• SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    Then again, Valve gets 30% to 20% of the benefits from all sales from their platform. It’s easier to be generous when everyone has to pay you to make cash.

    • MudMan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      This.

      Valve doesn’t release games, it releases ads for Steam.

      Which is fine. It’s great. Makes for great, cheap products and long-term strategies that aren’t trying to shake all the money off of you.

      But that’s the end goal, still.

      As a friendly reminder, Valve also universalized DRM, invented multiple new types of microtransactions and actually kinda invented NFTs for a little bit.

      • GreenMario@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Invented the loot box y’all love so much. Tried to invent paid mods. Valve is still a Corpo and corpos gonna corpos

        • vulgarcynic@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Playing a touch of devils advocate here but, how are patreon only mods any different than what valve was trying to do? It seems if mod makers wanna get paid for their work they should be able to monetize it in via any avenue that fits their fans abilities.

        • Moneo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Honestly I’ll defend TF2 loot boxes til I die. There are valid complaints as far as casual gamers go but as someone who played the game for thousands of hours the cosmetic system added a lot of longevity to the game. It was a fun ecosystem to engage with and compared to modern games where you spend $15-20 on a single cosmetic item it was an absolute bargain. If you got tired of an item you could trade it for something else too.

          Idk maybe I just got indoctrinated but I have so many positive memories of that game and interacting with the cosmetic system. These days every game you play is shoving their store front in your face. Every cosmetic is $20 and if you don’t buy it now it’s lost forever. Don’t want to spend money? Ok here’s an “event” where you need to play the game 2 hours a day for a week to unlock some meh items and if you don’t then fuck you those items are gone forever.

          Sorry I’m ranting.

          • MudMan@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I actually agree that loot boxes aren’t intrinsically bad.

            I mean, I was buying Magic the Gathering cards before anybody got mad at making blind purchases. The entire field is called Gacha because it’s modelled on analogue equivalents people don’t mind at all.

            But that’s not what the community will tell you. Loot boxes are THE problem, if you ask this in a different context. Fundamentally predatory.

            Unless you bring it up in this, and only this context. When Valve does it it’s fine. Never mind that they had and actual gambling problem around their retradeable cosmetic loot box drops. Or that their implementation is indistinguishable from others. Or that they have a pattern of innovating in the monetization space not just with loot boxes but with battlepasses, cosmetics and other stuff people claim to not like when other people do it.

            The shocker isn’t the actual business practices, it’s the realization that you can get so good at PR that you can’t just get away with it, but have the exact same people that are out there asking for the government to intervene to stop those actively defend you against the mere suggestion that your business model is your actual business model.

            Look, I was out there during the big loot box controversies that there were babies going out with thtat bathwater. I like me some Hearthstone and CCGs and other games that do those things. I like a bunch of free to play things. Got a TON of crap every time I even dared to float that online. UNLESS it comes up in a conversation about Valve. Then I get crap flung in the opposite direction.

            I’m not saying you shouldn’t like them, I’m saying that brief “maybe I’m indoctrinated” moment of realization should make you take a minute and reassess your relationships with brands and corporations. We are all subject to PR influence.

            • DroneRights [it/its]@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Your argument rests on the claim that Valve’s implementation of these practices is indistinguishable from hated industry standards, but I disagree.

              • MudMan@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The “hated industry standards” are in many cases directly copied from the Valve implementations that predate them, so… yeah.

                I mean, I haven’t played CS2 yet, and definitely haven’t played CS:GO in a while, but I may need you to point me at the timecode in this video where the superior free-range loot boxes are way better than in, say, Call of Duty, because I’m not sure I caught it the first time.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJGY6RGPCnY

                And again, I’m not against these on principle. I think unboxing videos are a bit weird and I don’t see the appeal of opening tons of boxes in one sitting in real life, either… but this is the exact same implementation being criticized elsewhere.

          • RobotsLeftHand@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Agreed. It sounds weird saying, but I feel that Valve did these things right or at least fixed them quickly thereafter. I’ve never felt any sense of pay-to-win or being left out playing TF2. Quite the opposite. I’d get the new items quick enough, and if there was anything in there articular I’d want then there was a robust market willing to make it happen for cheaper than I thought. And “cheaper” referring to in-game items.

        • MudMan@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That was slightly facetious. I just spent the entirety of the NFT bubble reminding people that tradeable tokens attached to JPGs is something that Valve invented to do with their dumb trading cards when they introduced those and we all saw in real time that all of them trend to zero value immediately.

          I kept asking cryptobros to explain why their new tokenized JPGs were gonna behave any differently and it turns out there really wasn’t a particularly good answer to that one.

          For the record, those get updated and get total overhauls because they are driven by cosmetics MTX and/or battlepasses, both of which Valve straight-up invented in their modern form.

          So I guess yeah, they either make cutting edge innovations in monetization design for games-as-service things or they put out ads for Steam. I think the larger point holds.

          • AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t understand your point. It’s bad that they give out free games and constantly update them because they make money on cosmetics? That’s somehow worse or as bad as companies that make the same game every year, charge an arm and a leg for it and then have micro transactions on top of it? Or they’re bad because they innovate and then other companies take their ideas and make them shittier? What’s your point, exactly?

            • MudMan@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, they don’t make them shittier. My point is that they’re in it for the money, the money just flows in different ways. Their battlepasses weren’t any better or worse than anybody else’s, and neither are their cosmetics.

              They just get a pass because their brand is rock solid and they run very quiet and very cheap with a very long term view enabled by being a private company. That’s not good or bad, it’s a corporation out to make corporation things and doing them very well.

              • AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Their cosmetics are miles better because you can resell them on a market that they maintain. You really don’t know what you’re talking about.

                • yuri@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No dog, you just really like the thing they’re talking about and it’s coloring your reaction. The points they’re making are actually very reasonable, but your responses read like they’re just criticizing Valve as a matter of opinion rather than practice.

    • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think you’re missing the principle. They could still charge for it, they simply won’t. Think of it this way, if it was EA in that situation would they give it away for free? Somehow I doubt it because EA does things for profit. This is a potential avenue for profit and which means not asking money for it would go against the goal of EA.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, this is cool and all, but it’s like Epic posting a game for free, which they do every week or so. People still complain about Epic being greedy or whatever though. I like the products Valve makes, but this isn’t particularly amazing, just fairly nice to have.

      • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Epic paid people for exclusivity in an attempt to force the customer to use its shitty platform. The free games are just bribes to try to get us to use it. And it’s still not working very well for them.

        Nobody would have complained (well ok, some would have, but few) if they just tried to make a better store than steam and get people to use it that way.

        They could still do the free games as a bribe, to get people to check out the store, but the store would actually need to not be garbage. The exclusivity payments really rankled people though.

        • sandriver@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I bought one timed exclusive on Epic (Stranger of Paradise), it left the entire redundant download behind without moving it and devoured 220 GB of my SSD in the process, and I decided I never wanted to use the Epic store again.

          I’d love to move to GOG, but then I’d have to go through Lutris, which is currently in the process of crashing constantly for reasons the devs don’t fully understand, so RIP to that I guess.

      • Deiv@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Doesn’t change that it’s a lot lol they’re also basically “the industry”

  • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, not every company is shitting money like Valve.

    They can afford to do this because of their technical monopoly.

    • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Blizzard, Bethesda, Epic, EA and many others have more money than Valve. So what’s their excuse for not giving free games? Hell EA earned on micro-transactions for FIFA more than GDP of some countries.

      • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Activision Blizzard annual net income for 2022 was $1.513B

        In fiscal year 2022, EA posted GAAP net revenue of approximately $7 billion

        Epic Games revenue is $5.76 billion according to figures reported in 2021

        Valve generated around USD13 billion in total revenue in 2022

        Also,

        So what’s their excuse for not giving free games?

        Did you really ask this after including Epic?

        But these comparisons are ridiculous anyway. Neither of these companies are your friends, and trying to understand their behavior in terms of anything other than profit-seeking is only going to lead to you feeling betrayed. Gamers’ obsession with defending Steam is so ridiculous that no one ever disputes the idea that Apple and Google are being abusive with their store policies, but calling out Steam for doing the exact same always brings dozens of people out of the woods who think it’s a controversial claim.

  • iesou@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean sure, but this is a great showcase of Source Engine 2 which is a product they will be selling

    • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And yet there are companies like Bethesda that have re-released games dozens of times for full price.

      • iesou@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean don’t get me wrong, I am all for Valve’s overall values compared to EA, Sony, Microsoft, Bethesda, etc. glad they’re staying private.

  • PepeLivesMatter@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Adding a couple of maps to a 25 year old game isn’t a remaster. Anyone here play Black Mesa? Now THAT’s how you do a remaster.

  • WindowsEnjoyer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I know the documentary and the fact that game is free for now, but I am completelly out of the loop of what changed.

    Did Valve upgraded graphics? Added new maps? I mean - for single player of original game? Someone please advise :)

  • helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Tony Hawk, anyone? Remaster old game, then make it require a server ping to guarantee it won’t work in the future when they decide to stop supporting it.

    • Matombo@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      they already did! the steamdeck was released with steam os 3.0 (in the meantime they reached 3.5)

  • spez@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wow, I have been away and I did NOT anticipate such a interest in this topic by you guys!

    • spez@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      yes but so do other huge game companies on cosmetics, in game items, other spin offs. I agree it’s not as easy but right now even doing this is unusual for most companies.

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Very few game companies actually make a lot of money from cosmetics and ingame items. Most don’t.

        It’s also stupid to think companies should do things for free. That’s not the world we live in. It’s an exception

        • PunnyName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Cosmetics and in-game items (microtransactions) are how games make money hand-over-fist.

          What world do you live in?

        • Sami_Uso@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I just did a minimal amount of googling and this is absolutely not true. Micro transactions have outpaced full game sales by almost 3:1. The entire model of free to play games relies on microtransactions. The biggest games in the world right now are f2p games or paid games with f2p models. I dunno where you’re getting your info from, ancedotally, I’m sure, and maybe you just don’t play games like that… But the rest of the casual game player population absolutely does.

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Very few game companies actually make a lot of money from cosmetics and ingame items. Most don’t.

          The companies doing these full price remasters 100% are the ones making millions from cosmetics.

        • iesou@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          That first point is not true at all. There are entire games built around the paid cosmetics. League of Legends and everyone who follows that model for example. There are more than a few, but you’re right on the second point. I mean it’s not nice to call people stupid, but I suppose that’s not what we’re discussing.