At least if we take the inverse of your later implication that

[It] would have no value because there are no consumers.

Though, maybe I shouldn't assume that you also imply that if there are consumers, there is value. I think, though, that is the neoclassical assumption -- that if there is someone paying, then the product or service has some value that is equal to the price paid.

In my view, LTV allows for these cases, and even those where there is no consumer, like a game that can only be run on the Mars rover, because there is some value that was created based on the labor and raw materials independent from the infrastructure required to realize that value and turn it into cash.

And yes, I wont deny that part of Valve's business is selling products of their own to gamers (btw, such a timely announcement! i am so hyped) but I'd argue the majority of their money comes from commission on games sold on Steam -- to me, this establishes game devs as Valve's primary customer (though, more in the way that Walmart or Amazon's primary customers are the companies and craftspeople who sell their products there) rather than gamers.

To take another example, train engines are valuable because train tracks exist and vice-versa. There is no service to sell with just one of the two.

But this isn't exactly true, is it? Train engines may be bought by a company or state that owns the lines, or vice versa. They can be independently sold as products. A train ticket is just purchasing access to infrastructure, so I'm not sure its worthwhile using a ticket as an example, since its value is all wrapped up in other factors such as the distance the traveler is going, the date and time they're embarking, etc.

But I have not seen a strong argument that valve has been anti-competitive with this privilege, and I think it is just wrong to assert that valve does not contribute to many of the games cited in this thread

I agree with this, I'm not sure I can call out anti-competitive practices. I think its fair to say Valve makes experiences with some games better -- assuming a multiplayer game uses Valve's servers, for example -- but I'd still say that is more akin to saying "the road makes the car better" where I'd also recognize that the road doesn't add value to the car (in my view).

Or maybe this is a better scenario: imagine there are no (or very few) sporting goods stores in a whole country. But! there are basketball courts -- open to the public, but owned by a private company. It's one of the best places to play basketball. They maintain the court so well, and its always open. But, it's one of the only places that sells basketballs, which are manufactured by another private companies. I wouldn't personally say the company that owns the court contributes value to the basketballs, despite much of their (the basketball's) use-value being tied up with the existence of the court. I'd say they have an access to a resource (players) that basketball manufacturers require to realize their value, and they charge a rent or a tax on them to access that resource. And that they retain access to that resource by maintaining the best court, and, sometimes, selling a basketball of their own (which also happens to be one of the better quality basketballs out there, because they just can afford to)

Edit: (in this scenario, I'm not saying the company that owns the basketball courts did so by being anticompetitive, btw. they did it by maintaining the best court, after all. another private company could open up their own court and compete, right? everything is just as it should be! Well, I'd say not quite, considering the dominance of the already-established company. While this may be well and good and just from a neoclassical perspective, the power consolidation is too significant, to me, to justify as, erhm...how things ought to be, i guess?)

Pretty sure at this point we are just debating (well, lightly. maybe, more accurately, discussing?) the neoclassical concept of "value" that is simply intertwined with "price" vs the marxist concept of "value" which is separated from "price." It's worth noting, if you haven't already guessed, I'm not an economist and hardly equipped to debate the merits of these two, erm, ideologies(?) so I'm trying to frame all this as my conception of LT which -- well yknow I'm prone to mistakes and misconceptions.

But yeah anyways those are my thoughts on the whole thing -- mostly I'd maintain Valve's main business model is closer to a digital fiefdom than it is to the classical model of capitalism that is produce and sell a product. (and I guess one more side-point. I think that their cash from this side of the business allows them to take a really long time creating more traditional products marketed toward gamers. This is just a feeling, but they have the resources for their products to fail, and to aggressively price them in a fashion where they don't even make a profit from them. Similar to how Meta isn't making a profit from Quest headsets -- the idea is to just get people into the Meta ecosystem.)

Anyways x2 sorry for the long-ass reply. I was chewing on what you said for a couple days, thinking, "this dude is crazy -- how could they believe that a product includes all this other stuff?" but i think i might see your point? lemme know if i missed it. thanks