top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 183 points 5 months ago (48 children)

Here's the thing. There are other places. Epic, Amazon Gaming, Origin/Battlenet/Ubi, itch, Microsoft store, gog...

Most suck at discoverability or they don't have the variety of Steam. Some are shitty by design (Origin, Ubi, Battlenet) - intended to only get you to play their games. Others like itch aren't built for scaling out to deliver thousands of big games.

This isn't a thing like Apple's walled garden, I feel like this is Steam out performing the competition.

  • source
  • hideshow 48 child comments
  • [–] 76 points 5 months ago (35 children)

    Steam quite literally provides almost everything you could ever need too, it's so much more than a storefront. It's genuinely mind blowing just how many services steam offers, I don't think anybody, including valve employees knows about every function and service it offers tbh.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 5 months ago* (33 children)

    Does steam provide a good service? Sure. Is it worth the 30% cut they take? Absolutely not. Gamers don't realize the amount of money valve is making off them. What we need is a good old fashioned bill at every purchase detailing how much money these rent seeking stores are extracting from you.

    I don't want the 90 services and bloated platform steam offers, I want to play my game and pay the developers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 5 months ago (15 children)

    Epic does somewhere around 12% and the end user still pays the same so if you think that extra 18% would come back your way rather then going to a devs pockets? Hoo boy.

    Also, Steam charges the industry standard rate iirc, same as google, apple, etc. While we can complain about that rate (last paragraph in mind: To what end?) its not as though Valve is doing anything extra greedy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 5 months ago

    Epic does somewhere around 12% and the end user still pays the same so if you think that extra 18% would come back your way rather then going to a devs pockets? Hoo boy.

    And most of the time that extra doesn't even go to the devs, the publishers keep it. So you're not even helping the devs for the most part.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago

    Besides, Steam won't even take a single cent from Steam keys sold outside of their storefront. Devs are free to sell their games on stores like Humble or Fanatical at whatever price they deem fit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    If any of those games on Epic are also sold in steam, then the (nonsale) price cannot be lower than the steam price because of steam's TOS.

    Also the "industry standard" was arbitrarily chosen to match the cut that brick and mortar stores usually operate at... Despite there being very different costs related.

    But yes, steam is being just as greedy as all the other big walled gardens. People complain about that rate across the board, not just about steam.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    That's simply not true. They aren't supposed to generate steam keys and then sell them at a lower price at other stores. Which is completely fair, as you can generate keys for free, but the game would still be using steams servers and services. But you can absolutely sell a game for cheaper on other store fronts if it isn't using steams backend.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    It IS true. They've threatened to delist developers who wanted to sell on non-steam key sites at lower prices.

    There's a ongoing class action lawsuit (which is already 2+ years old), started by Wolfire games, for exactly this scenario.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago

    After looking into that more I've yet to see any hard evidence of valve threatening to delist devs for selling cheaper elsewhere. And presumably, so have the courts, because otherwise that seems like it would be a slam dunk case. I'll believe it when I see it, but just going on word of mouth doesn't convince me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (6 children)

    Despite there being very different costs related.

    How different?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    How likely is it that it just so happens to exactly match brick and mortar stores?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    We all know it's less. You can stop being smarmy about that.

    That's how online stores are destroying retail, despite charging equivalent prices. But I do not have access to a specific private corporation's operating costs, any more than you do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    the giant company won't tell us how much they're ripping us off, so that must mean they're not

    Is quite possibly the stupidest argument you can be making here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -10 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Steam charges the industry standard rate... That Steam set originally decades ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago

    Steam initally launched in 2003 as a updater/server browser for Valve games like counterstrike, half life, and team fortress classic. Apple music came out earlier that year, which isn't a 1:1 relation but likely influenced things wrt download pricing.

    Steam didn't have its first third party game til late 2005 which puts the chance for it to standardize a rate for game downloads right around the timeframe of xbox live and psn launching (late 2005, mid 2006 respectively), so I wouldn't be shocked if word got around the industry about that stuff, though that's just me making reasonable logical deductions (People love opening their big fat mouths, lot of folks in the same circles, etc.) rather then anything solid.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago

    Then you have the option to buy from epic who take a lower cut. I prefer Steam because of the convenience and features it offers. Until another storefront can supersede steams features then I don't see a reason to switch

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    It's absolutely worth the cut they take. Ask every developer and publisher.

    It's hard getting recognized outside Steam.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    Try going to any other platform and tell me how much better it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago* (6 children)

    95% of the players on pc are on steam, if you don't publish your game there you're just shooting yourself in the foot - this has very little to do with the quality of the service valve provides and everything to do about their monopoly on the market. Would devs like to pay a smaller cut to valve? Sure, but it's just the cost of doing business, you go where your customers are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Customers flock to valve because it's more than a storefront. It eliminates the needs for everything else, no need for discord, forums, lfg pages, recording software, controller mapping software, 3rd party mod hosting, mod managers, etc etc etc. look at how much further Valve has pushed Linux and Linux support in gaming than anyone imagined possible. Look at their return policy, absolutely no other storefront is that consumer friendly.

    30% is industry standard, get mad at the storefronts that are just storefronts as well as steam or you're just sounding like Tim Sweeney on another unhinged nepo baby rant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    30% is industry standard

    It was an industry standard, that's been changing for a while, just take a look at how much fire google and apple are taking over their stores.

    but valve are good and kind and shit rainbows so they deserve money

    Valve is a corporation, it might be less bad than the rest, but at the end of the day gabe is still sifting mai thais on his 500 million dollars yacht.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Complaining about a billionaire sipping drinks on a yacht while screaming and crying to defend the billionaire CEOs at the publishing companies that have shit all over every developer and consumer in the industry is certainly an interesting position.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    Because they provide a lot of value.

    It's not like GoG or EGS are better stores that can't get traffic.

    In fact, if anyone actually put enough money and created a store with better moderation, people would be more than happy to use it. It's just that there is none. Not because they lack users, but features.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago

    30% is industry standard, everybody but Epic charges that and also Steam is not just a flat 30% many devs and pubs pay less.

    I agree 30% is high for every storefront besides Steam and and arguably GoG. The sheer range of services and support for both players and devs is exponentially above literally everything else, you are not just paying for a storefront with steam like you are literally everywhere else.

    As for GoG, I'll let them slide on 30% because of how much effort and resources they put into preservation as well as their "customer is the administrator of their purchases" attitude.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago*

    Nothing is stopping a dev from putting a game on Steam for the exposure, then putting it for sale DRM free somewhere else so they don't have to pay the 30% cut on those sales (I assume they'd have to at least charge the same as the Steam one, though). I bet the Steam version would make them far more money even with the cut.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago*

    When the competition (excluding any stores operating at a loss to build marketshare) is charging both developers and gamers more, they're less bothered about Steam taking 20-30%. Consoles charge 30%, have extra fees, take a cut of third party keys (or restrict them altogether) and require a mandatory subscription for online play/cloud saves, while disallowing third party stores on their hardware.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    Might be unpopular, but I think it's a fair cut. They provide a Plattform to anyone, and indiegames regularly outperform AAA. You don't need huge publishers to succeed if your game is fun. I don't think that would be possible with epic at the top.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Is it worth the 30% cut they take? Absolutely not. Gamers don't realize the amount of money valve is making off them.

    The same cut that is industry standard and they could ABSOLUTELY jack up by abusing their market position and choose not to? Especially given how much extra infrastructure they supply for that 30% vs literally anyone else?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Is there a better service to use? I'm not saying Steam is a Paragon of virtue, there's is no such thing as an ethical billionaire and there's no reason for someone to own multiple mega yachts, but as a consumer Steam is a much better service than most of the competition out there. Steam isn't a monopoly just because it's the only store not shooting itself in the face.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    Epic you get flash banged even when grabbing free games... Their UI is over a decade old. GOG's UI is frustrating to navigate. I love the deals and free promotions on steam, and the UI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    And don't forget GOG fucking still doesn't have a native Linux client.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    I didn't know that, I am still on Windows 10. Most of my games won't work on linux.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    Most of my games won't work on linux.

    Unless you have less than 10 games in your library and they're all the main multiplayer games, I highly doubt that.

    Please go check out ProtonDB and check your library. Only 2 of the top 10 most popular games are "borked", 7 of the top 100, 21 in the top 1000, and 349 across the entire catalogue.

    Most of the games that are borked on Linux (particularly the top 10) are because the devs specifically want it that way

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    I agree. That's not what this is about though. This is about Valve using their market dominance to force price parity, supposedly to "protect consumers" (which is bullshit and doesn't make sense). Yes, they're the better storefront. I'd be willing to pay a little more to use it.

    That's one way the competition can compete though. They can't make as good of a product, but they can make a cheaper one. They should be able to charge less, and make less profit per sale. Valve has ensured no developer can do this though by threatening removal if it's cheaper anywhere else, and you can't afford to not be on Steam. This would be good for consumers as it'd drive Valve to compete, either with an even better product or by lowering prices. There's no way consumers lose, and I don't get why people rush to fight for Valve on this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    So like most stores? What do you think MSRP is? A lot of places will pull their product from stores who undercut pricing outside of occasional sales.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    MSRP is manufacturer suggested retail price. It is not an enforced price. For example, stores have started selling physical Nintendo games below MSRP as Nintendo has started selling digital copies at a lower price than physical MSRP. (This is also what would likely happen if games are sold cheaper. They'd compete the price down.)

    I don't know if I've ever heard of a case of MSRP being enforced. I don't think it's reasonably possible. It means no sales, for example. A retailer buys a product, and then they stock it at whatever price they decide. The manufacturer doesn't control it at this point.

    Edit: Also, MSRP is very different. It's from the manufacturer, not another store. The equivalent is Walmart telling a product creator to enforce an MSRP or they won't carry their product, not a manufacturer enforcing one on their own, assuming that happens.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago*

    I have seen it being enforced in several stores in multiple provinces. If you've never worked in purchasing, you've probably just not heard about it since it doesn't typically get mentioned to consumers, it's a backend thing.

    Wizards of the Coast, for example, is quite strict about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 47 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    One, it's kind of silly to just ask someone accused of doing something bad/illegal and then take their word for it. What's Gabe going to say? "Oh, yep, we are a monopoly, you're right."

    Two, Valve makes some damn good software. Steam is really slick, has generally only improved over time, and has worked pretty flawlessly on every platform I've used it on. They also provide a great storefront experience, game managing experience, and have contributed to some awesome open source projects.

    Three, I have zero doubt that Gabe and Valve in general has done some shady shit such as but not limited to the alleged unspoken policy mentioned in the article. No one becomes a billionaire ethically.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    No one becomes a billionaire ethically

    Agreed... but when you're a great, customer centric service in a wildly underserviced market, it's basically a license to print money. Gaben is unethical in the fact that he's hoarding wealth, and I can't speak to speculation on shady practices with circumstantial hearsay as evidence... but Valve, by virtue of not repeatedly Cobain'ing their dick on a regular basis is in a prime position to make substantial amounts of money...

    All that being said, someone tell me what I'm missing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 147 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Valve has a monopoly at being the only online gaming storefront that doesn't suck.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    Yup, it's why I am willing to argue for them, at least until Gabe dies. He's proven to be far more fair and I know you wouldn't get that deal anywhere else. These days it really does seem like there a coordinated push to attack valve for not being scum like the rest of the industry these last couple of months.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 5 months ago

    It's because they actively fight for the consumer rather than the publishers.

    It's funny though because valve has so much fucking money because they are not chasing next quarters arbitrary gains...

    Valve is proof that if you don't try to screw over your customers somehow you end up with profits. Weird how that works, and instead of companies learning something from that we'll... they do what capitalism does....

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    It does make me nervous though that one player has so much power.

    But certainly in the here and now as a consumer, I use steam because it makes life easier. It makes it super easy to join and host multiplayer games, gives me access to convenient game recording stuff without having to have separate software, lets me share games with my found family, and most games have achievements, which my silly achievement-whore brain loves. I'm also grateful because if not for Steam's work developing proton, I doubt my switch to Linux would have been as straightforward as it has been.

    I agree that it does seem like a targeted attack on Steam by industry hacks who I trust infinitely less than Steam. Corporations are never our friends, merely our temporary allies. However, the hacks attacking Steam are definitely my enemies, and the enemy of my enemy is my temporary ally

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 5 months ago

    The only one that lets me keep in my library, download and install at any time games that were delisted 10 or 15 years ago by their publishers.

    For that reason alone, they deserve my money over any other storefront.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 46 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    This is your weekly reminder at this point that Valve is a corporation and that corporations are not your friends nor your allies.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Once Gaben dies, hell breaks loose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    He is a billionaire and just like all billionaire he can rot. He's not your friend.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    lol ok Mao calm down now, just a fyi, don't cast such a broad stroke when counting your adversaries in life, even the best waste a lot of time living like that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    It’s true though. Even the most well-intentioned billionaire is merely the central point of a massive ball of capital, full of accountants, lawyers, shell companies, VCs, lobbyists and sycophants and sucking more and more wealth and power into itself like Daniel Plainview’s giant straw through sheer fucking gravity. It can’t help its nature, it is the scorpion.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago* (7 children)

    Has he inherited the David Jones curse? Is there any photo from him in the last 10 years that is not on a yatch?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    His hobby is yachts, which tells you how well Steam is doing for him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    His hobby is marine biology, which in turn necessitates yachts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 5 months ago

    Billionaires shouldn't exist.

  • source
  • [–] 69 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    I'm a bit surprised that someone hadn't already posted this

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    GOG sails past the bottom of the screen on a skateboard sipping a juicebox with a straw

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Gog doesn't have regional pricing where as steam and even epic does. If a Game on steam will cost me 700rs the GOG will charge me 1400rs and since I am poor I just pirate the game. I ain't paying 700rs for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    The courts are going to force Valve to enshittify, because consumers arent allowed to have good options. That's unfair competition, think of all the poor megacorps. How can they sell their garbage when you offer an actually good competitor

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 67 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    I hate to agree with a billionaire, but he's right. Currently steam is not a monopoly at all, and hasn't yet gotten so dominant that it amounts to one.

    But they are the single most dominant outlet, and are in the first stages of having an ability to control the entire market in unfair ways to the point of crushing competition. It won't be long before they do have that ability completely. And we can't just trust the billionaire because he's shown an unusual degree of user focused choices overall. Even if he's perfect, he ain't immortal, and as soon as he's not in control, there will be fuckery

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    as soon as he’s not in control, there will be fuckery

    This is what I don't think a lot of people will be prepared for ...

    I dread if there's gonna some useless MBA coming around afterwards and saying some shit like: "why don't we charge steam users $9.99 to play their games per month?" and start cutting projects that benefit gamers to "save money" -- who needs Proton? who needs to invest in things like couch co-op? Then give themselves a shitload of money in exchange for all the goodwill that Valve have built up over the years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    But Valve is not a public company, so you don't get randos. Gabe is very aware of this fact himself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Yeah, since Valve is not public the odds of the next head being an outside hire or some loud tech exec are extremely low.

    GabeN is most likely to pick someone who's been around with the company since the early days, like Erik Johnson or Scott Lynch.

    If he wants it to stay in the family, his own son Gray could take over, he's also a game dev.

    Gabe has often expressed distrust of publicly traded markets, a plausible outcome is that his ownership gets converted into an employee-owned trust or a collective buyback, this would effectively permanently lock Valve into its current profile, distributing profils back into salaries and bonuses for the staff.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    a plausible outcome is that his ownership gets converted into an employee-owned trust

    That would be absolutely amazing if it happened. Plus, Valve would be able to hire damn near anyone they want due to the dividends the employees would get each year

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I really hope Linux will get a bigger market share, thanks to Steam devices, before Steam has to change CEOs and starts the inevitable enshitification.

    Because for Linux gaming, Steam's support for Proton is pretty much a monopol.

    Most of 3rd party launchers for other stores also rely on Proton under the hood, IIRC.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    Yep. This is how it goes downhill.

    Some business analyst will make a pretty chart showing a massive revenue increase Vs some minor player attrition caused by the monthly subscription model, and the board will salivate at all those billions they're gonna get.

    Is that revenue necessary? Not at all. But capitalism says you must maximise profits regardless for the sake of it, and without an all powerful overlord to say otherwise, it will be a tragic downfall.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    I'm ready for it, I "backed up" my steam library because of it. The whole movement these last few months against steam make me think the industry is coordinating against it because steam won't play ball.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    1 comment in c/gaming@lemmy.zip view that post