• Corigan@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    ·
    4 months ago

    I think people often hate steam for their success, but fail to see it’s the result of customers’choice in a free market. (I see it enough I’m not sure if people get paid to hate on them… To ruin the thing they have most of customer respect)

    Steam is not publicly traded and does not act like every other publicly traded company. It invests in its customers experience and custtomer come back for that. It does not nickel in dime or use its position to hold its customer captive and enshitfify its product. It’s not an ISP…

    It invests in hardware and software development it believes the industry needs not to make a massive profit but to be a champion of what gaming should be (Linux, steam link, index, bug picture, steam controller, steam deck) These products are experimental and usually sold at or near cost not to make money but to prove to the market there is a need and a demand.

    They are often a champion and voice of the gamer.

    They could have tried to be like Bethesda and tried to monetize their workshop but they didn’t.

    Sometimes they’re quiet and we don’t hear anything about what they’re working on, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t working on things.

    I can’t imagine pc gaming would have survived and resurged without steam. And I hate to think what it would be like if there were just 5 epics, origin, Uplay, whatever other launcher. I think gaming would look like mobile games…,… which takes a 30% cut too and can only sell in apple or android markets… No one bitches there and they offer no services.

    • Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      I think people often hate steam for their success

      I hate them for forcing me to use a kind of DRM which will stop working once their servers stop.

      Halflife was just fine without steam. Adding steam seemed to be a way to stop players from sharing CD keys.

      • wolfshadowheart@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        4 months ago

        Luckily steamless is piss easy to use because Steams “DRM” is only meant to be preventative. As in, you’re playing it on steam for the community, workshop, cloud saves, per game notes, control scheme setups, etc etc.

      • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s kind of why they are successful though, right? They were the ones that figured out how to supply games digitally for a profit, which required a way to prevent people from sharing the product for free. This was previously done with CD keys, but the advent of the internet rendered that mostly ineffective.

        • Abnorc@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          4 months ago

          I think publishers value the fact that steam is essentially a form of DRM, so we got fairly lucky all things considered. Imagine if steam didn’t exist and we had to deal with software like Uplay and Origin.

      • homicidalrobot@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        You can play: Half-Life 1: Source Half-Life 2 Half-Life 2: Episode One Half-Life 2: Episode Two All with steam closed. Original half life expansions aside, your take is senile. I suppose alyx could’ve done without it.

        • Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Okay, but what about all the games that have come out since steam has launched and ONLY have online-only drm options?

          Not talking about MMOs because those are their own beast. I’m talking about a huge amount of games though excluding mmos.

          I don’t mind digital distribution DRM platforms, I just want a choice. I want licenses to be portable and I want to be able to re-sell licenses for games I do not wish to own any longer. I don’t want to be bound to just console games either.

          • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            I don’t think resellable licenses are a great idea. It works with physical media because it will have flaws that affect quality and price, but I don’t see how that would work for digital without screwing over devs. I can completely get behind transfers or trades with friends or between platforms, but not really for resale.

            • Charzard4261@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              I can get the transfers between friends part, but why between platforms? That makes zero sense from a business standpoint.

              The only way that would work is to have game companies manufacture and distribute an external storage medium themselves, because platforms sure as hell won’t say “Oh you bought a license on another store? Sure, you can use our CDN for free!”. And now we’ve almost reinvented game CDs.

              • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                I agree in that it’ll be hard to transfer between platforms, but doubt it’s impossible. The idea is that you don’t want Valve to nuke your licenses in one go, but Valve also doesn’t want you on their platform.

          • homicidalrobot@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Okay, but what about pre-steam DRM? But what about services that have existed for less time and actually done the slippery slope shit you’re cowering in your boots about (Uplay)? You’re so busy listing possible problems and making problems up that you are not comparing and contrasting your available options. It strikes me that you are complaining to complain and don’t have realistic solutions in mind, you’re asking for either a rental system where you put up collateral to play a game or you’re suggesting that the developer only be able to sell a game once. Are you one of those crazy “first sale doctrine” sovcit types?

      • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        The way I see it, Steam having DRM is Valve’s way of giving publishers and devs that choice, and said choice just makes Steam more likely to stick around for the future, which makes the biggest drawback of DRM (losing all your games) less likely.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        And the fact that they can just decide to take your games away from you by deleting your account?

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      These products are experimental and usually sold at or near cost not to make money but to prove to the market there is a need and a demand.

      Well, no… I think it’s more akin to the concept of “loss-leaders”. Get people in the door and while they’re there, they’ll buy a game or two. Which is where their real profits come from.

      In the end, it’s still just a business strategy intended to result in profits for Valve.

      However, that being said, the fact that they don’t have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits and keep that stock price up at (literally) all costs, allows them to operate the way they do.

      But don’t get it twisted, they are a for-profit corporation, and their ultimate goal is making money. They’re just not as shitty about it.

      The bar is REALLY fucking low these days.

      • Corigan@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Oh for sure they are there for a profit. But as the best example in the industry let’s not unnecessarily attack them. Imagine how much more money they make if they did go public and how awful it would be for all of us.

        • prole@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Totally. I wasn’t trying to rag on Valve… More just a comment about capitalism in general and how shitty it is.

      • Abnorc@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        They kind of have to be about making money. No company survives by putting the needs of the customer above all else, unfortunately.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Steam was apparently already cool when I was a kid. Though the reason I knew about it was that I had 2 games with Steam support bought in stores (one of them I gifted without installing\registering, another one I installed without registering).

      Others are still at that point - you buy a game and you get something like GameSpy and such as an optional thing nobody thinks about. They are trying to make those services the entry point, and I guess for AAA players they have already succeeded.

    • uis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s not an ISP…

      Valve has AS number, so it is an ISP

      • BritishJ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        Having an AS does not make you an ISP. It just means you have a public AS, which you can use to peer with providers on the Internet, if you have an agreement to peer.

        • xradeon@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Correct. In fact many, many companies have ASNs. Little companies all the way up to large ones. The key difference for an ISP is they allow you to route traffic through them. Almost every company that has an ASN blocks traffic from being routed through them, assuming they know how to configure that and that they have different peering points. Valve most certainly does not allow you to route through their network, they already have enough traffic just doing their own CDN stuff.