Valve could reduce their cut honestly, perhaps some program for independent developers to help them get on their feet. I don't think the top games or big publishers should be getting cut reductions.
Either way, Valve haven't been buying out studios for exclusive games, so Epic and Sweeney can go fuck themselves, they are scum.
If steam has to do the work to host the game then the majority of effort is going to be getting to the published and available to buy step, which is recouped along with server costs early on. As it scales, the efficiencies kick in and the price gets lowered a bit.
A company keeping 70% of retail price is still a higher cut than they would get for a game on a shelf at a store, and most likely with a far higher number of sales through steam. Plus it is digital so they don’t have all the physical distribution costs. For smaller games those additional costs and advertising are going to keep them from being feasible.
Valheim and Palworld wouldn’t have been massive successes on store shelves. 30% for visibility and unlimited scaling if the game is more successful than expected is a pretty good deal for the benefits it provides. It actually does buy something, it isn’t the mob’s cut for pretending to protect your business.
Why should valve, or sony, or Apple, or Google get 30% of the revenue of entire industries for having a download and payment service.
It’s extortionate and undeserved. When I play a game I absolutely love, one third of the money for that game didn’t go to the people who made it, it went to valves endless bucket of money. It’s not right and we should not be defending these extremely high cuts.
When you buy something at the store, did you know that in most cases the company selling probably saw less than half of what you paid? What if they don’t have it in stock?
steam provides a ton of benefits at scale that would have probably eaten up more than 30% of the price for the game company, with the ability to instantly scale with no limitation if it picks up in popularity.
If I buy a single player game, more than likely, valve is making entirely profit on that 30%. The cost of the download is below a penny to valve. Yet they still get s third of that companies revenue.
Charge them for the services if you want. They aren’t doing thst, they are taking 30% of an industries revenue for doing nearly nothing.
And Valve has other bills to pay, servers to run, employees to pay. Software to develop, did you think all of these great features Steam has were free to develop? Incidentally, remember when Valve released their in house animation software for free when people asked to buy it?
did you think all of these great features Steam has were free to develop?
No, just that they cost substantially less than the insane profits they’re making, and they could very easily afford to do all the same things with half the revenue, enabling actual developers to make more and better games.
You pay for the game once, whether you download it once or a million times. Valve gets the 30% once, because if you don’t pay again, 30% of 0 is still 0. At least that’s how percentages worked back in the day, who knows how it works now 🤣🤣
Valve runs a profitable Launcher that allows them to try expanding into ventures like the Steam Deck and pushing Linux gaming adoption even if it ends in failures. That extra cash is what allows for businesses to expand beyond only one field.
Otherwise a company is just stuck being just a reseller, and I think gaming space currently is better for Steam Deck and how it’s pushed more people to try Linux. And even before the Steam Deck work on Proton helped. Having profits makes it easier to absorb failures and put resources towards stuff like Linux that is niche and may never gain a significant enough adoption.
Like epic even with fortnite can’t financially justify supporting Linux anticheat for fortnite, so I guess that’s what happens if a company is not taking in enough profits. And Epic store is only being kept afloat because of fortnite, and is losing money.
Also, it’s worth pointing out that Gabe seems like a decent guy, and Tim Sweeney is a fucking prick. So I think that’s a pretty big difference right there too. Valve has earned respect, Epic has not.
Not just the Steam Deck. It or the Index (or IMO even better the Link and the Controller) are certainly more noticable things they did, but big wins to me are stuff like the integrated modding in Steam, or the ease of user reviews.
And for a newer feature that has become somewhat standard across stores but only because Valve startedi t and they had to keep up, refunding without any questions asked.
Valve is at least helping out to grow a community ofbgamers that want to have nothing to do with Crapple, Google, Microshit, etc. Look at the cost of a Steam Deck. Now to see if you can buy or assemble a computer with similar specs. Why do you think Asus and Ayaneo have similar devices that are way more expensive? Valve sells the decks at a loss (which they make up for by that 30% on sapes, sure). How would they be able to pull something like that off if they weren’t swimming in money? Is 30% disproportionately hefty? Hell yes! But developers and gamers alike get much more out of that cut Valve gets, just Proton development alone is good enough. Can you say the same about Crapple, for example? Valve is a corporation, for profit, like every other corp out there, but at least they do bring innovation (not to be confused with the bullshit that Google and all Tue other crooks want to call that when all they are doing is knocking down walls between them and your money) and value across the board.
It's the other overheads too, publishing cuts, marketing cuts, QA etc before you get down to the money made for wages etc.
Valve are absolutely in a position to take less, but the service they provide is like no other.
I don't give a fuck about EA/Ubisoft etc getting a smaller cut, but independent developers could absolutely benefit from some sort of program.
Many studios are in a real pinch right now. I don’t know what valve’s overhead costs are but I’d imagine they could afford to kick back some more to devs.
Many studios are in a real pinch because the executives are fucking awful and the first people they punish are the people who would also never get raises because Valve took 12% instead of 20%.
The real difference is for games that don’t sell a lot of copies, that don’t reach that 20% at $50 million in sales and 25% at $10 million in sales. We’re talking about really small games at this point. Even games like Factorio should be around this $50 million in sales point with 3.5 million sales although idk how much for each sale with regional pricing.
We’d honestly be pretty hard-pressed to come up with a game small enough to be in the 30% cut tier but also a game where the cut is what makes or breaks the game instead of market saturation. I agree that Steam should lower the cut they take but I do not believe in the crap Sweeny spits about caring for devs while also making the devs who work for him do so much overtime.
He doesn’t mean “devs” he means “profits” that he will never share with devs, he just can’t play with your emotions and make you care as the trickle down economics never come around again.
Getting paid half as much to be a middleman as the developers get paid to make the goddamn game is obscene. Especially for Steam, a pseudo-monopoly on a platform they did not make. Steam is a program for Windows PCs from a company that makes neither Windows nor PCs.
Well, I guess they kinda do both, now. Nevertheless. 30% to be the gatekeeper is quite a fucking cut.
I am not going to pretend to understand the economics involved but 30% is an absurd amount of money to charge someone to do nothing but provide a storefront to sell games. I’d wager Sweeney is correct that Valve makes more profits than the actual developers. You know, the people who do the actual work of creating and maintaining the game.
Valve is exploiting their market dominance to rake in absurd profits for what is in all likelihood, very little actual work.
Valve makes more money per employee than fucking Apple. If that’s not an indicator of giant profit margins, I don’t know what is.
And while they do use that money to improve the gaming industry, and they’re a relatively ethical company, that don’t make those profit margins any less ridiculous.
A company keeping 70% of retail price is still a higher cut than they would get for a game on a shelf at a store
And I’d argue that’s also exorbitant and that there are far more logistics and other costs involved.
Valheim and Palworld wouldn’t have been massive successes on store shelves.
They could have been significantly more successful if Valve charged 15%. And Valve would remain extremely profitable.
Also want to note that Sweeney would absolutely begin charging 30% if and when he could, but right now that’s literally all they have going for them.
To be fair, Steam provides a lot more than "just being a storefront". There's large feature set there in Steamworks which is 'free' for developers to use.
The game developers would probably spend more than 30% of revenue hosting their own game on their own store, so the value is there already.
It would be strange if Valve's cut went up the more money your game made, but it would be better for independent developers.
That tells me you don't understand what they offer or the value of it.
And if you think hosting a CDN across the world is cheap, you have a surprise coming. Ignoring the fact Steam has a large audience and hosting your own game would bring in a lot less revenue than you would through Steam (even with the 30% cut), it's a lot of work to host and market a game online. If there's updates, you have to alert people the game has been updated and direct them to download it again.
Valve Index was successful, Steam link was great, Steam Deck is great, the Steam controller was good in it's own right and it's trackpads are now one of the best features of the Deck. They can experiment with hardware because of the profits, they can afford for them to "flop". Now Linux gaming is a lot better because of Proton too.
Not that I agree with the 30% cut in it's entirety, I think they could subsidise more for small independent developers.
Computers cost what they cost, it doesn’t matter who owns them. You’re deluded if you think Valve’s profit margins are not enormous when they make more money per-person than Apple.
Was about to ask what’s with all the shilling here but just realized which community this is. Have fun shilling for a mega Corp. Go tell yourselves that 30% cut isn’t ridiculous.
But let’s move that away from the mega Corp [sic] everyone here is supposedly shilling for. Let’s talk about cuts lost to distribution and delivery for a second.
I cannot answer this for a lot of industries, but for example for board games ~7%-9% go to the actual designer. That’s 91%-93% that is lost along the way. Even if we take Sweeney’s 25% example that the devs get, that’s still 3x-3.5x as much as for physical products.
This would indicate that digital distribution is far better than physical for developers making games, as they get a vastly bigger percentage of the money. Within the digital space, we can compare things a little bit, at least for video games.
Digital storefronts seem to roughly all come out at 30%, for which Valve provides more value than say Google or Apple, as they also give you forums, mod integrations, and various dev tool to use to simplify development of your game’s modding and multiplayer features.
We also know that consoles are pricier, as you have to pay certification costs for updates on top of the original distribution, and in a way this is true of the mobile stores, too.
Now, don’t get me wrong: 30% is a ton of money, and I cannot see where a rich company needs this much money. However, I would argue they’re one of the last companies to tackle in improving as far as them not taking excessive money goes, and everyone else (Google, Apple, MS, Sony, even Epic considering how they do fuck all for the 12% cut they take) should get impacted first, plus it’s still difficult to argue that digital cut is excessive to begin with comparing the vastly improved developer cut comparing the physical distribution space - as good as I can compare board games vs video games, granted. But I would estimate that the overhead costs of physical sales for video games aren’t that different, manufacture, shipping, it’s all comparable after all. Video games need less container space, but they also sell for less.
Twitch takes 50%, which was an increase of their 30% cut, and people have called them out on it
Apple take 30%, but recently reduced that to 15% for apps making under $1M/yearly
Google Play has the exact same system
GOG takes a 30% cut
Epic Games takes a 12% cut, but they are purposely operating at a loss and this comes with a lot of strings attached (exclusive contracts, passing transaction costs to users, etc.). This is not sustainable, and developer should expect an increase as soon as they take over more of Steam’s userbase. (If they take it over…)
Overall, calling a 30% cut “ridiculous” is patently false. It is the industry standard.
Digital marketplaces use a near monopoly to extort developers into accepting these inflated cuts. I simply will never accept an inflated rate caused by a monopoly as a good thing. Without that near monopoly there is no way they could maintain a 30% cut.
Without that near monopoly there is no way they could maintain a 30% cut.
I admit, it sounds high to me - like I said above. But I also got 0 clue, for all I know 80% of that are their costs. 🤷 Lack knowledge to judge that. At least in digital space 70% go to the makers, and usually 20-25% remain at the end, not 2%-8% like with physical goods.
I think the high profit margin on digital goods is almost entirely due to the more efficient distribution of the Internet vs a supply chain, not because steam enabled it. If anyone deserves that cut because of the lower cost of distribution it’s the people that created the Internet, and thank God they were publicly funded scientists and not corporations.
Also keep in mind that the infrastructure of the Internet charges a usage fee, not a percentage of profit. If I change $5 for a game on steam vs $60, is steam really doing more work to justify a percentage fee?
It should be reversed so that small devs don’t get shafted for not being able to sell millions of dollars worth of copies of their game. The ones making tens of millions of dollars should be paying more.
At the same time it’s not like Valve is not making use of the extra money to use it only for taking in profits. It might of been what made it possible to try entering the hardware market with VR and the Steam Deck and putting resources in trying to make Linux gaming for accessible for regular people. Might of been what allowed them to not be deterred after the failure of the Steam machine and Steam Controller.
Why do I see this online so often? Is it an educational thing? Is it an auto correct thing? Or something other? I am not a native speaker, so I have no clue how this happens.
My understanding is folks tend to gravitate towards that because it’s indeed very close to might’ve and whatnot phonetically. My anecdotal experience as a non-native speaker is we tend to be less affected since we usually tackle speaking and listening more seriously after we’ve already familiarized ourselves enough with writing/reading, grammar and vocab.
It blows my mind as well. My native language is Spanish, but for me it’s way easier to follow language rules properly in English. May have something to do with the fact that my native language is my regular language for expression, so I don’t pay much mind to how I use it, but English being a second language, I actually try to make sure I’m understood. Anyway, that’s what I think could potentially be the reason.
Yes. It would mean that small indie games with low sales wouldn’t be hit as hard by Steam taking a cut, and huge hits that sell millions of copies would help subsidize this.
It would effectively not do anything for game devs to reduce it by 5%.
On the dev side steam provides distribution and a bunch of tools while you develop your game. Tomorrow you can pay 100$, and steam will support you with keys, releasing and publishing your game, reviewing it for free etc.
I have a game I’ve been developing for 5 years part time. I have steam keys I share with testers, and can distribute version for free, with all the patch notes and update features from steam for 100$.
When I do release, they’ll have earned the 30%, and if I don’t release I’ll have saved a ton and steam will take the costs. This greatly reduces the barrier to self-publishing. Out of all the companies I deal with, this is by far the fairest and lest predatory model there is. Gaben could have just bled us of our money even more and it would have worked. They are very rich because they are very humble in a sense.
Do you know everybody who works there and what their ambitions are?
Also, nothing is impossible when you can deploy thepower of acquisition lol i’m less worried about them internally polluting themselves and more about externally being destroyed. We’ve seen this over and over again.
Apparently 50%+ of the company belongs to Gabe himself, presumably he would pass it on to some very trusted. That makes a hostile takeover pretty unlikely.
I really hope he is secretly investing in cloning so we can get Gaben (2) joining Valve soon. Or atleast invest some money in uploading his consciousness into a giant metal head 🗿
Realistically, it’s only a matter of time until Steam becomes as enshittificated as any other services. There is profit to be made from Steam selling advertising space and customer data. They can either choose to capitalize on the profits that are in front of them, or allow another company to and take that capital from them. For a business it’s not a matter of what’s right and wrong anymore but consume or be consumed. If Steam isn’t willing to do that someone else will be willing to play the long game and do it. Then it’ll be only a matter of time until Steam gets acquired by another company and then it’s game over.
This doesn’t make any sense. The reason Valve hasn’t been acquired is because it’s privately owned and not up for sale, not because it doesn’t have “enough profit”. In fact it’s extremely profitable, for all we know.
Sure, another company could come along and build a competitor. It’s happened already multiple times, and Steam is doing just fine despite some major titles these days being exclusive to other platforms. Unless Steam drops the ball on something big time, it’s unlikely that people will move to another platform en masse, especially one that is less focussed on consumer interests. No-one can just come in and “take capital away” from Steam, whatever that means, by building a competitor that sells advertising space and “monetizes user data” — they need users first.
… And then there’s the fact that Steam is already “selling advertiser space” today. Games don’t just get featured on their storefront because Gabe likes them. They make deals with publishers for this.
I don’t have the article on hand, but there is a publication from a steam store employee explaining exactly how to get your game onto the front page. The gist of it is that you don’t have to pay Valve. It’s about community engagement (your publisher, I guess).
I’ve read that, IIRC. It was about getting featured organically though. Steam runs promotions for certain game series or even publisher catalogues frequently, with large custom graphics and usually a sale. Obviously I have no way to know for sure, but I can’t imagine that Valve doesn’t get itself paid for those.
The idea is less that someone makes a competitor and then they actually compete. The idea is that a competitor service is able to lock away one or several big titles, like, say, overwatch, league, fortnite, or whatever else, behind exterior launchers that are maybe more free to do data harvesting. Then, that competitor theoretically eats away more and more of the largest market share, and tries to drive those users from just using their platform for a single game, to maybe using multiple games, maybe with something like a games pass or with free weekend deals or whatever. Once they have that market share, they can give developers better margins, since they’ll be selling customer data at a profit and steam won’t be, maybe with some sort of exclusivity contract baked in, purposely undercutting steam. Then, steam’s been put on the back foot, and the rest is just kind of what has happened to streaming services.
It’s a market, markets trend towards short term gains strategies over long term gains strategies because having faster short term gains means you can more easily crush your competition. It’s like age of empires 2, the first couple minutes of the game is the part that matters the most. That being said, steam has been around for quite some time, and has a good amount of brand loyalty and goodwill built up, and that doesn’t seem to be slowing down anytime soon as they keep one-upping their competition with actual improvements to their platform, like family sharing, screencasting, big picture mode, increased controller support and reassigning, and a full standalone version of linux, that basically all their competitors seem incapable of. So maybe steam has enough of a headstart that, even with a long term gains strategy, even with a, basically, non-evil mentality, they can stay afloat. Who can say.
You’re of course right with the exclusivity argument — that’s a very real possibility, and yet Microsoft has tried it with Call of Duty, one of the most popular franchises ever, and saw very little success with it, resulting in them putting it back on Steam years later. If I were to guess why attempts like this have failed in the past, I would say that Steam is so dominant over the PC gaming market today that not even large franchises going exclusive attract enough of a user base to offset the loss of customers that aren’t buying games only because they’re not on Steam. Add to this the additional overhead of developing and maintaining a competing store front, and the cost-benefit analysis leans clearly towards just being on Steam and accepting their cut of sales. The exclusivity tactic clearly failed even for big titles like CoD, so it definitely won’t work for smaller ones. And we’re not even talking about cutting into the indie game market, which would require making very attractive exclusivity offers to many smaller studios, all for acquiring exclusivity on titles in the hope that they’ll be the next big hit — a very high risk strategy that likely results in a lot of sunken cost short-term.
Once they have that market share, they can give developers better margins, since they’ll be selling customer data at a profit
When we talk about “selling customer data”, I think we need to look in more detail into what this would actually mean in practice. It’s very unlikely that any online storefront could legally literally “sell your personal data” like address etc. that you would enter presumably as part of the payment process to third parties. That’s just illegal almost everywhere in the world, and certainly in the largest PC gaming markets. It wouldn’t lead to significant revenue either, because raw data like that just isn’t very valuable. Instead, I suppose what people mean when they say this (in the context of companies like Google or Facebook) is just the practice of selling advertising services that use the data they have on people to advertisers, who can then target their ads at highly specific segments, improving their return on ad spend. The actual private data though stays with the entity that collected it — because it’s what actually gives them the edge on the market; it allows them to offer better ad targeting than competitors.
How would this apply to Steam or a potential competing storefront? Barely. I assume no-one is arguing that a steam competitor could launch a generic advertising network that could stand against Google or Facebook, so we’re probably talking about advertising within the storefront itself. Steam today already collects information on your interests and customizes the store based on that, plus presumably your location, age group etc. — so they’re pretty much already using your “personal information” to the extent possible in this context. How else could a competitor realistically monetize personal information?
It’s a market, markets trend towards short term gains strategies over long term gains strategies because having faster short term gains means you can more easily crush your competition.
I wouldn’t say that this is the case when we’re talking about trying to eat into the market share of a dominant entity like Steam. Sure, potential competitors can make short-term plays that cut away some market share, but such strategies are expensive, risky, and alone likely don’t lead towards a significantly improved position long-term (exhibit A, again: COD being exclusive to Battle.net).
For better or worse (usually worse), toppling a near-monopoly like Steam is extremely hard for players with big cash, and practically impossible for independent competitors. This is especially true for products that are inherently sticky, like Steam, where people have curated large libraries over decades. The only reason Steam’s dominant position is not hurting the consumer is because their product works well and is in many ways very pro-consumer.
I’d drop Steam if that happened. There are other ways to get games and managers like Lutris make organizing them easy. I’m sure Valve knows this and with how long they’ve been successful, fucking with gamers would not make sense. Look how it’s working or for some of the bigger gaming companies recently.
Yeah the scenario we’re being asked to consider is what if someone else gets control of the company, so whatever power employees nominally have now, they won’t if he dies without deeding the company to a collective.
Valve is a unique company with no traditional hierarchy. In business school, I read a very interesting Harvard Business Review article on the subject. Unfortunately it’s locked behind a paywall, but this is Google AI’s summary of the article which I confirm to be true from what I remember:
According to a Harvard Business Review article from 2013, Valve, the gaming company that created Half Life and Portal, has a unique organizational structure that includes a flat management system called “Flatland”. This structure eliminates traditional hierarchies and bosses, allowing employees to choose their own projects and have autonomy. Other features of Valve’s structure include:
Self-allocated time: Employees have complete control over how they allocate their time
No managers: There is no managerial oversight
Fluid structure: Desks have wheels so employees can easily move between teams, or “cabals”
Peer-based performance reviews: Employees evaluate each other’s performance and stack rank them
Hiring: Valve has a unique hiring process that supports recruiting people with a variety of skills
Kinda sounds like how worker cooperatives work tbh, but with Gabe still technically being the owner.
I remember reading a news piece a while back about how the founder of a food company made sure to transfer ownership to the employees before leaving. While we’re talking about worst-case scenarios, let’s also hope for the best and hope that Gabe has a similar plan.
It would be best to convert it to full employee ownership if it isn’t yet. As long as a steady stream of good employees keeps revolving in it should be a stable company that provides for its employees and customers.
PeopleMakeGames has a two part series on Valve that’s pretty interesting. The second part (here) dives into the structure of the company. It does have a bit of an angle, fwiw, so if you’d prefer something more objective, it might not be a great watch. Personally I think the issues they bring up are valid, but figured I’d mention it.
Lots of companies have peer based employee reviews, cliques have the capability to cause harm in these firms but normally the peers reviewing you are rotated each review period to minimalise that and any bad actors can normally seen by management’s review of the peer reviews.
I don’t believe Valves claim of perfectly flat structure, Gabe is the owner, he if no one else is management and has the power. I’m willing to bet there’s a second level of reviewers for peers, if nothing else then it’s a second separate set of peers reviewing the first set’s reviews to watch for this problem.
Fun fact: Former employees of Valve have said that is actually a huge problem in the organization and that its organizational structure seems to encourage bullying and high-school style “cliquishness” by design.
I mean it’s not as though that’s not a problem in normal companies. It’s just that normal companies can sort of use the guise of structure or professionalism to harangue whatever employees the clique ends up disliking. The cliques are baked in, in a normal company.
Stack ranking is toxic and removes individuality from a given employees expectations in my opinion.
People should be qualified to give proper unbiased reviews. Just because someone is an excellent engineer does not mean they are good at understanding other people’s expectations and work outputs.
I worked at a company that had no ‘managers’ just the owner, and everyone else. I hated that I had no real way to settle disputes and every single disagreement has to ultimately be resolved by the literal one person who was in charge.
I think there is merit to flat structures, but I don’t think the extreme is always the way to go.
There was also an anti-French Wagner/Russian backed military coup d’etat. The US had to closed down a drone base that kept eyes on terrorism suspects there. Even if it was perfect weather, probably not a great place to be right now.
I’m still not 100% trusting that. Any time a dev comes up with a new feature like this one, they might forget to implement a check if the game is privated (or do the check and mess up properly hiding it).
Exactly. This is like someone I knew who was a CSR blowing off steam at difficult customers by hitting mute and cussing them out. Like you realize that mechanisms fail all the time, right? This dude wouldn’t entertain the idea that a mute button could fail. I tried.
I did that when I worked customer support. The only way I could retain the little bit of sanity I had left. But to be honest, we were so understaffed that even if I slipped, they wouldn’t have fired me. There was one guy who was so angry with a customer that he wrote their number down, and then over his break called the customer with his private phone to argue with them. Still didn’t get fired, lol.
Lol holy shit. I’m sure it’s a very frustrating job at times. This guy was a parent and needed his job. I don’t think they would’ve had all that much trouble replacing him
I worked briefly as a CSR and during training they made a point of telling us that people had been fired because of doing exactly that when the mute button failed. That was over a decade ago, but I wouldn’t expect increased reliability today.
More recently, a friend who is a CSR told me that their software mute buttons only prevent the audio from going to the customer, but it’s still recorded and can be grounds for termination if the call was audited. I introduced her to a microphone with a physical mute button but made sure she knew that it could also fail (or most likely, that she might be using a different connected mic, in case the hardware mute would do nothing).
Office conferencing software also has a really bad record with their software mutes. I’ve had experiences with Teams, Zoom, and Webex where I’ve clicked mute, but wasn’t muted.
The mute button should be thought of as a feature for the person on the other line / the other people on the call - you’re reducing the noise so the focus can be on the conversation - not as a feature for your privacy. You can treat Private Games similarly - it’s so you don’t subject your friends to the thought of you playing sexually themed games, not so you’re guaranteed to be saved the embarrassment of people knowing that you’re playing them.
I keep seeing people talking about sexual games on steam. I’ve yet to see one. I’m sure they exist … but how common are they? Do people actually play those? Even if I wanted to do so, I would instantly assume because it’s on steam there’s a chance my friends could see me playing it no matter my settings, and that would be a no-go. It’s just awkward.
It’d be like jerking off with the shades open because “well no one is supposed to be in my backyard”. Okay but what if some kids are there to get their ball or something? You have to assume unexpected things will happen in life.
Color me impressed that the gaming community actually cares about this. Certainly more egregious abuse has been levied at them in the past and ignored.
Yeah compared to rootkits, micro transactions, unfinished games at launch, publisher launchers, seems there’s no shortage of things to whinge about in the current gaming space.
This game has a couple of those things but generally has been the best co-op shooting experience since Left for Dead 2 to me. Helldivers 1 was a blast too though.
I feel like the level of whiplash this game is getting is similar to that of Cyberpunk but I could be exaggerating. If the game wasn’t so successful at checking people’s boxes at the outset, I think we wouldn’t be having this discussion today. It being so popular is why there are a ton of people freaking out. I’m not saying it’s not warranted, just observing.
Needless to say, Sony is never going to allow an account linking grace period in any of their games going forward. It looks like they gave the kids candy and then took it away, better for them to just not give the candy in the first place.
Edit to add: I also find it hard to stomach the amount of ire to some degree because the creative devs had nothing to do with this and clearly put a ton of energy and love into the game. They even have a unique connection to the community through the bespoke game master, Joel. I’m pretty torn about it: I want the gaming industry to stop this full speed charge toward enshittification like, literally, every other aspect of life now. But I don’t want developers to have to not only worry about mass layoffs and internal industry enshittification on top of reactionary blowback from the people they make the games for.
I will say I have the luxury of living in a country that’s supported by PSN and already have an account, so it colors my opinions.
If it makes you feel any better, one of Arrowhead’s community managers specifically said to take the anger to steam. It makes it very public that people are unhappy, and it’s more likely to get Sony to change the policy. So the devs are aware of why this is happening, and it appears that to an extent at least, support the negative reviews
I’ll have you know this is oppression worse than what people of color experienced during the antebellum south. By God it might even be worse than the Holocaust.
Honestly I’m more annoyed by the rootkit “anti-cheat” the game uses, than this Sony action. It’s easy enough to make a burner email account for Sony, and for better or worse, I’m not in one of the countries impacted.
They DEFINITELY need to refund all players that are from newly blocked countries - anything short of a full refund is unacceptable, but it’s not like people have cared that PSN is unavailable in Nigeria before this point.
All that said, I love seeing the community putting Sony’s feet on the fire for implementing even mildly anti-consumer BS. I just wish the outrage was more consistent
Honestly I’m more annoyed by the rootkit “anti-cheat” the game uses, than this Sony action.
Exactly. Little/no backlash when the game was announced with these anti-features. It’s not even a competitive game. If one of my teammates was cheating I’d probably just laugh.
Not saying I don’t think they deserve to be upset, it’s just strange when and what they choose to be upset about.
It’s easy enough to make a burner email account
Except it is because you have to connect said account to your Steam account.
another one big thing is those of us who care just straight up don’t buy the game, and without buying the game we can’t leave a negative review, and we moved on and not talked about it anymore.
What happened here is affecting people who have spent money on this game, who can leave review and actually cannot just walk away without having your spent money thrown into the void.
Yeah I was actually baffled by the lack of backlash for that, as that was much worse than the PSN account requirement issue, at least data/privacy wise.
Right? This game requires users install a kernel-level anti-cheat in order to run. That’s a huge privacy and security risk just to play a non-competitive video game. Nobody seemed to care about that, but signing up for PlayStation Network? That’s where gamers draw the line!
I mean, I’m glad they’re finally pushing back against terrible corporate decisions but what set them off is puzzling.
The difference is everyone CAN install a bad anti-cheat, or decide to not do it.
But if people who bought the game suddenly CAN’T legally play it anymore, because PSN doesn’t allow accounts in their country, they don’t even have a choice.
Selling the game in those regions in the first place was deeply wrong, but then taking away the ability to play AFTER they sold it to people, that’s a bridge too far.
And we’re not just talking about most of Africa (not that that would be less bad), we’re also talking about countries like Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, those are EU members, how is there no PSN available there?
It’s not about anticheat per se but about kernel-level anticheats, which are just overkill in a PvE game. I’m not sure about the other games you mentioned, but at least Apex has no kernel-level anticheat.
For me personally, it just got to me that Sony gave negative shits while Arrowhead was fighting an uphill battle getting their game playable in the face of overnight success, and now that everything is great and the hard work is done, Sony’s seeing dollar signs and pushing their fucking corpo bullshit on a studio that sees zero benefit and suffers all the fallout. They’re all too happy to shit where Arrowhead eats and it pisses me off.
Yeah but it’s been said before: this is not the 1st or the 14th game to required 3rd party fuckin’ accounts for no reason and received very few complaints.
Usually it’s forced at launch so if people don’t like it they can refund immediately. This is an odd situation where it went from being skippable to suddenly a requirement. People got used to not needing another account for the game.9
If people could play without it then it wasn’t required. Especially if the majority of the time the game has been active it hasn’t been. So in the eyes of consumers it wasn’t required. EULAs or whatever is only something companies clutch onto.
Not everyone buys a game immediately at launch. So doesn’t matter. There were enough people that could as their first play through that game wasn’t even region blocked.
It’s not even about waiting or patience. I’m not a teenager anymore, so I don’t have as much to play games as I used to (and I have now other interests too). I have so many great PC games in my queue I literally won’t have time to play them all until I die. The queue only gets longer with time. So what if I can’t play some console exclusive? It’s just one game in the long list of games I won’t get to play and I have no problems with that.
I don’t have the tech-saavy for emulation, and I’ll still wait for console exclusives to come out on PC (unless we’re talking Nintendo exclusives I’m actually interested in). I’ve actively waited for Ghost Signal: A Stellaris Game to no longer be a Facebook exclusive, and now I’m doing the same for Out Of Scale.
Remember when Facebook’s overarching company bought out Oculus? Well, some VR games seem to start out as exclusives on the “quest” headsets. (I know Facebook [the parent company] changed their name to “Meta”, but I refuse to acknowledge that)
Valve support has historically been pretty awesome. They even replaced an index controller nearly a year out of warranty. Granted their controllers have a shit switch and they break after a few hundred hours, but good on support for being bros.
That’s basically all corporate entities. They’re not beholden to the workers, the consumers, or the general public and instead answer to people generally trying to milk everything as hard as possible.
Valve wouldn’t exist at it is if it was public and might not exist as it is if it wasn’t for Newell (and I say that as a person that’s very critical of Valve, they’re still very far from how bad they could be considering their position)
Not gonna defend corporations here, but valve isnt public. They are privately owned by the bosses and employees, valve has one of the lowest turnover rates in the industry. It is quite difficult to get a job there for that reason. So they are actually quite beholden to their workers.
I get it from their perspective, featuring dwarves in a game doesn’t really help others find similar games in the same vein. On the other hand, they have a tag for pirates and Black Flag differs quite a bit from puzzle pirates.
Wouldn't a ninja tag technically say more about a game than a dwarf tag though, since a Ninja is a profession, meanwhile dwarfs are just short creatures fond of drink and industry?
This is the original meaning of the phrase “the customer is always right”. It’s been warped by “karen” types into a weapon used against minimum wage workers, but what it’s supposed to mean is “the customer is always right in matters of taste”. Meaning if a company doesn’t want to do something because they think it’s dumb but the demographic says “I like that” then the customer is right, and the company should do it. I know the dwarf tag isn’t about money, but it’s still a matter of listening to the customers on the platform.
We had the topic of creating a comment and a blog. The main topic for it was “Gaming” to make it more interesting for pupils. Its at a vocational school. Our teacher just picked the Blizzard topic and we learned multiple weeks how to do this with blizzard and then had an Exam on this. Its interesting that woman were molested there and we also compared this with german IT workplaces where Woman are pretty much happy at IT workplaces but there also is not much of them. We want more woman at IT places and also learned how IT was actually more of a Female job because carying for Kids and Homeoffice was a perfect combination.
Not to mention selling the sequel on the promise of Co-op then cancelling that feature long after launch and killing the 1st game so players couldn’t simply continue to play the game they purchased already.
“we’ve built a platform that at least give piracy a run for its money, and used it to develop a massive user base so conditioned to buying from us that they happily joke about how 50% off a game they won’t play is cause for them to buy four times as many. Please, join us all in the baffling orgy of commerce, all we ask is 30% of the treasure.”.
“We will, but we’re gonna try to get the users to come to our platform with less content and maybe a $500 buy-in so we can have a bigger portion of a smaller pie”.
“Lol, go for it”.
“…”.
“…”.
“Why are you being anticompetitive?”
The hilarious thing is that Sony could open their own pc storefront selling steam keys, keep their 30%, and the only restriction would be maintaining price parity with the same game on the Steam storefront.
For a. Company like Sony that already has all the payment processing and customer service knowhow, this would be far easier for them than most.
Yet they can’t or won’t bother because suits are fucking stupid.
Shit, I assumed that valve somehow got a cut of games from keys as well, but looking it up (briefly), it looks like you’re entirely right and they don’t.
That makes it even more bonkers that companies keep trying to siphon off the market share, since you could just take your market proceeds as bonus revenue as long as valve got their share of what they sell.
I’m assuming that’s a big chunk of how things like humble bundle make their money?
You can’t actually, they won’t let you generate more keys if you sell fewer units through Steam directly (probably not 1:1, they don’t state precise numbers as it’s up to their discretion).
Here’s the relevant part of their website for reference:
If you request an extreme number of keys and you are not offering Steam customers a comparable deal, or if your sole business is selling Steam Keys and not offering value to Steam customers, your request may be denied and you may lose the privilege to request keys.
I find it hard to believe Sony would run afoul of these guidelines. I’m not sure what they mean by “if your sole business is selling steam keys”. Maybe referring to shovelware ‘developers’ that use steam for laundering money, if I had to guess.
Parity in this case would likely mean nearly everyone just buys directly from steam. No doubt Sony would infect the gaming process by injecting their launcher no matter what you do, but steam will get their 30%.
I don’t know what Sony could offer on their own storefront that plays well with parity rules to make people choose it over steam.
But the thought of them operating their own store front and offering steam keys with every sale won’t happen. Valve have stopped that in the past.
God preach here. "Our storefront works half the time, is clunky, bulky, filled with flashy ads and no substance, allows no customization, you can’t add your own games, you can’t run it on Linux, and our games will always assume you’re trying to pirate or hack even when we know you just bought the game. Switch over now! You’ll love it!
If scale is no longer an issue, why can’t Epic create a store with similar functionality to steam? Because it’s not about that. It’s about Tim not being able to pocket as much.
Epic simply doesn’t want to be consumer friendly. Epic sees the money Valve is making, but not the effort Valve puts into their store. Just how consumer friendly Valve is the reason Valve basically a monopoly. Valve gives so many tools to the devs too such as SteamAPI to make their games better and accessible to a wide range of consumers with a wide range of devices.
Epic knows that the way it can fight Valve is by pointing out their 30% cut. Everything else, involves making their store better, which Epic doesn’t wanna do.
Hopefully. But it feels like we do this very often. We get a drug or something else that does this or that and is touted as being the best at this and then a few years later we announce that it was a horrible decision and has harsh consequences. Cigarettes, plastic, trans fats, so many dietary trends…
I’d love to try it but I’m skeptical just for this reason. Hoping not to hear in a decade that all these people developed the same type of cancer or some other horrible ailment.
But what you’re describing is just how science works in a world where we’re trying to make discoveries quickly due to our lifespans only being around 75 years compared to the billions or millions or thousands of years for everything else existing.
As long as we continue making discoveries along the way, this is progress. It sucks that we keep getting things partially wrong sometimes, like with asbestos, but we’ll eventually get it right as long as we keep following the process.
The examples given are not problems with science and time-scales. They are examples of the corrupting influence of money. Companies push their product as being fantastic, and deliberately cripple any science that would challenge their profits. Cigarettes are probably the most famous example of this.
steam
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.