“Abusing their dominant position” feels a bit far… the competition is just 💩 IMO. Just the fact that EGS practically gives out games for free, and still struggle to penetrate the market, should tell you all you need to know.
Steam provides discussion boards, workshop (mods), cloud saves, a whole console (deck), frequent games sales, achievements, best-in-class refund policy, regional CDNs for faster game downloads, and the list goes on. They even still support the Steam Link box which was discontinued several years ago.
They pretty much go above and beyond the current offerings of any other gaming platform, and have outlasted failed ones like Games For Windows. In the rare case that they do go out of business, there are steam emulators to run your games as long as they do not implement any additional DRM.
It says Valve “forces” game publishers to sign up to so-called price parity obligations, preventing titles being sold at cheaper prices on rival platforms.
EGS exclusives are worse, locking a whole other platform out for an entire year. With Steam’s agreement surely you could just run the sale on both platforms at the same time? Anyway, Amazon is well known for doing this, why not take them to court instead?
enabled Steam to charge an “excessive commission of up to 30%”, making UK consumers pay too much for purchasing PC games and add-on content.
The 30% fee is a bit high, but looking at everything that it pays for, and the contributions to open source, I don’t think it’s too bad. Publishers are also the ones choosing to price their games high, and to create as many DLCs as possible to increase recurring revenue. The ones who want lower fees already sell on EGS IMO…
I do think the 30% commission is high. But the problem I see now is, even if the gov’t gets involved and mandates their rev share be lower, game publishers will absolutely not lower their prices to coincide with that. Corps know people are already used to paying pretty exorbitant prices, so they’d happily have the government mandate they make more profit while valve makes less without having to do any work whatsoever.
Still is to my understanding. I saw someone else point out in a different thread that if they were taking less of a margin, they would still be blamed for anti competitive behaviour for it, as other sites may not be able to support taking less of a percentage. The whole thing smells odd.
i wonder how 5% of employees getting laid off will translate into executive bonuses. last year the top 2 guys made $72 million after laying off a bunch of people.
I thought companies made money by selling a product to customers? Hmm, seems like there is some kind of contradiction here, perhaps Phil should look into that.
Investors don’t care about that anymore. Line must go up more and right now. If not, they will replace you with someone who promises to do that.
The best ways to raise stock prices include downsizing, jacking up prices, and cutting product quality to save cost. None of these are even remotely beneficial to the customers.
It’s not a contradiction at all. Yes CEOs are the main beneficiary of the system but they’re still accountable to shareholders who run on pure capitalism. There’s plenty of examples of CEOs trying to do the right thing only to get sued by the shareholders then kicked out of their jobs. Nothing about corporations inherently needs to be done in a capitalist way, except the fact that publicly traded companies are legally required by law to run as capitalistically as possible, and if you don’t accept Venture Capital or go public, good luck getting anywhere in this system.
Hell, basically the entire premise of syndicalism is to put workers in control of the workplace and let things naturally evolve from there. Once you remove the core pillar holding capitalism up, everything will fall down one by one like dominos. If you want to see a fraction of how that works just look at places with high unionization compared to ones without and it’s like a completely different world.
You make money by both selling more and spending less.
Think about it, you can have none money left over at the end of the month by working extra hours at your job or by spending less money on something - but what if you can’t work extra hours because there’s none available? And what if you need that extra cash at the end of the month? The only thing you can do is spend less.
Phil is kind of saying the same thing you’re saying here, but it’s not easy to just “sell more”, not when everyone else is struggling to have that extra cash to spend.
The games industry right now, as a whole, isn’t growing. That means companies are selling less. Phil end everyone else would love to sell more, by all means if you’ve got some solid ideas on how to do that then every games industry veteran out there will happily listen to you, but the sad and shitty reality is that sales are down and when you’re a business, if you can’t increase sales you’ve got to cut costs.
And that means job losses. It fucking sucks and we can have debates all day long about the merits of capitalism and all that, but that’s the reality of today. That’s the game. Phil is being honest and up front here, it’s a shitty game but he’s playing it and if he wasn’t playing it, someone else would.
Profit, selling games, and maximizing value for shareholders are all fully correlated, to the point of being the same thing at different stages of the process.
Modern capitalism moves away from all three by focusing instead on current-quarter profit.
The perception of profit is a more powerful force than actual profit.
Markets select for profit by simply trimming away the things that don’t make profit.
Boards of directors select for the perception of profit by firing CEOs who don’t provide them with that perception.
These systems are both operating. The companies that don’t make a profit will still die. It’s just that under this system, a company that’s on track to making profit can be redirected by a Board onto a path where they aren’t, because of that second mechanism.
If you are genuinely asking, I can play Devil’s advocate:
Because then they can set the price at 40 USD, making it more affordable, and possibly make back the difference with some (mostly) cosmetic premium content.
This is not so easy to argue for games that are sold at 70 USD, and premium content is much more tied to gameplay, and all the FOMO dark patterns are turned to max.
Why I think people are praising the helldivers2 monetization is that isn’t the case. The “premium currency” is earnable in game and at a reasonable. I haven’t bought any but still have the battlepass and a few of the premium armors.
You get it as part of the battlepass, and the gameplay loop guides you to the currency. You’ll be looking for ammo or in game currency, and there also happens to be premium currency sometimes. The battlepass not being timed and on a work at your own pace is great too.
It feels fair to me? Like the developer can still make a buck but not ruin the experience. I.e. the monetization lets people pay to instantly gratify if they want vs punish you for not spending.
Yes I too look nostalgically look back on my games having nothing but beep audio because I didn’t have one of three sound cards my chosen game decided to support
He’s fucking Genx, my generation. I hate every GenXer that sold out. Now that I’ve gotten that out of my system, remember we are fighting class warfare. Don’t let them divide us along generational lines. My good friend is a Boomer and is as liberal as can be. My two coworkers are GenX and both voted for Trump.
I’m also genx (xennial if it matters) and I’m referring to the boomer mindset, not the baby boomer generation. There are zoomers who voted for the current fascist regime and baby boomers who voted Harris. I hate generational warfare too, but “boomer” is a convenient term for an appalling mindset that can infect anyone, regardless of generation.
pcgamer.com
Ważne