1 dayI’m assuming Steam’s shotgun is the Steam Machine price? Not shotgun-worthy at all. They’ll make money regardless of how it does.
- 8 hours
The Steam Machine is actually a better choice in a digital-only console landscape. Only a PC is better than it
At this rate, the PS6 would be a streaming device (like the Playstation Portal) and the PS7 would be an online virtual machine.
- 7 hours
They were very obviously “shot” by AI and memory manufacturers.
OP is not a very good detective. They’d walk up on a scene and determine that five shots to the back of the head must have been suicide.
- 17 hours
And so will all the others, maybe except Ubisoft.
I think this is about losing fans/customers, not necessarily losing money. Which is still a stretch with Steam. The Machine isn’t the best product, but it’s not harming anyone.
No surprise there, there are plenty of people with expendable income that will want Valve’s newest thing. But even their biggest success, the Steam Deck, only managed around 5 million sales at a reasonable price. The Steam Machine is doubly niche at that price.
- 18 hours
Why do you think it’s more niche? It’s a pc, priced reasonably for a pc this size at this time, while the deck is a handheld. Are you saying that PCs are more niche than handhelds nowadays?
Because a PC enthusiast is more likely to build their own and it’s too expensive for a non-enthusiast. The Steam Deck was as popular as it was because of the price.
- 13 hours
Eh, I’d argue the steam machine isn’t a PC to most people that don’t already own a PC. Most adverts I’ve seen of the steam machine promote it very console-like, just with steam and more games. Everyone who reads enough into it, and knows enough about PCs to feel comfortable with Linux, most likely already has a comparable or better PC at home.
It’s meant to be an entry-level PC to help console gamers migrate into a PC environment with minimal overhead.
It’s not meant to be a 4k at 240fps future proofed build.
While I agree there with the Machine being more niche and would probably not sell as much as a Deck, the deck also has availability issues. Can’t sell more than exist 🤷♂️ (or well, I guess you could, but then you’d be an asshole lol).
The Deck was available and at a decent price for years. But you’re right, every one they made did get eventually get sold until the new and “improved price” versions came out.
- 24 hours
I mean it’s closer to a pellet gun because afaik the Steam machine isn’t subsidized by game sales unlike some consoles, still engineering and setting up manufacturing still probably cost a lot so it’s probably still a gun just not a shotgun.
- HobbitFoot @thelemmy.clubEnglish22 hours
I look at the Steam Machine being a proof of concept device leading to third party development.
There is now a lot of interest in computer markers to make their own machine and Valve is more than happy if they do it at no cost to Valve.
- 14 hours
Yeah valve wins regardless of who builds the machines, arguably they win more if someone else builds the machine but regardless they win.
Yup, especially once they start putting out their heavy hitter franchises.
To me, its the price fixing allegations (e.g. dictating the prices of other stores).
- 7 hours
I may be ignorant af here but…I think culturally, they aren’t nearly as cynical as we are about the corporate hellscape, at least not publicly.
The attitude seems to be that companies, especially Nintendo, are a home-country brand, seen as successful and good at business, and therefore should be respected for it.
This is the likely the same attitude that leads to their abysmal work culture that prizes literally working yourself to death, or at least as close to it as you can.
I think the death grip is loosening though, primarily driven by younger generations seeing through the bullshit.
- kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish21 hours
I prefer the version that has OpenAI and Anthropic shooting Valve.
Valve started it. Valve invented the “we can violate copyright laws because it’s on a computer”. Your purchased games will be digital downloads where you have no actual ownership rights.
It is illegal to stop you from reselling copyrighted work you bought at whatever price you can get. Book publishers tried that over 100 years ago and were smacked down by the Supreme Court and followed up with laws passed by Congress.
- 19 hours
Valve invented the “we can violate copyright laws because it’s on a computer”
That stunt was invented by the music industry first. It was a hit with publishers. Valve helped the publishers do the same shit with video games and it’s still awful, but they weren’t the inventors.
It boils down to the same issues of predatory copyright laws that have been perverted into a twisted mockery of the good intentions they were initially supposed to serve.
In a legal sense, media is media. The laws were established for music before digital games were mainstream, and were then applied to games.
- Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish16 hours
Books aren’t games, either, but you brought them up. Why are different forms of media valid when they support your argument but not when they don’t?
- atomicbocks@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 day
The argument is about digital goods not just video games, but for the record they absolutely did.
You didn’t read your own link. From your own Wikipedia link: First game released in 2006. 2 years after Steam.
“the argument isn’t about games”? Then where is the non gaming publisher in the OP gif above?
They most definitely did. Maybe you should learn about the stuff you’re talking about before posting things that are completely wrong.
Maybe you should look up history before downvoting:
https://www.macworld.com/article/181577/ipodgames-2.html
First game on itunes was 2006- 3 years after Steam.
- 14 hours
I do not see what your link has to do with your comment. iTunes did sell games, your comment was factually incorrect.
Your purchased games will be digital downloads where you have no actual ownership rights.
show me evidence that they took games away from users after they were purchased and didn’t give refunds back to.
- domdanial@reddthat.comEnglish1 day
Any time someone gets an account ban. Now sometimes those are for a good reason, but it still removes access to purchased content, as steam is the gatekeeper to access them.
It’s about reselling them. You cannot sell your game on steam. EU made a law that requires is and then Steam converted everyone’s purchases into licenses.
I’ve never resold games. I still have Kings Quest 3 in the original box, disks, and paperwork.
why would I sell games?
- 17 hours
Looking at your comments intellectual quality you also never sold a house. That doesn’t mean it would be ok to convert everyone’s property into leasing.
- 16 hours
I’m genuinely sad for you.
not only did you waste your time reading through my comment history, you also thought that your weak attempt at wit would somehow inflame or irritate.
it’s clear you didn’t learn anything about me because if you had, you would have known that I need to care about your opinion for it to matter to me.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
You might not sell games, but other people do especially if they don’t like a game.
Now the game just sits in a virtual library unplayed. If there was a way to sell, or loan, a game license to a friend or something, that’d be cool.
guess I just don’t care about the cost. I don’t buy launch titles. if I don’t like a game I just give it away to someone and chalk the cost up to learning to never buy from that developer again.
- Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish14 hours
Alright, fuckit, I’ll be Devils Advocate.
Bellular News reported on some emails that came up in Discovery from a recent lawsuit. Many people have heard the story “They just don’t want devs to sell Steam keys below their price.” This was not that. There is E-mail evidence of Valve preventing Ubisoft from selling a version of Siege for $10 on their store, while the Steam price was $15; and there may be similar examples coming up.
This is more important for indies than a shitty AAA store, but basically a dev should be allowed to run their own store and skip Valve’s fees if they are committed. Minecraft did it, for instance. Part of the issue is, while I’m pretty sure people can come up with counterexamples, Valve doesn’t seem perfectly consistent with any one policy.
I still love Steam and I consider most “monopoly” claims to be Epic-paid astroturf. But I won’t default to defending them on all fronts when they also tacitly allow child gambling.
I can’t really blame em for that. I blame Sam Altman and the army of Clankers that spawned from it
- 1 day
They‘re a de facto monopoly, and they pretty much started the whole drm protected license tied to account thing for video games. They also charge quite some fees for devs.
But they haven’t been in the news for anything specific lately, besides maybe the price of the stream machine, which definitely isn’t their fault.
- Zarobi@aussie.zoneEnglish21 hours
Steam did basically invent the digital games marketplace, but that’s not a bad thing in my eyes. It brought games to many many more people, and helped make the industry what it is today. Without Steam, PC gaming might still just be an obscure hobby, and there might not be many games there at all. People forget what it was like before Steam, console gaming was extremely more popular than PC gaming. Like the numbers aren’t even close.
PC Games up to 2003 (Steam release date) were like: SimCity, Age of Mythology, Neverwinter Nights, Civ 3, Zoo Tycoon, Baldur’s Gate, Unreal Tournament.
Notice what these games genres and playstyle is like. You had to use a mouse and keyboard because game controllers didn’t even plug into your PC, even Microsoft Xbox used proprietary connectors not USB. My computer didn’t even have an USB port back then. The games had to be basically completely remade for PC, and game dev tooling was bad, so most didn’t bother porting at all. “Console-type games” were rare or extremely delayed PC releases.
This all changed after Steam made PC gaming popular, especially with the Orange Box. I remember thinking Steam was stupid back in the day. Like why do I have to make a dumb account just to use the CD I bought? And the interface was hot garbage. But of course it got better over time.
- 15 hours
A digital marketplace for games existing is indeed in no way a bad thing.
Neither is Steam, per se. I use it myself happily and valve has done a lot of good for gamers, even more so as someone gaming on Linux.However: That doesn‘t make it better that they’re still at least partially responsible for online drm (although ea, ubisoft and microsoft aren’t exactly innocent either).
Platforms like gog, which sells games without drm, get way more goodwill from me though.
Also, I find it a bit naïve to think that steam singlehandedly made PC gaming popular. There were a lot of AAA games, even well into the 2010s, that used either disc based drm, no drm or – starting around 2010 – other, non steam online drm.
I didn‘t have the need for a steam account with more than goat simulator until like 2016 or 17 and I did play a lot of games.What I do give steam credit for is making indie games popular. Prior, those just weren’t really a big thing. Thanks to steam, you didn’t need a big publisher.
Also: I do have gripes with the gaming community hating drm and other game launchers (and especially here on Lemmy being anti capitalist and anti billionaire) but then pulling out the pitchforks of anyone points out that Valve maybe isn’t perfect either…
Of course Steam charges fees they provide a service! Why is Valve the only game company expected to work for free?
- 14 hours
No one is expecting them to work for free. But they’re expected to not use their market dominance to collect significantly higher fees than the competition, while pressuring game devs to not make their games cheaper on platforms with lower fees, which is something they’re currently being sued over.
Steam set the precedent of 30%. If you actually knew your history on this subject you’d also know 30% is far less than what publishers took before Steam. You are either uneducated about the subject or maliciously twisting the facts.
- Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish14 hours
The only distributor that has lower fees is Epic.
If you believe, in a Steamless world, Epic wouldn’t raise their fee to 30%, I have a Half-Life 3 to sell you.
- 8 hours
And Microsoft and itch.io.
So, only gog is as expensive for devs on PC as Steam.
And of course they would ask as much as steam would, if they were in valve’s position. But they aren’t and valve is actively using their position of power to keep them there (besides the stores being worse, feature wise, but a lot of people would ignore that for 20% cheaper games on epic, for example).
- Soggy@lemmy.worldEnglish7 hours
Itch.io doesn’t provide anywhere near the service Valve does, it would be ludicrous for them to charge the same.
hard not to be a monopoly when you make a decent service and your opponent is (gestures vaguely)
- Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish14 hours
Yeah, somehow I feel like this claimant never saw the original variation of this meme.
- 15 hours
I‘m not saying there isn’t a reason they’re in the position they’re in. They provide a good service and – so far – haven’t made a notable faux-pas. But I‘d still rather buy a game on gog than on steam.
- 8 hours
They aren’t a monopoly. But they are monopolistic. They have a market share of 80-90% and are using that power to make it harder for competitors to gain market share (for example by pressuring developers to not lower their prices on platforms with lower fees).
- Blaster M@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
From what I remember, individual publishers started it, but they used a combo of cd-based drm (which would install rootkits on your pc and sometimes kill your cd drive) and online activation of your key to your account. Steam just made a much less invasive system that lets you access your purchases easily instead of making it risky and hard.
- 14 hours
But doesn’t gog especially show, that you can do completely without drm and not have any issues?
- Soggy@lemmy.worldEnglish7 hours
That’s always been the case but the anti-home-copying paranoia has had media executives wringing their hands since the tape recorder at least.
- 1 day
Ive had this argument with people multiple times and it ALWAYS boils down to, Steam is too successful and no one else wants to compete with what steam is actually doing right.
- 14 hours
Steam is doing a lot right, don’t get me wrong.
But, there are enough other platforms who are trying to get a foothold and valve doesn’t exactly make it easy for them.
They’re currently being sued for anti competitive behaviour by pressuring devs into not offering cheaper prices on platforms with lower fees.- 5 hours
I’m aware and it’s a bullshit lawsuit because people are jealous of steams success. Its not anti competitive to say I will distribute your games for you, but you can’t turn around a out sell it for cheaper once it becomes successful.
they aren’t stopping others from selling their games for cheaper, only saying you can’t also sell the same thing for cheaper elsewhere to make us look like assholes.
It’s entirely fair and transparent. They are free to delist their games from steam if they don’t want to sell it for the same price as the steam store.
And also there are multiple ways to get steam keys for cheaper than steam sells the games yet valve still accommodates those purchases inspite of the way the TOC is stated about selling games cheaper elsewhere.
It’s Ubisoft suing them and they are just bitter and jealous.
- 2 hours
Man y‘all are getting really defensive when it comes to your favourite multi billion dollar company.
I like the service steam provides but they’re not your friend. They’re still a profit oriented company.
And just because valve’s competition are incompetent and/or assholes doesn’t mean valve’s not anti competitive.
It’s not about a dev selling a game cheaper on another platform once it becomes popular, it’s about valve forbidding them to sell it cheaper somewhere else at release. Them using their 80-90% market share to forcing developers to either comply or get locked out of more than three quarters of the market is the essence of anti competitive behavior. Doesn’t matter if it’s Ubisoft who’s complaining (fuck ubisoft). It’s monopolistic.
Also didn’t valve very recently state that they’re gonna enforce their terms of service more strictly in regards to keys sold on other platforms?
- 18 minutes
Valve hasn’t changed anything, I’m tired of people just bandwagoning every thing they don’t like. Valve isn’t like other companies. They are still a for profit venture but they aren’t doing anything problematic.
I personally don’t feel the terms they offer to provide the amazing service they provide is anti competitive, and like ive mentioned I have had this argument before. I don’t see how it’s anti competitive to say I’ll sell your shit and host it and distribute it and manage your upgrades, but I don’t want you listing it less elsewhere than your are willing to on my platform.
I’m not just out here licking Gabe’s ballsack, you aren’t offering any rationale for them being uncompetitive other than someone is suing them. Which is what I was responding to mainly. Just because Ubisoft, like Epic before then, even EA too, failed to create a product that people actually want to use, doesn’t make Valve uncompetitive.
If this is such a bastardly term, why is it only now that those big firms are failing to launch, that the policies that are almost 20 years old now suddenly anticompetitive.
Can you offer one argument about why price parity is a bad thing?
How are they a monopoly when you can buy most of the games on Steam elsewhere if you want? Most people just choose not to.
- 15 hours
That’s why I said „de facto“. They have the power of a monopoly. They can do whatever the fuck they want, like charging developers more fees than almost any other PC games storefront. Because what can the devs do? Not use steam? Who’s gonna play the games then?
And valve is currently getting sued for abusing their market dominance for anti competitive behavior, pressuring devs into not offering their games for cheaper on other platforms, which do offer a lower cut, for example.
So yea, they aren’t a monopoly. But, at least within the PC games market, they do act monopolistic.
