Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

NodeBB

  1. Home
  2. Games
  3. Debunking the grey market beyond Steam

Debunking the grey market beyond Steam

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Games
games
159 Posts 28 Posters 126 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • T [email protected]

    The wolfire games lawsuit is so damn cringe.

    No company is your friend, but there's a reason Steam is number 1. The reinvestment in the platform and breadth of features steam has is unrivaled.

    Epic has been trying for nearly a decade now and their store doesn't even have 1/4 the features of steam.

    I love GoG though. For me they offer something steam can't, installers for my games.

    G This user is from outside of this forum
    G This user is from outside of this forum
    [email protected]
    wrote last edited by
    #116

    there's a reason Steam is number 1

    Monopoly, and Stockholmed G*mers

    T 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • ulrich@feddit.orgU [email protected]

      Massively unsuccessful games like... checks notes League of Legends. World of Warcraft.

      These games are both about as old as Steam itself. Their playerbase was created in a different market.

      Am I supposed to be sad that E fucking A failed to install their shareholder value store on my computer?

      No, you're just supposed to recognize why it failed.

      pory@lemmy.worldP This user is from outside of this forum
      pory@lemmy.worldP This user is from outside of this forum
      [email protected]
      wrote last edited by [email protected]
      #117

      For me, it failed because I wasn't willing to install some shareholder-driven company's storefront app on my computer just to play Mass Effect 3, so I pirated Mass Effect 3. Then I got to watch it fail because it turns out I wasn't the only one willing to skip/pirate games because they came with Origin attached to them.

      Epic's exclusives are the exact same.

      I get my PC games from five sources. Steam, GOG's website, Itch's website, standalone launchers (I'd probably be okay with a "store" of games as small as the Riot launcher, but I don't use that because I don't install rootkit anticheat), and piracy. Launcherless Itch and GOG have convenience parity with piracy with the added benefit of the devs getting paid (and the ease of acquiring updates), and I'll usually use them over Steam if available. Itch could easily get bought by a corp like Humble did and CDPR is already a shareholder value company, but they sell DRM-free products that I can use even after the stores die / sell out.

      A recent launch I paid for and didn't use Steam for is "The Bazaar" - it has a standalone launcher. The game went pay to win so I uninstalled it, but its lack of presence on Steam didn't keep me from playing it.

      I'll use stuff other than Steam no problem. But I'll always cheer when a platform owned and operated by a shareholder backed company dies in favor of one that isn't. My experience in the hobby space of PC gaming is better when there aren't exclusives locked on EA Origin or UPlay or Microsoft UWP store or Epic, because I might want to play those games without installing a stock-ticker company's adware on my computer. Having the space "capitalism free" is unrealistic, unless we're talking "pirate everything". I'll settle for "profit driven" over "YOY growth driven" leaders in the space any day of the week.

      Now, if Steam's position as the best distributor/launcher platform is a de facto "monopoly", what's the solution to that? Anecdotally I know plenty of people that play non-Steam games while not playing any Epic games. Epic tries to fight Steam by directly paying developers to not publish on Steam, and also effectively guaranteeing studios a financial success by cutting a deal to put their game up for "free" on the Epic storefront. Plenty of games have been "Free" on Epic while full price on Steam. Valve tries to fight Epic by... Acting like Epic doesn't exist. They don't chase exclusives or get into a price war with Epic.

      Steam is the most popular platform for PC game releases. A subset of users will not consider ever using other platforms. If we accept this as the definition of "monopoly" the way we'd say Windows has a monopoly on x64 PCs, how would changing the revenue split for devs (which appears to be the issue this company's suing Valve over) alleviate this "monopoly"? Sounds to me like forcing Steam to explicitly allow "the game is more expensive on Steam" tactics would just make Steam even more of a no-brainer for devs over stuff like Epic or their own platform.

      You could say that paying the devs/studios a better cut is the point, and I'd see the validity in the argument. But it's completely unrelated to whether or not Valve operates as a monopoly.

      ulrich@feddit.orgU 1 Reply Last reply
      3
      • chairmanmeow@programming.devC [email protected]

        It is true. Valve does not enforce price parity for non Steam keys. Here is an example where the dev says that they are offering a better price on EGS because of the better cut:

        https://twitter.com/HeardOfTheStory/status/1700066610302603405

        https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/p/heard-of-the-story-ff3758

        https://store.steampowered.com/app/1881940/Heard_of_the_Story/

        Pretty clear example of the same game having a lower base price on Epic than on Steam.

        Wolfire claiming Valve does this is something different from Valve actually doing it, and that's where the dispute lies. According to Valve, Wolfire's explanation of the price parity policy is incorrect.

        Here's the policy itself: https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys#3

        You should use Steam Keys to sell your game on other stores in a similar way to how you sell your game on Steam. **It is important that you don’t give Steam customers a worse deal than Steam Key purchasers. **

        The policy is pretty leanient regarding the "worse deal" aspect. You're allowed to have a sale on one platform but not on Steam, as long as you offer "something similar" at a different moment to Steam users too.

        It's OK to run a discount for Steam Keys on different stores at different times as long as you plan to give a comparable offer to Steam customers within a reasonable amount of time.

        Even if you violate this policy, Valve will still sell your game, they may just stop providing you with Steam keys to sell.

        I don't see Wolfire winning this tbh.

        toribor@corndog.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
        toribor@corndog.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
        [email protected]
        wrote last edited by
        #118

        So can developers just 'create' steam keys out of thin air that can be used to activate their game on steam? Does Valve get paid when the keys are created or activated? Or not at all?

        Seems fair maybe if it's using all of Steams infrastructure, considering developers can distribute the game themselves without steam keys.

        chairmanmeow@programming.devC 1 Reply Last reply
        3
        • misk@sopuli.xyzM [email protected]

          Despite facing increased competition in the space, not least from the Epic Games Store, Valve's platform is synonymous with PC gaming. The service is estimated to have made $10.8 billion in revenue during 2024, a new record for the Half-Life giant. Since it entered the PC distribution space back in 2018, the rival Epic Games Store has been making headway – and $1.09 billion last year – but Steam is still undeniably dominant within the space.

          Valve earns a large part of its money from taking a 20-30% cut of sales revenue from developers and publishers. Despite other storefronts opening with lower overheads, Steam has stuck with taking this slice of sales revenue, and in doing so, it has been argued that Valve is unfairly taking a decent chunk of the profits of developers and publishers.

          This might change, depending on how an ongoing class-action lawsuit initiated by Wolfire Games goes, but for the time being, Valve is making money hand over fist selling games on Steam. The platform boasts over 132 million users, so it's perfectly reasonable that developers and publishers feel they have to use Steam – and give away a slice of their revenue – in order to reach the largest audience possible.

          Q This user is from outside of this forum
          Q This user is from outside of this forum
          [email protected]
          wrote last edited by
          #119

          Glad to see lawsuits against Valve.

          I love them as a company and I buy my games on Steam first, (GOG is my second choice)... but we need their monopoly reigned in. If not by a viable competitor than by making Valve beholden to their clients and not vice versa.

          V 1 Reply Last reply
          4
          • G [email protected]

            there's a reason Steam is number 1

            Monopoly, and Stockholmed G*mers

            T This user is from outside of this forum
            T This user is from outside of this forum
            [email protected]
            wrote last edited by
            #120

            The other competitors are kinda shit.

            GoG is dope for giving install files and being DRM free.

            But acting like steam isn't legitimately the best platform by a country mile is crazy.

            1 Reply Last reply
            7
            • pory@lemmy.worldP [email protected]

              For me, it failed because I wasn't willing to install some shareholder-driven company's storefront app on my computer just to play Mass Effect 3, so I pirated Mass Effect 3. Then I got to watch it fail because it turns out I wasn't the only one willing to skip/pirate games because they came with Origin attached to them.

              Epic's exclusives are the exact same.

              I get my PC games from five sources. Steam, GOG's website, Itch's website, standalone launchers (I'd probably be okay with a "store" of games as small as the Riot launcher, but I don't use that because I don't install rootkit anticheat), and piracy. Launcherless Itch and GOG have convenience parity with piracy with the added benefit of the devs getting paid (and the ease of acquiring updates), and I'll usually use them over Steam if available. Itch could easily get bought by a corp like Humble did and CDPR is already a shareholder value company, but they sell DRM-free products that I can use even after the stores die / sell out.

              A recent launch I paid for and didn't use Steam for is "The Bazaar" - it has a standalone launcher. The game went pay to win so I uninstalled it, but its lack of presence on Steam didn't keep me from playing it.

              I'll use stuff other than Steam no problem. But I'll always cheer when a platform owned and operated by a shareholder backed company dies in favor of one that isn't. My experience in the hobby space of PC gaming is better when there aren't exclusives locked on EA Origin or UPlay or Microsoft UWP store or Epic, because I might want to play those games without installing a stock-ticker company's adware on my computer. Having the space "capitalism free" is unrealistic, unless we're talking "pirate everything". I'll settle for "profit driven" over "YOY growth driven" leaders in the space any day of the week.

              Now, if Steam's position as the best distributor/launcher platform is a de facto "monopoly", what's the solution to that? Anecdotally I know plenty of people that play non-Steam games while not playing any Epic games. Epic tries to fight Steam by directly paying developers to not publish on Steam, and also effectively guaranteeing studios a financial success by cutting a deal to put their game up for "free" on the Epic storefront. Plenty of games have been "Free" on Epic while full price on Steam. Valve tries to fight Epic by... Acting like Epic doesn't exist. They don't chase exclusives or get into a price war with Epic.

              Steam is the most popular platform for PC game releases. A subset of users will not consider ever using other platforms. If we accept this as the definition of "monopoly" the way we'd say Windows has a monopoly on x64 PCs, how would changing the revenue split for devs (which appears to be the issue this company's suing Valve over) alleviate this "monopoly"? Sounds to me like forcing Steam to explicitly allow "the game is more expensive on Steam" tactics would just make Steam even more of a no-brainer for devs over stuff like Epic or their own platform.

              You could say that paying the devs/studios a better cut is the point, and I'd see the validity in the argument. But it's completely unrelated to whether or not Valve operates as a monopoly.

              ulrich@feddit.orgU This user is from outside of this forum
              ulrich@feddit.orgU This user is from outside of this forum
              [email protected]
              wrote last edited by
              #121

              Everyone is not you

              pory@lemmy.worldP 1 Reply Last reply
              1
              • ulrich@feddit.orgU [email protected]

                Everyone is not you

                pory@lemmy.worldP This user is from outside of this forum
                pory@lemmy.worldP This user is from outside of this forum
                [email protected]
                wrote last edited by [email protected]
                #122

                If there weren't enough people put off by Origin and uPlay to not install them or use them to buy games, Origin and uPlay would still exist. Steam didn't kill them, all it did was exist and be a better platform that people actually wanted to use. There's a whole graveyard of companies that tried to make "our own Steam". Fucking Discord tried to do it. What's that going to do for a marketplace where you're selling "licenses" to users? What good's your licensed copy of Fallout New Vegas on Amazon Prime Games Launcher when that launcher no longer exists? Say what you will about Steam, most people are pretty confident it'll still be around in eight years.

                If there weren't enough people put off by the Epic Games Store, the EGS wouldn't still be paying developers to put their shit on the store. Steam hasn't killed it, and isn't even attempting to kill it. It's just existing and being a better platform that people actually want to use. If EGS can't compete with Steam while giving shit away for free, that's not a "Steam monopoly" it's an indicator of how dogshit the opinion of Epic as a corporation and storefront is.

                Origin failed because nobody wanted it. uPlay failed because nobody wanted it. The perks (being able to buy exclusives) weren't worth the downsides (literally just making another account and installing another program on your computer). I think that's beautiful. I hope it happens to Epic next.

                Steam's existence as an IPO/enshittification-proof platform has prevented the PC gaming storefront market from going the way of Netflix. Remember that? We had cable channels, pay-per-views, piracy, and VHS/DVDs/blu-rays as the only way to watch movies at home. Then a Blockbuster-over-mail company started getting licenses to let you pay to watch movies at home with one subscription, which was a massive success. Then every other IP holder went "hey wait, why are we paying Netflix when we could just eat the whole pie ourselves" and now we have Netflix Disney+ Max Peacock AppleTV+ Amazon Prime Video Fandango Paramount+ AMC+ Philo Hulu Tubi Fubo Dippy Weeno Poob all trying to be the new Netflix. And because Netflix itself is a shareholder-value-driven company, it's putting ads in its paid product and jacking up prices and paying for exclusivity.

                Y'know what people do seem to like? Microsoft Gamepass. I'll never install it myself, same reason I'll never install the Epic Games Store. But Microsoft is using an even less consumer friendly strategy (timed access to games with a subscription) to propose the same "upsides" as EGS (you don't have to pay full price for games).

                1 Reply Last reply
                3
                • misk@sopuli.xyzM [email protected]

                  You’re still hung up that there’s consensus on anarchism and libertarianism being so generic terms that they’re near synonymous? I mean, if you made some arguments to the contrary then this comment would carry some weight. Other than that, please see comment you responded to again, it’s applicable to you too.

                  V This user is from outside of this forum
                  V This user is from outside of this forum
                  [email protected]
                  wrote last edited by
                  #123

                  What the fuck are you talking about? It's well known history that the right wing in the United States saw how successful the word was in leftist movements and aped it as their own word. If that's the kind of research you do you make people dumber. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

                  Libertarianism in the United States (1943 - 1980s)
                  H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock were the first prominent figures in the United States to describe themselves as libertarian as synonym for liberal. They believed that Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word liberal for his New Deal policies which they opposed and used libertarian to signify their allegiance to classical liberalism, individualism and limited government.[166]

                  LITERALLY YOU WERE INSULTING PEOPLE FOR NOT READING WIKIPEDIA

                  misk@sopuli.xyzM 1 Reply Last reply
                  3
                  • misk@sopuli.xyzM [email protected]

                    Despite facing increased competition in the space, not least from the Epic Games Store, Valve's platform is synonymous with PC gaming. The service is estimated to have made $10.8 billion in revenue during 2024, a new record for the Half-Life giant. Since it entered the PC distribution space back in 2018, the rival Epic Games Store has been making headway – and $1.09 billion last year – but Steam is still undeniably dominant within the space.

                    Valve earns a large part of its money from taking a 20-30% cut of sales revenue from developers and publishers. Despite other storefronts opening with lower overheads, Steam has stuck with taking this slice of sales revenue, and in doing so, it has been argued that Valve is unfairly taking a decent chunk of the profits of developers and publishers.

                    This might change, depending on how an ongoing class-action lawsuit initiated by Wolfire Games goes, but for the time being, Valve is making money hand over fist selling games on Steam. The platform boasts over 132 million users, so it's perfectly reasonable that developers and publishers feel they have to use Steam – and give away a slice of their revenue – in order to reach the largest audience possible.

                    V This user is from outside of this forum
                    V This user is from outside of this forum
                    [email protected]
                    wrote last edited by [email protected]
                    #124

                    ITT: People saying Steam is bad and a monopoly, no I won't name reasons why. Do your research.

                    B 1 Reply Last reply
                    6
                    • Q [email protected]

                      Glad to see lawsuits against Valve.

                      I love them as a company and I buy my games on Steam first, (GOG is my second choice)... but we need their monopoly reigned in. If not by a viable competitor than by making Valve beholden to their clients and not vice versa.

                      V This user is from outside of this forum
                      V This user is from outside of this forum
                      [email protected]
                      wrote last edited by
                      #125

                      In what way are they not, or what actions should be taken?

                      misk@sopuli.xyzM 1 Reply Last reply
                      2
                      • misk@sopuli.xyzM [email protected]

                        You know that Proton is just streamlined and better funded Wine, a project with decades of history by now? If you’re looking for someone to thank for funding it, it’s CodeWeavers.

                        How’s your freedom to resell your games? Console gamers still have boxes and second hand market. Valve killed that on PC. Gamers ate Microsoft for attempting that, Valve somehow got away with it. At the time people said „but the prices are better” but how good are discounts these days?

                        Next thing you’ll tell me Android is good for Linux. How’s that working out for everyone?

                        V This user is from outside of this forum
                        V This user is from outside of this forum
                        [email protected]
                        wrote last edited by
                        #126

                        Ok be honest you're trolling right?

                        misk@sopuli.xyzM 1 Reply Last reply
                        1
                        • S [email protected]

                          Yes. That is exactly the issue. It's not only Steam Keys either as some of the cultists would have you believe. Valve does require you to offer Steam Keys on other stores at the same price that you offer the game on Steam but that's not all. Now, while they don't specifically forbid you to offer different prices on stores that have nothing to do with Steam, they do reserve the right (do whatever the hell you want with this one simple trick!) to veto pricing on Steam for any reason. This has been historically used by Valve to block games that offer better pricing on competing stores. It goes something like this:

                          1. I make a game and decide I want to make $7 per sale so I publish it on my site at $7.
                          2. I want the game to be accessible to a wider audience so I publish it on other stores.
                          3. Epic takes 12% so I price it at $8 there in order to keep making $7 per sale
                          4. Steam takes 30% so I price it at $10 there for the same reason.
                          5. Valve says $10 isn't a fair price and refuses to elaborate why, reminding me that they reserve the right to veto any price on Steam for any reason.
                          6. I make my game $10 on all other stores
                          7. Valve magically decides $10 was actually a fair price all along and finally publishes the game on Steam.
                          D This user is from outside of this forum
                          D This user is from outside of this forum
                          [email protected]
                          wrote last edited by
                          #127

                          Wait, not trying to be a "cultist" here, but if Valve requires devs/publishers to "offer Steam Keys on other stores at the same price that you offer the game on Steam", then why do I keep finding Steam Keys much much cheaper elsewhere? Like, all the time...

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          4
                          • T [email protected]

                            I mean there's still no user review system lol.

                            That is storefront 101 and they still don't have it.

                            Congratulations for not using the other systems they have I guess?

                            Many of steams users engage at least a little with a lot of what steam offers.

                            Hell steam has integrated VR support, steam link for remote play, and fantastic 2FA account protection.

                            Epic is way behind

                            L This user is from outside of this forum
                            L This user is from outside of this forum
                            [email protected]
                            wrote last edited by
                            #128

                            Storefront 101 supposedly yet it took steam almost a decade to implement and is largely useless due to being filled with jokes and sourced from people who don't actually understand how to review something.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • toribor@corndog.socialT [email protected]

                              So can developers just 'create' steam keys out of thin air that can be used to activate their game on steam? Does Valve get paid when the keys are created or activated? Or not at all?

                              Seems fair maybe if it's using all of Steams infrastructure, considering developers can distribute the game themselves without steam keys.

                              chairmanmeow@programming.devC This user is from outside of this forum
                              chairmanmeow@programming.devC This user is from outside of this forum
                              [email protected]
                              wrote last edited by
                              #129

                              Yes, that is the big thing many people are missing. Valve takes a 0% cut from Steam keys sold outside of their platform. The 30% does not apply.

                              The only rule Valve sets out here is that you don't sell those Steam keys for less on other storefronts. Which imo seems fair enough if Valve is doing the distribution and asking for nothing in return.

                              The big sticking point is whether the 30% cut isn't too high in the first place.

                              toribor@corndog.socialT 1 Reply Last reply
                              6
                              • V [email protected]

                                Ok be honest you're trolling right?

                                misk@sopuli.xyzM This user is from outside of this forum
                                misk@sopuli.xyzM This user is from outside of this forum
                                [email protected]
                                wrote last edited by
                                #130

                                No, you can go through my post/comment history and see that those are my long-held beliefs that I support with arguments/facts unlike people I discuss with.

                                V 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • V [email protected]

                                  What the fuck are you talking about? It's well known history that the right wing in the United States saw how successful the word was in leftist movements and aped it as their own word. If that's the kind of research you do you make people dumber. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

                                  Libertarianism in the United States (1943 - 1980s)
                                  H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock were the first prominent figures in the United States to describe themselves as libertarian as synonym for liberal. They believed that Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word liberal for his New Deal policies which they opposed and used libertarian to signify their allegiance to classical liberalism, individualism and limited government.[166]

                                  LITERALLY YOU WERE INSULTING PEOPLE FOR NOT READING WIKIPEDIA

                                  misk@sopuli.xyzM This user is from outside of this forum
                                  misk@sopuli.xyzM This user is from outside of this forum
                                  [email protected]
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #131

                                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_anarchism_and_libertarianism

                                  Dang. What now.

                                  Y 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • V [email protected]

                                    In what way are they not, or what actions should be taken?

                                    misk@sopuli.xyzM This user is from outside of this forum
                                    misk@sopuli.xyzM This user is from outside of this forum
                                    [email protected]
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #132

                                    Plenty of explanation for this in this thread already, why waste this guys time too.

                                    V 1 Reply Last reply
                                    1
                                    • S [email protected]

                                      Alan Wake 2 wasn’t profitable until EGS exclusivity expired

                                      Well yeah, because EGS sucks.

                                      If you look at Steam's competitors, none of them are really developing their feature set. So even if customers were dissatisfied w/ Steam, who is actively trying to earn their business?

                                      aren’t you worried that having one good option is being one good option away from having no good options?

                                      Sure, I'd love it if another platform stepped up to actually compete w/ Steam.

                                      My expectations are fairly low: it needs to work well on Linux. Heroic largely resolves that for EGS and GOG, but I'm not particularly interested in supporting a platform that only works because some community project has done the work for them. So if GOG supported Galaxy on Linux as a first class citizen, I'd probably still use Heroic, but I'd buy a lot more games from them. But as it stands, GOG is one update away from blocking access to my games through a launcher, and dealing w/ WINE/Proton directly is a pain. EGS is so far away from what I care about that I don't think they could ever earn my business, but who knows, maybe they'll surprise me.

                                      But the fact that we're even having this discussion is a testament to Steam's success. Heroic probably wouldn't be a thing w/o Valve's investment into Proton/WINE, so GOG/EGS wouldn't even be a consideration for me at all. But since that work was done, I now have more options. I've played some GOG and EGS games through Heroic, so it's not even theoretical, they are realistic alternatives.

                                      It's important to note that at every turn, Valve has earned my trust. When games are pulled from their store, owners of those games still have access (e.g. I bought Rocket League on Steam, and when they went EGS exclusive, I still had the old version of the game). They have a solid refund policy, and they have gone out of their way to make things more pleasant for their customers. Even if they didn't have a dominant market position, I'd probably still choose them just based on the user experience. So yeah, not having a realistic alternative isn't great, but I don't think it's because of anything nefarious Valve has done, but instead lack of interest by their competitors.

                                      misk@sopuli.xyzM This user is from outside of this forum
                                      misk@sopuli.xyzM This user is from outside of this forum
                                      [email protected]
                                      wrote last edited by
                                      #133

                                      Your requirements are extremely niche, most gamers don’t care about Linux. Maybe they should have an option of a store that doesn’t charge 30% but is Windows only.

                                      Again, it doesn’t matter if Valve got into a monopoly position fair and square. The moment their monopoly is self perpetuating is the moment we no longer are in a free market where quality and price are main considerations for consumers.

                                      S 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • pory@lemmy.worldP [email protected]

                                        Valve will never IPO, yes! I don't care why. That automatically makes it better than any other launcher/storefront platform that'll exist in my lifetime, barring one that commits to staying private, succeeds as a private company, and is content with "staying profitable" for x years. Platforms that IPO universally get worse and worse as they wring every drop of shareholder value from their users to feed the infinite growth machine. We're having this conversation on Lemmy instead of on Reddit for presumably this reason. Platforms that have shareholders (which includes Epic and CDPR's GOG) have a primary motive of "being more profitable than last year". If, let's say, Epic made ten billion dollars in profit last year but also made ten billion dollars in profit in 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023, it'd be a failed company.

                                        I'll happily take the only company in the PC gaming space that's content with one money printer over every other option that's always thinking about how to make a second one, or reduce the ink costs, or blah blah blah. It's just a happy coincidence that in the PC gaming space (unlike pretty much every other space), the shareholder-free thing is also the most popular, and best thing. I'd use the worse less-popular thing if that thing were the only thing free from growth capitalism.

                                        If a game dev doesn't value their presence on the Steam store higher than the cost of Steam's service, they don't list on Steam. Simple as. It's just that a lot of dev studios consider "visible on the Steam store" to be very valuable indeed. That's what they're paying for, not the stuff about Steam that benefits the user (client features like Input, Workshop, Cloud, Community, etc).

                                        misk@sopuli.xyzM This user is from outside of this forum
                                        misk@sopuli.xyzM This user is from outside of this forum
                                        [email protected]
                                        wrote last edited by
                                        #134

                                        Valve will never IPO, yes! I don't care *why*.

                                        Wow.

                                        pory@lemmy.worldP 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • K [email protected]

                                          You are insistent on not changing your perspective on it being a monopoly because you want it to be one.

                                          It's not like your scenario. Other people have figured it out. Epic game store is right there and so is GOG and others. People do buy from them and some prefer them.

                                          The problem is that you want it to be a monopoly as an excuse for why people are using the service more than others. That is simply not the case. You ignore that people do shop around sometimes and others don't cause it's easy and not everyone is how you think of them.

                                          You are Don Quixote yelling at the windmills thinking it's gonna save the country. Have an actual alternative you want instead of just being upset how things are.

                                          D This user is from outside of this forum
                                          D This user is from outside of this forum
                                          [email protected]
                                          wrote last edited by
                                          #135

                                          alright, I’m convinced

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups