Steam Ate Microsoft's Lunch On PC, It's About To Do The Same On Handhelds
Steam Ate Microsoft's Lunch On PC, It's About To Do The Same On Handhelds
As Valve gets ready to bring Steam Deck's OS to more platforms, Microsoft is out of time
You're viewing a single thread.
I hope that SteamOS finds more of its way into desktop computers. Sure, I don't trust Valve; just like I don't trust any other corporation. But it's like fighting a big cancer with a smaller meta-cancer, if they hurt Windows/Microsoft I'm happy.
Plus its current relationship with GNU/Linux is symbiotic.
Valve is the chemotherapy/radiation to Microsoft. Not quite a cure but both are still deadly.
Why is steam/valve bad?
They are a privately owned company with 100% focus on customer service and sustainably.
Yeah they charge like 10% of profit for the games on there, and more if you make it big. To be on the only platform where people actually shop for PC games...
Nobody has ever given me a real problem with Steam where some other company isn't already doing significantly worse shit in comparison.
The way I see it, they are the lesser of two evils. Just because someone isn't as bad a Microsoft, doesn't mean that they are forgiven for their sins.
Predatory lootboxes, and not cracking down on CSGO Gambling site are the biggest sins which Valve has committed.
Going beyond that, no clear path forward for when the Steam DRM Client goes offline. I personally have games which I bought on legacy hardware, that no longer runs on that hardware since Steam discontinued support for it. I don't expect Valve to support all hardware indefinitely, however I can buy the same game from GOG, and install it on my XP and Win 7 machines without issue.
I am certain that there are other issues, and compared to MS they look like a saint. But for me I diversify my game library and get as much of my games DRM Free or on a platform which has a proven track record for supporting not just their current purchases but also legacy ones.
Beat Sony with a stick all you want. Despite the PSP being 21 years old this year, if I can connect my PSP to the internet, I can still download my digital PSP PSM and PS1 games.
How would steam crack down on gambling sites they don't own and trades they don't know are linked to those sites?
It uses their API to trade and sell the skins. They are in total control of what happens with them. There are many ways they could stop them, but they don't want to because it makes them money. They want to be seen acting like they're trying to stop them, but without actually doing anything impactful.
They could also easily do some analysis of trades and see which accounts are owned by the gambling sites and ban them, and nuke their inventory. They have full access to the data of who traded what when with whom. With some statistical modeling and maybe some fake trades, it'd be easy to figure out. They won't even try.
One answer is quite simple. Not to sell loot boxes.
I mean counter strike and team fortress 2 worked fine and were extremely fun games before they added a virtual slot machine to their games. “they’re just skins” right? If they were given out for free in game it wouldn’t impact the rest of the games experience.
Valve can also prevent the sale of real world money for these items. Especially if it’s been flagged for Gambling.
Or as another stated disable or moderate the usage of their own API on these gambling sites.
(Near) Monopolies are just inherently bad. Steam will enshittify further, like all the others. Let's talk again after Gabe kicks the bucket.
Remember when Google's motto was "don't be evil"? Remember when Facebook was innovative? Remember when [insert any post-IPO platform] was privately owned?
Look at the past and future, not just the present. Corporations eventually go sour, and fight against the very users that they were supposed to serve. Give Steam/Valve enough power and it'll do the same. We don't need corporations serving us software; we need open systems.
That said Valve is situationally useful here because it's eroding Microsoft's power.
Give Steam/Valve enough power and it'll do the same.
Valve has tons of power. Like, a lot. They seem to (for the most part) wield it responsibly. They're certainly not perfect but time and time again, given the choice, they choose to do the right thing. Look no further than the Steam Deck.
Imagine how easy it would have been to ship it with Windows. But they went through the pain-staking and expensive process of creating Proton and making everything work super smoothly on a completely open-source OS, and even funding the developers of said OS. Sure, they needed something to distance themselves from Microsoft but imagine how easy it would be for them to lock down the OS so that you could never leave Steam or install any competing stores or make any modifications. Or they could even create their own OS/ecosystem like XBOX and PS do.
Imagine how easy it would have been to be like every other OEM and glue it together and solder everything to the mobo and make it completely unrepairable/unupgradeable. Instead they gave it a removable back and updated it to use torx screws and partnered with iFixIt to ensure longevity out of respect for their consumers.
Imagine how easy it would be to just ignore Denuvo and EULAs and 3rd party accounts, but they force publishers to list them.
They also have an excellent track record for customer support.
They also have an excellent track record for customer support.
Their customer support actually used to really suck. They made a concerted effort to improve it.
Just experienced it this week, spend $30 on a game, asked for refund because the game does not look like screen images. Refunded, no questions asked.
More like the EU made them.
And instead of pushing back and doing their best to go around it... they made accommodations to follow those directives.
They're not perfect angels, but they're also not malevolent demons either. They tend more towards consumer friendly practices, even if they need a push sometimes, than most others in the field.
Australia made them offer refunds thanks to our consumer law.
Well I did speak in the present tense.
You spoke of their track record, which is something specifically referring to past activities. Sure, their recent track record is good, but going back far enough it was terrible.
But they did improve. Which is why they have a good recent track record. They listened to criticism (and as others have stated) followed regulation to best suit the needs of their customer base.
That's how publicly traded companies work, profits above all else.
Good thing Valve isn't publicly traded!
A post public offering platform that's private? Interesting concept
Post-IPO? Valve is privately held. Which is why they make strategic decisions that stakeholders would never approve of.
I mentioned IPOs as an example of things making a company take a 180°, from "we luuuv customers!" to "customers are things to be milked, not humans to care about". There are a thousand other possibilities - being bought by another (and more abusive) corporation, being inherited by arseholes and/or fools, or even a change in the mindset of its current owners.
There's absolutely nothing preventing all those shitty outcomes. Nothing. And when one of them happens, the suckers who "buy" games through the platform - including myself, and probably you - will be shown a middle finger, and hear a moronic "ackshyually u didn't buy the games lol you licensed them lmao".
You can't trust it.
I think you’re both right really. I don’t trust Steam the company I trust Gabe Newell the person. Once he’s retired or passed on they could easily go ipo and begin enshittification.
I'm generally a fan of Valve (at least historically), but at least recently some stuff has come out about them propping up a billion dollar gambling industry via CounterStrike skins. It's full of legal loopholes to avoid being classified as actual gambling, thus allowing underage users to get addicted to casino mechanics. This might actually be Valve's current biggest profit center in recent years.
They charge 30%, and only goes down after making $10 million in sales.
But Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft charge just as much.
Every other game storefront has been like "But Valve doesn't even do anything! We'll cut them out and then we'll make so much more money!" And then they force you over to their own garbage storefront that has none of the features of Steam, has a smaller selection of games and demands equal space in your system tray at all times.
They're only undercutting Valve cause they wish they could be the monopoly taking 30%
Don't get me wrong I think 30% is bullshit, but it's an industry thing not especially a Valve thing
They did help usher in the age of microtransactions and lootboxes with their CS and TF2 stuff. That's about the only major bad thing I can think of that they haven't been particularly apologetic about.
Yeah they charge like 10% of profit for the games on there, and more if you make it big.
Which is the same as the vast majority of every other store (video game or otherwise). It's really only a factor because Epic keeps bringing it up as a reason they're better than Steam, and should be allowed to be the monopoly instead (though they don't explicitly state that part).
Wasn't it more mobile gaming that had a bigger impact on mtx and loot boxes with games there having consumers less willing to pay more than 99 cents at the time and having to rely on the freemium model as well as having an enormous user base with the accessibility of smartphones?
I keep hearing tf2 and cs go but maybe it's because I got into PC games late, but had no clue about loot boxes. And average gamer or last least the younger ones grew up playing consoles and then mobiles games more than PCs at the time aside from PC only games like league of legends, cs, and so on.
Yes, it was more mobile gaming, but that doesn't mean Valve had no hand in it at all. It certainly had a huge impact on desktop variations of it.
That doesn't mean they're wholly evil or some other bullshit like that, because of it, but their hands are definitely not clean of it.
Consoles were and still are more mainstream than PC with some companies claiming PC gaming is dying for so long that is took a long time for other companies to start giving a go at a storefront on PC.
I just don't really buy the Steam factor, since most people's exposure to mtx, iap, and in game ads has been through mobile gaming. Like if they don't even play CS or TF2 they don't even know about it at all which would be someone like me, but mobile gaming has been so easily accessible that even "non gamers" like old people were sucked into stuff like bejeweled.
Most games have also been console ports to PC than the other way around too. Steam and PC emergence has felt like more a recent thing that started taking hold last gen with companies finally coming around to porting stuff to PC.
That's not to say they haven't had a hand in it, but it seems overstated with rise in the freemium model across platforms being the main driver. Even the concept of gacha existed before video games.
I guess I don't really get where you're coming from. Are you saying that, because you don't feel that PC gaming was important in your lifetime that decisions Valve has made don't really make any difference? That even if they had made anti-customer decisions, that it wouldn't really matter because "PC gaming is dying"?
Hell, a major reason some companies claim that is because of valves dominance on PC. They don't want to admit that they don't have as much control, so they do their best to dismiss it as a non-issue...
Which is really neither here nor there about the entire point I was making in the first place. At no point did I say that they were the spearhead or major push... just that they helped. Just because something doesn't do 90% of the work doesn't mean they made no impact at all, and that decisions they made have no moral or ethical emphasis. The point was that Valve is not some pristine god from the heavens sent down to cleanse our filthy gamer bodies. They're a company like any other, who occasionally make missteps. Valve just tends to make more consumer friendly choices than most.
I'm saying I believe mobile gaming has played a stronger role in pushing the industry towards the freemium model.
With mobile gaming becoming bigger than consoles and PC combined years ago and it wasn't through selling titles.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2021/05/27/mobile-games-spending/
Point is traditional gamers overlook the juggernaut that is mobile gaming, since they are only fixated on consoles and PC not realizing how absolutely financially huge mobile gaming is on its own, and showed that the model is extremely effective by overtaking consoles and PC.
It was 100% mobile gaming that ushered in the age of microtransactions.
Yeah, I don't think lot of gamers realize just how huge the mobile gaming market is and how influential it is with other companies following trends of proven money makers.
Like Apple ranked third in gaming revenue with 15.3 billion in 2021, and traditional gamers wouldn't think of Apple when it comes to gaming.
You give too little credit to horse armor.
Mobile gaming was the major factor, definitely, but it was far from 100%.
gambling (both lootboxes and the skin site kind), big fees
Industry standard fees, actually.
Epic is the outlier, and only because they want to seem like the good guy. If they had market dominance, they'd charge just as much, if not more.
How would steam crack down on gambling sites they don't own and trades they don't know are linked to those sites?
They could easily block the APIs the gambling sites are using to operate, but they've just sent some cease and desist letters to a few instead and have continued to take their cut of all trades.
30%
Not the only platform
Glorified downloader with DRM
100% focus on customer service
Lol
I think they charge 30% but yeah.
They charge 30%, and less if you make it big
Trust the Gabe