Do you know why steam is dominating? There are no better alternatives. They actively work on projects that benefit everyone, including their competition.
For the time being, there’s nothing to be said other than other companies need to stop being so shitty.
I think you are reading too much into the word choice, which was phrased a lot more like “I will always be grateful for steam doing this thing” and not “I will follow steam even if they join Sauron’s legions”.
By your logic, it makes sense to be loyal to Gabe, who has long thought to be the driving force behind steam remaining what they are and not falling down the capitalistic hole of exploiting their users for every red cent.
Gabe doesn’t know you, you don’t know him, Gabe represents a concept to you all. To be loyal to him is at best a parasocial relationship. He is not your dad, he’s not your professor, he’s not any kind of mentor to you, he’s just someone who doesn’t speak much publicly, and gets good PR because his capitalist interests happen to align with consumers right now. 15 years ago, Elon Musk fell into the same boat.
Look, I enjoy gaming on Linux as much as the next person, but I’ve also seen gamers make this completely unnecessary fanboy move over and over for decades.
not falling down the capitalistic hole of exploiting their users for every red cent.
The concept of a “hat shop” was literally invented by TF2 and every other game copied them. And they’re arguably exploiting small devs for every “red” cent while cutting breaks to the billionaire publishers. They also make devs eat the full cost of a refund. You’re not going to defend that behavior, you can only say “doesn’t affect me specifically” and ignore it.
But what if we didn’t ignore it? What if instead we praised their good behaviors AND rebuked the bad? What if we just behaved like responsible consumers? Imagine…
I don’t think that taking a cut for the sheer exposure of the platform is the same as exploitation. Even small devs make more money by an order of magnitude through steam than they would if they did not.
Steam costs money to operate. I really don’t understand why people think steam should just be valorous and noble and not make any money. Labeling them the middleman implies they don’t do anything. They provide a service in the same way a grocery store is there to make sure you don’t have to drive to a different farm every time you want a different kind of vegetable.
That’s really the only problem I have with what you said. Of course people shouldn’t be loyal to companies, I’m just pointing out the flaw in your logic that people should be loyal to people instead. Any type of figure that you don’t personally know is primarily a concept.
But also, “Behaving like a responsible consumer” is an idealistic fantasy that mostly fails because of the prisoner dilemma. If not enough people do it, the only people who suffer are the ones doing it. That base mindset might be overcame on an individual basis, but it’s rarely popular enough to gain the traction required for actual change, and it becomes more and more difficult the more people are content with the service.
It doesn’t help that steam is essentially the only game launcher that isn’t tiny or garbage.
Steam costs money to operate. I really don’t understand why people think steam should just be valorous and noble and not make any money.
This is exactly the point I’m making. Or rather, I really don’t understand why people think steam IS valorous and noble and not just making money.
I’m just pointing out the flaw in your logic that people should be loyal to people instead. Any type of figure that you don’t personally know is primarily a concept.
Agreed. I don’t follow why that means you should have loyalty for them.
“Behaving like a responsible consumer” is an idealistic fantasy that mostly fails because of the prisoner dilemma.
Totally agree.
It doesn’t help that steam is essentially the only game launcher that isn’t tiny or garbage.
I agree with basically everything you said. I just think the rational implication is to be reservedly greatful for the parts that benefit you, and readily critical of the parts that don’t. And I don’t understand why people instead reach the conclusion that one or two random alignments in interests means they should swear their allegiance to a corporation that cannot possibly do the same for them.
I’m obviously not saying “be unquestioningly loyal to anyone with a pulse”. My point is that, if you’re going to have loyalty, direct it toward a fellow human being, not an ephemeral hive mind whose only “loyalties” are legally required. (And a picture of a person you’ve never met and who doesn’t know you doesn’t count as a person, for obvious reasons).
Yea, steam actually earned their market share through being a solid storefront and game distribution center and not because of exclusive releases from third parties or shady practices beyond promoting games.
Sure, they are the only place for valve games, but that is because those are their games. Yes, some of their games have loot boxes and that is all terrible, but that is the games and not inherent to steam.
Did they tho? Steam was absolutely terrible in the beginning, the only reason people used it back in the early days is because you needed it for super popular valve games. It had nothing to do with them being a solid storefront or anything of sorts.
I have used it since a few days after release (Sept 13, 2003) because I was playing Counterstrike. It made updates and finding play servers so easy even though it did have a rough start with connectivity. Honestly, it was better than whatever we had to use prior even with the issues.
Once they sorted out the server issues and started adding non-valve games it became even more useful and we end up where we are now.
They are currently still on top because of being a solid storefront and the other things I listed.
And then look what happened after steam of companies saying PC is dead and not wanting to invest in it. It’s not like the market wasn’t open for anyone to enter. All the other companies didn’t care including Microsoft in their own platform. Even look at how barebones the launchers are compared to Steam and how all the companies didn’t care about Linux.
It’s not like these opportunities were never around and Steam just happened to get good will. Companies still are putting in the bare minimum and have more trouble or maybe disinterest in matching the features of Steam than a new company making a smartphone. How ridiculous is that. That companies making a smartphone did a better job of trying to be modern than a companies attempt at a launcher.
my problem is people conflate pro develper and pro consumer actions as the same thing, when they arent. what epic does is very pro developer(better cut, money in advance if exclusive), but the platform is far from being pro consumer(removes consumer choice in platform to buy it on, lower competiuon, inconplete community, store, workshop, and os functionality). I’m in open arms for competition, but it actively is a worse consumer experience, then its very hard to support.
Here’s the difference. When we talk about companies dominating an industry, we’re usually talking about practices that keep competition from even forming. Monopolies are formed as a result of big companies buying out or making it impossible for their competition.
Steam doesn’t do that, which is a big reason they won their monopoly suit. They just provide a better model than anyone else is willing to, and they rake in the cash because of it.
Compare this situation to books-a-million in the states. Books-a-million doesn’t have a monopoly on books, they just have created a better environment for selling them. They aren’t stopping other book stores from opening or buying chains to shut them down, they just sell you a cup of coffee and give you a place to sit while you browse their massive selection.
That’s not a monopoly, that’s just better business.
The US congress is freaking out about TikTok because of national security concerns about china potentially harvesting data on americans and influencing politics, not because TikTok is a monopoly.
If they want to harvest data and influence politics they will have to pay an American billionaire to do so, like Russia and everyone else does. Good work, Congress.
I don’t like Valve. I don’t like the non-ownership model of game distribution.
Users aren’t captured at all, since none of them need to purchase video games. Game developers may be captured by Valve, but game developers aren’t producing anything of importance.
I’m for legal restrictions on industry practice that are predatory towards the users, but there’s no need to protect the industry itself from control by Valve, since nothing important is being controlled.
Valve also can’t control the gaming industry if they don’t control the OS gamers use. They may be trying to control the OS, but they haven’t done it yet. Until then, they can’t prevent users from installing games outside of Steam. If Developers are locked in to Steam, it’s because users buy games in Steam and refuse to buy games outside of Steam. The users behave this way because Steam provides lots of value to them.
If Steam starts to abuse users instead of serving them, there’s nothing stopping them from purchasing games some other way.
This is what I’m arguing: if Valve had control of the gaming industry, which it doesn’t yet but might later, it would matter so little that we’d need no public policy to address it. Anyone who isn’t in the industry needn’t concern themselves about it.
Wrong. There is an “ill consequences” effect added to this. For most consumer media (games, TV, music, etc) there are very few options. You either get most of what you want by surrendering to the bullshit scummy practices of the few huge ones, or choose to cut the options dramatically by moving over to some platform that’s all but doomed to fail or be purchased by the “huge ones”. There is one third option, do not consume anything. There’s you “ill consequence” right there.
Take electricity or communications, for example. I have yet to see one of those companies that does not work exclusively on predatory practices. If you know of any, please, enlighten us. Fine, go live in a cave without electricity and/or communication in this day and age. You won’t, you’re using a device that you paid for, which uses electricity that you paid for and a connection to be able to transfer these hits of data, that you also paid for. Guess what, like the rest of us, you’re a captive consumer as well. You’re welcome.
Again, valve is a corporation, their function, before anything else, is to be viable, and the only way to achieve this, at least that I’m aware, is making money.
Very few of the comments here actually defend the 30% cut, which is the main subject of the whole thread (fully deviated from the OP post, granted). But the fact remains that Valve is, and has been (nobody knows about the future, so no “will be”) the one consumer media distributor with the best rap across the board, because they do bring a lot of added value with their offering, to both sides of the gaming industry (devs and consumers).
Make no mistake, they are after our money like every other business out there is, they just have been wise enough to build trust among it’s stakeholders (not to be confused with “stockholders”, just in case).
Yup. I’m not a Dev, so I can’t tell what their panorama looks like, I believe 30% of anything is hefty, but I also know that Steam has a platform and perks so solid that they don’t have to worry about competition, since evidently no other consumer media distributor is willing to follow Valve’s business model.
Having said that, from a consumer point of view, I challenge anyone to show me a more beneficial platform than Steam.
While you may have a point that we can’t know what any company will do in the future, the fact remains that Valve has earned their place by 2 factors alone:
1.- Constant innovation to make their platform a place where everyone wants to be, without crippling the competition, despite having the means to do it.
2.- years of building trust with their users and providers alike by being transparent and clear on what they offer, while adding value which costs money that they absorb.
Yes, 30% of so much money is a shitload of money, but I have yet to see one good reason why that’s a bad thing other than the usual “it’s too much” bullshit argument.
Unity, Reddit, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, these companies have 1 common denominator: they have gone out of their way to destroy anything that would present a risk to 10 cents of their revenue, including, but not limited to, absorbing any potential competition, regardless of if they represent a risk to their dominance or not.
Do not compare valve to these assholes. Valve is making tons of money? Unless you can show me, with evidence, how this is detrimental to anyone else, other than the fact that you are not making as much, all you have is bullshit and a fucking tantrum.
We worry about companies that aren’t anywhere near as dominant as valve. Just because their interests align with ours today doesn’t mean they will tomorrow.
Valve is dominant because they treat users well. Is your argument here seriously “Yes, Valve is a better platform that treats you well, but you shouldn’t use it because other people already do! You should use a platform that’s not as good because competition!”
A competitor in any industry needs to do more than “exist” to be worth using. If Valve starts acting shitty I will stop using it, much like how I have stopped purchasing or playing Blizzard games.
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
Do you know why steam is dominating? There are no better alternatives. They actively work on projects that benefit everyone, including their competition.
For the time being, there’s nothing to be said other than other companies need to stop being so shitty.
Valve forever more have my support just because of proton. Letting me get off windows to game has been revolutionary for me.
I don’t understand this mentality. It has no loyalty to you, why be loyal to it?
Be loyal to people, not to organizations.
Support is not the same thing as loyalty.
I’d agree with your statement in isolation, but
sure sounds a lot like the definition of loyalty:
I think you are reading too much into the word choice, which was phrased a lot more like “I will always be grateful for steam doing this thing” and not “I will follow steam even if they join Sauron’s legions”.
By your logic, it makes sense to be loyal to Gabe, who has long thought to be the driving force behind steam remaining what they are and not falling down the capitalistic hole of exploiting their users for every red cent.
Gabe doesn’t know you, you don’t know him, Gabe represents a concept to you all. To be loyal to him is at best a parasocial relationship. He is not your dad, he’s not your professor, he’s not any kind of mentor to you, he’s just someone who doesn’t speak much publicly, and gets good PR because his capitalist interests happen to align with consumers right now. 15 years ago, Elon Musk fell into the same boat.
Look, I enjoy gaming on Linux as much as the next person, but I’ve also seen gamers make this completely unnecessary fanboy move over and over for decades.
The concept of a “hat shop” was literally invented by TF2 and every other game copied them. And they’re arguably exploiting small devs for every “red” cent while cutting breaks to the billionaire publishers. They also make devs eat the full cost of a refund. You’re not going to defend that behavior, you can only say “doesn’t affect me specifically” and ignore it.
But what if we didn’t ignore it? What if instead we praised their good behaviors AND rebuked the bad? What if we just behaved like responsible consumers? Imagine…
I don’t think that taking a cut for the sheer exposure of the platform is the same as exploitation. Even small devs make more money by an order of magnitude through steam than they would if they did not.
Steam costs money to operate. I really don’t understand why people think steam should just be valorous and noble and not make any money. Labeling them the middleman implies they don’t do anything. They provide a service in the same way a grocery store is there to make sure you don’t have to drive to a different farm every time you want a different kind of vegetable.
That’s really the only problem I have with what you said. Of course people shouldn’t be loyal to companies, I’m just pointing out the flaw in your logic that people should be loyal to people instead. Any type of figure that you don’t personally know is primarily a concept.
But also, “Behaving like a responsible consumer” is an idealistic fantasy that mostly fails because of the prisoner dilemma. If not enough people do it, the only people who suffer are the ones doing it. That base mindset might be overcame on an individual basis, but it’s rarely popular enough to gain the traction required for actual change, and it becomes more and more difficult the more people are content with the service.
It doesn’t help that steam is essentially the only game launcher that isn’t tiny or garbage.
This is exactly the point I’m making. Or rather, I really don’t understand why people think steam IS valorous and noble and not just making money.
Agreed. I don’t follow why that means you should have loyalty for them.
Totally agree.
I agree with basically everything you said. I just think the rational implication is to be reservedly greatful for the parts that benefit you, and readily critical of the parts that don’t. And I don’t understand why people instead reach the conclusion that one or two random alignments in interests means they should swear their allegiance to a corporation that cannot possibly do the same for them.
Being loyal to people can be pretty bad actually (see, idk, Darth Vader’s biopics).
I’m obviously not saying “be unquestioningly loyal to anyone with a pulse”. My point is that, if you’re going to have loyalty, direct it toward a fellow human being, not an ephemeral hive mind whose only “loyalties” are legally required. (And a picture of a person you’ve never met and who doesn’t know you doesn’t count as a person, for obvious reasons).
Yea, steam actually earned their market share through being a solid storefront and game distribution center and not because of exclusive releases from third parties or shady practices beyond promoting games.
Sure, they are the only place for valve games, but that is because those are their games. Yes, some of their games have loot boxes and that is all terrible, but that is the games and not inherent to steam.
It’s as if the recipe for success is not fucking over your customers and provide good product. Huh, weird
Who would have known?
Did they tho? Steam was absolutely terrible in the beginning, the only reason people used it back in the early days is because you needed it for super popular valve games. It had nothing to do with them being a solid storefront or anything of sorts.
I have used it since a few days after release (Sept 13, 2003) because I was playing Counterstrike. It made updates and finding play servers so easy even though it did have a rough start with connectivity. Honestly, it was better than whatever we had to use prior even with the issues.
Once they sorted out the server issues and started adding non-valve games it became even more useful and we end up where we are now.
They are currently still on top because of being a solid storefront and the other things I listed.
And then look what happened after steam of companies saying PC is dead and not wanting to invest in it. It’s not like the market wasn’t open for anyone to enter. All the other companies didn’t care including Microsoft in their own platform. Even look at how barebones the launchers are compared to Steam and how all the companies didn’t care about Linux.
It’s not like these opportunities were never around and Steam just happened to get good will. Companies still are putting in the bare minimum and have more trouble or maybe disinterest in matching the features of Steam than a new company making a smartphone. How ridiculous is that. That companies making a smartphone did a better job of trying to be modern than a companies attempt at a launcher.
my problem is people conflate pro develper and pro consumer actions as the same thing, when they arent. what epic does is very pro developer(better cut, money in advance if exclusive), but the platform is far from being pro consumer(removes consumer choice in platform to buy it on, lower competiuon, inconplete community, store, workshop, and os functionality). I’m in open arms for competition, but it actively is a worse consumer experience, then its very hard to support.
Epic is really only pro-dev in that way though, steam has a lot of perks through its steamworks api
Here’s the difference. When we talk about companies dominating an industry, we’re usually talking about practices that keep competition from even forming. Monopolies are formed as a result of big companies buying out or making it impossible for their competition.
Steam doesn’t do that, which is a big reason they won their monopoly suit. They just provide a better model than anyone else is willing to, and they rake in the cash because of it.
Compare this situation to books-a-million in the states. Books-a-million doesn’t have a monopoly on books, they just have created a better environment for selling them. They aren’t stopping other book stores from opening or buying chains to shut them down, they just sell you a cup of coffee and give you a place to sit while you browse their massive selection.
That’s not a monopoly, that’s just better business.
Valve isn’t dominating an essential industry. They could control 100% of the game market and it would make no difference to anything important.
Neither is Tiktok. But the US Congress is still freaking out about it.
The US congress is freaking out about TikTok because of national security concerns about china potentially harvesting data on americans and influencing politics, not because TikTok is a monopoly.
This is not at all the same thing.
If they want to harvest data and influence politics they will have to pay an American billionaire to do so, like Russia and everyone else does. Good work, Congress.
But social media is an essential industry in how opinions are formed.
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
It matters if people are captive consumers of the product. It does not matter if they can simply stop using the product with no ill consequences.
The same goes for movies, TV, music. You can simply stop buying these commercially with no ill effect.
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
I don’t like Valve. I don’t like the non-ownership model of game distribution.
Users aren’t captured at all, since none of them need to purchase video games. Game developers may be captured by Valve, but game developers aren’t producing anything of importance.
I’m for legal restrictions on industry practice that are predatory towards the users, but there’s no need to protect the industry itself from control by Valve, since nothing important is being controlled.
Valve also can’t control the gaming industry if they don’t control the OS gamers use. They may be trying to control the OS, but they haven’t done it yet. Until then, they can’t prevent users from installing games outside of Steam. If Developers are locked in to Steam, it’s because users buy games in Steam and refuse to buy games outside of Steam. The users behave this way because Steam provides lots of value to them.
If Steam starts to abuse users instead of serving them, there’s nothing stopping them from purchasing games some other way.
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
I’m not arguing none of this matters.
This is what I’m arguing: if Valve had control of the gaming industry, which it doesn’t yet but might later, it would matter so little that we’d need no public policy to address it. Anyone who isn’t in the industry needn’t concern themselves about it.
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
Wrong. There is an “ill consequences” effect added to this. For most consumer media (games, TV, music, etc) there are very few options. You either get most of what you want by surrendering to the bullshit scummy practices of the few huge ones, or choose to cut the options dramatically by moving over to some platform that’s all but doomed to fail or be purchased by the “huge ones”. There is one third option, do not consume anything. There’s you “ill consequence” right there.
Take electricity or communications, for example. I have yet to see one of those companies that does not work exclusively on predatory practices. If you know of any, please, enlighten us. Fine, go live in a cave without electricity and/or communication in this day and age. You won’t, you’re using a device that you paid for, which uses electricity that you paid for and a connection to be able to transfer these hits of data, that you also paid for. Guess what, like the rest of us, you’re a captive consumer as well. You’re welcome.
Again, valve is a corporation, their function, before anything else, is to be viable, and the only way to achieve this, at least that I’m aware, is making money.
Very few of the comments here actually defend the 30% cut, which is the main subject of the whole thread (fully deviated from the OP post, granted). But the fact remains that Valve is, and has been (nobody knows about the future, so no “will be”) the one consumer media distributor with the best rap across the board, because they do bring a lot of added value with their offering, to both sides of the gaming industry (devs and consumers).
Make no mistake, they are after our money like every other business out there is, they just have been wise enough to build trust among it’s stakeholders (not to be confused with “stockholders”, just in case).
deleted by creator
Yup. I’m not a Dev, so I can’t tell what their panorama looks like, I believe 30% of anything is hefty, but I also know that Steam has a platform and perks so solid that they don’t have to worry about competition, since evidently no other consumer media distributor is willing to follow Valve’s business model. Having said that, from a consumer point of view, I challenge anyone to show me a more beneficial platform than Steam.
While you may have a point that we can’t know what any company will do in the future, the fact remains that Valve has earned their place by 2 factors alone:
1.- Constant innovation to make their platform a place where everyone wants to be, without crippling the competition, despite having the means to do it. 2.- years of building trust with their users and providers alike by being transparent and clear on what they offer, while adding value which costs money that they absorb.
Yes, 30% of so much money is a shitload of money, but I have yet to see one good reason why that’s a bad thing other than the usual “it’s too much” bullshit argument.
Unity, Reddit, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, these companies have 1 common denominator: they have gone out of their way to destroy anything that would present a risk to 10 cents of their revenue, including, but not limited to, absorbing any potential competition, regardless of if they represent a risk to their dominance or not.
Do not compare valve to these assholes. Valve is making tons of money? Unless you can show me, with evidence, how this is detrimental to anyone else, other than the fact that you are not making as much, all you have is bullshit and a fucking tantrum.
Valve is dominant because they treat users well. Is your argument here seriously “Yes, Valve is a better platform that treats you well, but you shouldn’t use it because other people already do! You should use a platform that’s not as good because competition!”
A competitor in any industry needs to do more than “exist” to be worth using. If Valve starts acting shitty I will stop using it, much like how I have stopped purchasing or playing Blizzard games.
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf