"Dogs really are man’s best friend, they know their place, and perform useful functions like biting burglars and chasing balls that you throw for them,” Ryan wrote, according to Bloomberg
Gamers have gotten quite lucky so far that the company that has been in the position to turn the screws and establish a monopoly has been content to only make gobs of money, instead of trying to make all the money like pretty much every other entertainment industry.
Yeah, the reason why Valve can do that is that they are not a publicly traded company but a privately owned one. Gabe Newell doesn’t have a fiduciary duty to any shareholders, so they don’t have to squeeze every penny from their users or abuse their quasi monopoly.
The whole idea of investments always going up is an absurd idea that needs to go. At this point I infinitely prefer a private company over a publicly traded one.
It’s a bit of an inherent issue sadly, if your goal is to multiply money why would you invest in a company whose profits stay the same over one whose go up? And you have no reason to care if the company eventually dies as a result, you just move your money into the next one.
And most people investing money will be doing so with the only purpose of multiplying that money, as it’s mostly banks and similar institutions. In theory if the main investors of a company want it to prioritize user experience over profits, the companies’ duty to its shareholders would also be to ensure good user experience. But that’s never going to happen.
Multiplying your investments is the basis of capitalism. To speak to your point of it being an inherent issue - I find the idea of removing the profit motive from capitalist enterprise to hilariously reactionary. Not because I like capitalism, but because so many people that support capitalism want to “reform” it by ripping its heart out (one artery at a time, at least). I want to rip its heart out for the express intent of killing it - what strange allies we make!
If Gabe ever leaves Valve and the powers that be decide to go public I hope it’s done in a way that gives power to the users instead of faceless investment firms. I don’t even know what that would look like but I fear the day that Valve comes under control of an ex-AAA game company CEO or the like.
Perhaps a transition to a not-for-profit organization structure might be what folks would prefer? It seems like a potentially better alternative than going public, but I’m not sure how it might work in practice for something like a digital storefront.
In a weird way, one could almost argue that’s roughly how Valve’s been operating anyway, except I imagine they’ve been lining their pockets more than a not-for-profit organization’s owners/employees do.
I bet they make a shit ton of money but they certainly seem to reinvest enough of it too. There is a interesting concept called purpose companies here in Europe but it’s not especially wide spread or planned by regulators so the transition is extremly complicated and expensive. The search engine Ecosia is a relatively well known one, it’s basically a company in self ownership where no one from outside can become CEO and no one can sell or go public, they are obligated to their chosen purpose and that’s where their profits go (in the case of Ecosia that’s planting trees), not sure how it works exactly or if it’s doable in the USA at all tho.
I said this elsewhere but that’s not true. The idea that publicly traded companies have a duty to maximize shareholder value is a myth, and anyone privileged enough to sit on a board of directors likely knows this. See this article for an explanation. Every time a board squeezes a company for short term profits at the cost of long term good will, long term profits, etc., that is because they chose to do so.
Well the relation is wrong but it’s a real thing, they have a duty to grow infinitely or the sroxk price will crash and since that’s impossible to achive they essentially have to squeeze their users for short term gains to seem like they still grow sooner or later
“People like me” meaning “People who cite their sources and investigating claims before making them?” Yes, I can understand why you might find it difficult to convince “people like me” to believe something that’s trivially shown to be false.
The idea that publicly traded companies have a duty to maximize shareholder value is a myth, and anyone privileged enough to sit on a board of directors likely knows this. See this article for an explanation. Every time a board squeezes a company for short term profits at the cost of long term good will, long term profits, etc., that is because they chose to do so.
EDIT: See also This NY Times article. And note that I’m not saying that corporations, board members, etc., aren’t pressured or incentivized to maximize shareholder value - I’m saying that they do not have a legal duty to do so.
It’s not a myth, it’s called Fiduciary Duty. The board, officers, and executives of a public company have a legal responsibility to put the financial interests and well-being of the company above other personal interests. The article you linked doesn’t deny this, and it also isn’t discussing the legal definition of it. It’s discussing what you might call “toxic fiduciary duty”, or more or less the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. It’s the idea that profit is the primary motive and should always trump all other considerations.
Fiduciary duty is important to create a concrete stance against corruption and misuse of the company’s assets for personal gain. But when taken to an extreme, it becomes toxic and has negative consequences for the company. Employee wages are probably the most obvious example. There has to be a balance between underpaying and overpaying. If you chronically underpay, the best employees will seek more gainful employment elsewhere and the company will suffer from a poorly qualified workforce. If you overpay, like 100% revenue share with employees, the company will cease to make a profit and will be unable to function. A balance has to be struck to retain the best talent in order to drive success for the company; that is the point of the article you linked.
TL;DR extremism is always bad
(Please don’t mistake this for a pro-capitalism rant, there’s nuance to be had here)
It isn’t. If it were, that would mean that in practice, board members act to maximize shareholder value because they are legally obligated to do so, and that simply isn’t true.
In practice, board members and C-suite employees are incentivized to maximize shareholder value. They are not legally obligated to do so.
Fiduciary duty is a legal requirement, meaning that if you don’t fulfill your fiduciary duty, you’re liable. But nobody has been successfully sued for not maximizing shareholder value when their actions were in line with the business judgment rule (“made (1) in good faith, (2) with the care that a reasonably prudent person would use, and (3) with the reasonable belief that the director is acting in the best interests of the corporation”). Successful lawsuits regarding breach of fiduciary duty (in the context of corporate law) require the defendant to have acted with gross negligence, in bad faith, or to have had an undisclosed conflict of interest.
The closest instance of legal precedent that I know of (aside from “” of course) that eBay v. Newmark (Craigslist), which Max Kennerly took as meaning that corporations . In this case, Craigslist was found to have violated their fiduciary duties to eBay because Craigslist, in Max’s words, “tried to protect the frugal, community-centric corporate culture that was a hallmark for their success.”
Except, if you actually read the case notes, it’s clear that the issue wasn’t that Craigslist wasn’t maximizing their profits, but that they were diluting the percentage of stocked owned and flexibility of selling those stocks of other stockholders. The issue wasn’t that Craigslist wanted to spend half their profits supporting charities or anything like that - no, it was that they were trying to artificially limit, thus directly devaluing, the shares they had already sold. In other words, I agree that this was a case about minority shareholder oppression as opposed to being an edict to maximize profits / shareholder value.
And other than people threatening legal action, the most recent case we have (other than eBay v. NewMark) in favor of shareholder primacy is 124 years old - Dodge v. Ford. But the opposite is true:
Shareholder primacy is clearly unenforceable on its own term because the business judgment rule would defeat any claims based on a failure to maximize profit. 40 Corporate managers formulate business strategy. A rule‒sanction is antithetical to the core concept of the business judgment rule. In over one hundred years of corporate law, there is not a case where a state supreme court imposed liability for breach of fiduciary duty on the specific ground that the board, in managing operational matters, failed to maximize shareholder profit, though it made the decision informedly, disinterestedly, and in good faith.41 That case does not exist. In fact, many cases show just the opposite. Courts have held that shareholders cannot challenge a board’s decision on the specific grounds that, for example: the company paid its employees too much; 42 it failed to pursue a profit opportunity;43 it did not maximize the settlement amount in a negotiation;44 it failed to lawfully avoid taxes.45 There are classic textbook cases where courts have rejected attempts of shareholders to interfere with the board’s decisions on the argument that their views of business or strategy would have maximized shareholder value.46
The belief that a corporation is legally obligated to maximize shareholder value isn’t just wrong; it also:
Implies that no other model is feasible
Removes accountability for the negative effects of such policy from the people who are responsible for perpetuating them
Reinforces the fallacy that this should be resolved through legislation
One of the big reasons many companies go public is it’s naturally a really nice retirement package for the owners of the company. The owners of the company may have put so much time and money into building the company that they don’t have sufficient retirement savings, so by going public they turn a portion of their ownership into a boatload of cash as well as a boatload of wealth that can be leveraged, then simply elect a new CEO, retain their significant voting power on the board so they aren’t entirely abandoning their baby and then peace out
You know you made a really interesting point that they marketed to the sellers not the ultimate customers. I hadn’t really picked up on that before, but it does mitigate what should be a healthy dose of competition by altering the target audience a bit.
I mean that’s the same side that steam is using their monopoly for, too
For the users it’s definitely the most relaxed option - but as a developer if you choose to not put up with steams 30% rule you are fucked.
The fact that pretty much immediately after epic gained traction steam announced cheaper rates for bigger publishers tells you that they definitely are aware of how 30% is too much
Personally that’s why I buy all my games on gog if possible even though I have a Steamdeck and that makes stuff more complicated.
People denying steam has a monopoly are probably also denying other fundamental truths that would imply that they had to change their lifestyle (climate change anyone?)
Yeah, GOG is my preferred store if there’s feature parity, too. On that note, anyone here got AoW4 from GOG? Are all mods available through Paradox, or at least all you’d ever need? Or is most bound to Steam like back in the AoW3 days?
I don’t really think it is. Steam hasn’t really tried that hard to get developers to use their platform because their users already demand their platform. They’ve made concessions on their preferred way in a handful of cases with very large gaming companies like Activision.
Valve really understands how to get people to stay. Proton is an absolute life saver for gaming on linux and Steam currently offers the best experience with it. You just click play and most of the times that’s it, game works. I have no idea how VR works without Steam but I can only imagine it being a giant pain in the ass given how easy SteamVR is to use (a couple of Linux Bugs aside)
Yes, those are all unreasonably high, which is why they have so many billions of dollars in profit. The cost of running their services is a pittance compared to their revenues.
Is it surprising to you that Valve is a for-profit company, not a charity? Of course they profit from the 30%. Just like with any other product, you charge based on what people are willing to pay. If you charge too much, people won't pay for the product and you have to readjust the price. Obviously since companies are willing to pay the 30%, it must not be too high. Somehow I doubt if the people complaining about this woke up as the CEO of Valve, they would be willing to massively cut their companies profits because... why? Just to be nice to a bunch of other corporations?
No, of course it’s not surprising that they’re not a charity. Sure, the big app stores exploit their near-monopolies with exorbitant fees.
Good for Apple, Valve and Google, but I think it’s better that game dev studios and app developers get money instead. However, devs don’t currently have a real choice but to pay up.
Competition can change that, so we should support technically worse stores like Epic so developers will not have to pay their unreasonably high fees.
"Exploit their near-monopolies". Except Valve doesn't "exploit" their near monopoly, I don't see Valve buying exclusives do you? They just provide a better product. Most importantly, they provide a better product then piracy. That is the bare minimum a games store on PC needs to reach and Epic does not reach that. Epic isn't failing because of Steam, it's failing because why buy a $60 game on a featureless store that launches an .exe for me when I can just download the .exe directly for free? If Epic wanted to provide a better product, they have billions of dollars and hundreds of devs to make that happen. They just choose not to.
but I think it’s better that game dev studios and app developers get money instead.
This tired old argument... There's absolutely no evidence that the extra money these companies get from the Epic cut doesn't just go straight into a Bobby Kotick yacht or some shit. There's a lot of grubby hands in-between the store platform and the actual dev teams and maybe I'm cynical but this "trickle-down" model of economics seems kind of far fetched.
I mean that’s the same side that steam is using their monopoly for, too
Steam only has a monopoly because they have the absolute feature advantage. There is no other launcher that offers all of the features Steam does. Steams Monopoly is a natural one, it formed because every other choice was worse and developers don’t want to put the game on another 30 stores where it won’t sell anyway. Epic is trying to create an artificial monopoly where everyone uses Epic because the developers literally cannot sell the game anywhere else (at least for a time).
Steam: Developers voluntarily restrict themselves to that single store out of convenience (99% of the customer base is there, why bother with another store). The customer base is there because the store is feature rich. Epic: Developers are artificially restricted to that single store. The customer base is there because they can’t get the game anywhere else.
Given the above I predict that, unless Epic gets their Store feature equal to Steam (which won’t happen imo), Epic will have to continue forcing exclusivity indefinitely. The moment they stop forcing people to use their store their customers will migrate back to Steam for a better experience.
That’s what I always said, why use Epic store? As a user you get worse treatment. Sure price is the same or they give you some discount but number of services offered is far from being on par with Steam. No family sharing, no refund policy, no cloud saves, no networking system, no streaming, no card collecting, no steam play. I might not use or desire all of those but some people do.
The fact Epic had to resort to extremes like timed exclusives just meant I dropped those developers off of my list of wanted games as it only went to show they are willing to sacrifice your inconvenience and happiness for some extra money. For them it was probably making sure project succeeds but in the end I don’t care about them if they don’t care about me.
I loved my switch at the beginning in 2017 but it being nintendcucked ruined it for me. Terrible sales/overpriced games, also I refuse to pay just to have multiplayer and their half assed emulators. Steam deck is a godsend, someday ill work up the courage to eat the 600$ on one or wait until steam deck 2/pro/ultra/the deckening
Getting the 60th Wii u port 3 years into the switches lifespan drove me crazy as well. If you think that you would like the Steam Deck and that you would use it a lot then I would say just go for it. I use mine almost every day to play games and it has to be reaching a similar level of hours used to my switch in much less time.
I don’t understand where the rumors of a steam deck 2 came from, (it may have been something they said just so people wouldn’t dismiss it as something they would abandon) but it just doesn’t make sense for them to come out with a new one. This thing is targeting around a ps4 game level spec and if the ps3 level graphics of the switch are anything to go by the next Nintendo console will probably be similar to the ps4 as well. This is going to be a direct competitor to said future Nintendo console, they just released it early for everyone to beta test it for them. Game consoles have about 6 year lifespans as well so I see this thing being relevant for years to come. They spent a lot of money on this and are selling it at a loss so I bet they want to get as many of them out there as possible. I bet we will see the OS get a general release and other handheld device makers start to release devices with the OS before we see another one from valve.
As far as devs not making games that run well on it I honestly hope that as the userbase gets bigger that we may start to see more games made with the decks performance in mind. It would also be good for the low spec PC gamers in general as well. But there is such a massive backlog of great games on the steam store that I really do recommend you try this thing, you won’t regret it.
Thanks for the reply, I was really tempted since it went for sale during the steam summer sale. My life circumstances are such that I can’t really justify the money on another game box. My switch still works, I have a decent laptop that can play many of my lower-hardware requirement games. I am currently doing off-grid living and that 600$ is better spent on survival necessities and quality of life improvements or just in my bank as emergency fund. If I were a teen again it would be a no-brainer but my time for gaming is less and less. Saying no to the deck this summer sale was one of the hardest and most responsible things i’ve ever done.
Waiting just means the games you want will only get cheaper! I bet they will have more ridiculous sales for the deck as time goes on as well. Good luck and I hope you can get the stuff you want soon. : )
Can’t remember when was the last time I shelled out 60€ on a game. Indie titles are usually where the fun is at. Good story, acceptable graphics and awesome gameplay. I don’t need UHD mega giga textures to have fun.
I’m pretty sure they have the same refund policy as steam. They also do have a networking system (which I think even has interop with steam – the Bigfoot game tried to use it but it was very unpopular since it required steam gamers to link an epic account but it exists).
Also pretty sure there are cloud saves but less confident on that one.
And yeah, steam streaming and card collecting aren’t really all that important to me in particular, but I get that some people really like them.
Similar refund policy, but not the same. Epic refund policy marks all the games with in-game currency and purchases as non-refundable. Am not sure about the rest and whether developer can set a game to be non-refundable. It seems they have worked on adding a lot of features, however they are still lagging a lot behind Steam and there are many more things than just cloud saves and refund although those are big features. Steam Play for example which allows Linux users to play any Windows game and by extension makes SteamDeck a possibility. That one is huge. Family sharing is also a big thing. Chat and voice communication, etc. There are plenty of those not implemented yet.
Not only the same, but better. Epic will automatically just refund you the difference if a game you bought goes on sale within a certain period of time after your purchase (allegedly even beyond the two week refund window, although I haven’t been able to find any definitive statement of how long they watch it for). Just flat out, you get an email one day telling you they’ve credited back X amount of your purchase.
Also pretty sure there are cloud saves but less confident on that one.
There are. For more than four years now. The problem is that, just like with Steam, they can only put the option out there - it’s up to devs to actually implement it. And there are a lot of devs who haven’t done so, which lots of people interpret as EGS not having cloud saves at all.
I use so many of steams features it’s unfathomable to use any other launcher or even pirate anything because steam is so streamlined. Cloud saves, automatic local file transfers instead of redundant downloads, family share to my friends PC so half the time when I visit she’ll have already downloaded and played my new games. When I get there they’re just ready to go. Remote desktop to make any tweaks on my PC or casual gaming over stream. Big picture mode so I can lay back with a controller and chill, no futzing with m+kb UI. Steam input means I can easily drop in and out with any controllers.
I just got a steam deck and while I could install another app store on it, I’ve entirely stuck with steam just for the UX. I don’t want to fuck with extra launchers and touchscreen bs.
I just played a coop Windows game on a Linux based portable PC on a 4K TV with a $24 USB hub for video out, using an Xbox and ps5 controllers over Bluetooth. This was completely seamless and controller navigated. Steam is insanely good.
If I priate anything I still end up adding it to Steam as a non-steam game just because I am dependant on Proton working. Even then the ootb experience is better since Steam handles actually setting up the Proton environment for me when I actually buy the game.
I tried to play Halo reach over Bluetooth a long while ago and when the rumble went off it would stop taking my input. Glad to hear your aren’t having any issues.
sort of. the fact that egs is still not profitable on its own merits and that developers still shuttle their games over to steam once exclusivity is up tells me that not enough customers are taking the bait.
if being on egs didn’t mean taking a huge hit in total sales, developers would be putting games exclusively on it without uncle tim slapping them over the face with a bag of money
I buy all my games on Epic Games Launcher becomes it has less DRM than steam. If you have kids, they can’t play 2 completely different games on two different computers.
It’s like your kid not being able to play Mario kart on her switch because her brother is playing Halo on Xbox in another room. Steam doesn’t support that. Epic games doesn’t have a problem with you having 2 different games being played on 2 different computers, so I buy my games there whenever I have the choice because it’s the more consumer-friendly platform.
If you have kids, they can’t play 2 completely different games on two different computers.
Steam does support that tho. That’s what Family Sharing is. And it works really well.
Now, if you wanted to play the same game at the same time, that’s on a single Steam account, that you can’t do. But I’m pretty sure you can’t do that on EGS, either. Not without 2 accounts and 2 copies of the game.
No, it explicitly does not work that way. If you share a game to another family member, and that family member plays that game, you are not allowed to play any other game at all on steam.
“A Steam library can only be used by one user at a time to play one game at a time. The same is true if that library is being accessed by another user via Family Sharing.”
I know the wording there is fucked up, but have you used it? Because you can play two separate games at the same time with it, but you can’t play the same exact game as each other. I use it all the time to play stuff my sister has that I don’t, while she plays something else.
Unless you’ve got some weird special option, they’re right, as soon as you launch a game in your library, it becomes unusable to family sharing, my wife and I use it but it’s very limiting in that aspect.
It even notifies you when the “family library” becomes available.
I can’t name a single other digital service anywhere near steam level of trust. things you bought don’t disappear. they are on the record saying there is a contingency in case of shutdown. they havnt a used their position. as far as market leaders go, you could do worse
I don’t want a curated store though and would rather have people be able to release games, and let users decide if it is something they want or not. I can access reviews myself and don’t need companies deciding what game is or isn’t worthy of being available. And users is who I trust more anyways, which is why for so long search term + reddit is what I’ve relied on.
I mean, isn’t community self-policing and an overly tolerant attitude towards picking what type of games are allowed on your platform exactly what we want from them?
Quality control is another word for "high barrier to entry", and especially with their market position, being rejected by Steam for some arbitrary reason would effectively kill your project.
Not only should they not restrict the ability to sell your games there without a concrete reason; they shouldn't be permitted to do so. A company with that much influence shouldn't be allowed to be a gatekeeper of what constitutes a "good" game.
Their review system and strong return policy are more than enough.
I didn’t ignore it, you just didn’t think it through.
You’re complaining about having more options as if it’s some kind of moral stand. But the only reason to be mad about those things is if you were forced to buy them. Steam doesn’t only have to sell games that you specifically approve of and it’s not some kind of moral failing to sell games that are low quality.
This isn’t even getting into how you’re ignoring history to make the claim that they did it all for their bottom line and not the huge amount of user demand for them to open up the store. This also isn’t getting into how any money coming in from asset flips specifically is negligible, and not at all like some kind of NFT scam level of dubious behaviour like you’re referring to it.
The only reason to be this mad about more games being sold on Steam is if you feel a need to buy it all.
That’s an extremely loose idea of “promotion”, to the point of manufacturing upset. A storefront does not inherently promote something merely by offering it, that’s like saying a convenience store promotes Pepsi and Coca-Cola because they sell both even though both those companies have extremely strict promotional initiatives that ensure no crossover.
Because there is a gamer. Someone who plays games.
And Gmer. Someone who’s entire personality is based around games, and not in the fun healthy way. But in the justifying a monopoly because it’s their colour way. Just look at some of the comments here and you’ll see a lot of Gmers.
Ok, so that is the what, but what is the why? Why the censored word? I don’t get it. Nonetheless I’m closer to getting it now so thank you for that much
I think the pseudo-quote you wanted to do the other way around.
The thing is, sure, I prefer buying things from say, GOG. But Epic is horrible, and that’s even just from my consumer perspective with it’s bad client, terrible discoverability and lack of forums or anything. So as a consumer I have no incentive to support Epic, no matter whether I want to give my money to Steam or another place.
You’re right, I did get the pseudo-quote backwards.
As far as customer experience, that’s one thing, and that’s valid. “I prefer to use Steam because it has features Epic doesn’t, even if one’s a monopoly” though is very different from the quote above, which is distinctly about supporting X company over Y company; not about product difference, but actual support.
Let’s be real though, if Epic had literally just released Steam but with a good UI people would still boycott it, referencing xenophobic shit like “because china”, angry at tim sweeney, complaining about another launcher, and anything else. The PC market has this really strange and uncomfortable adoration of Steam. It’s console-warrior levels, really.
I don’t disagree that EGS is a lackluster product in many ways, but it’s pretty clear that the complaints about it by and far are simply justification for a pre-existing opinion, both because of predisposition towards steam, and against “the guys who made that stupid fortnite game”.
referencing xenophobic shit like “because china”, angry at tim sweeney,
What… the fuck are you talking about? You are lost in sauce, dude.
I would rather GOG be made the de facto alternative than Epic. The fact that we have approx. 1 grocery store nearby does not mean we should be excited a Walmart is being built.
Content that Beijing deems “subversive” has also been forced to be removed from both platforms. Human rights experts are well aware of the ways that these apps have been utilized to spy on Uyghurs and other dissenting voices and are used to persecute these individuals and their family members. Information collected from WeChat can be enough to land one in a concentration camp or prison, as is the case for many Uyghurs who have contact with foreigners or family members who are abroad. Tencent, WeChat’s parent company, is thus clearly complicit in the genocide of Uyghurs, amongst other affronts on human rights. The United States administration has not been alone in acknowledging this, India has also banned far more Chinese apps than were addressed by the U.S. executive order on August sixth.
You realize that Tencent doesn’t own Epic. They have a minority stake in them, as they do bluehole, ubisoft, activision blizzard, platinum games, paradox interactive, fatshark, funcom, and discord. They also wholly or majority own supercell, grinding gear games, and riot games.
No discussion of these other companies devolves into saying that these companies personally aid in genocide. Why is that? As far as I can tell, it’s just because a small contingency of gamers online don’t like how popular fortnite is.
So now its not xenophobia, it's because people don't like the popularity of Fortnite? How about lets not handwave all of Tencent's crimes against humanity with "you're just xenophobic" or "you just don't like Fortnite". Nobody of any good conscious should support that company or any of its owned companies (partially or otherwise).
Eh, more competition is good. This opinion is pretty basic.
From memory Epic has improved rates for developers/publishers - why the fuck wouldn’t you want that/just be ok with a base 30% cut because of some shitty ideal?
Epic also tried to datamine their users with literal spyware, their store is shit with no features, they gained market share via exclusivity deals (I shouldn’t need to explain why this is bad, yeah?), their CEO is a POS with horrible takes, Tencent has a large stake in the company… If anything, your opinion is shallow.
Ahh, so you can only have good competitors? It’s either a monopoly (which is only as good as the CEO in charge, and with time will go to shit), or competitors which do the same stuff and play nice?
This is reality. And you get good competition, you get bad, but in general it’s good for the consumer to have options. Fuck it, I’m actually completely happy using Valve for most things and then getting free games from Epic.
The view that a monopoly is better is just extremely short-sighted and naive. Similar to a “We should just have a dictator! This one guy is really good now, what could go wrong in the future?” type thinking.
Hurr durr, a monopoly is bad because the person in charge could become bad, so I’ll actively help this KNOWN bad actor to get a foothold in the market. I am very smart
That a new person to Valve would be equal to Epic, as opposed to massively running Steam into the ground in a significantly worse way. It’d be easy for some dumbass to suggest a subscription service is needed for Steam for example, you need to may $10 a month to support it. Whelp, Steam is now shit.
You assume I’m helping Epic whatsoever. I get free games, that only costs Epic… So yes, this is helping me and costing Epic. Net win for consumers.
If a developer/publisher wants the choice to pay lower fees they can do so via Epic. It’s great they have the choice, I support devs being able to do what works best for them.
There’s no hypocrisy there - it’s just logical that it’s a good outcome to have competition.
Perhaps I should turn the argument around - why is a monopoly by Steam a good thing? Long-term it’s completely unsustainable and they will do bad things, so why would you support that?
I’m not assuming jack shit. I’m factually stating Valve/Steam are currently great for the gaming industry and Epic is toxic refuse.
This opinion is in no way unpopular. Valve is privately owned and headed by a single individual with tremendous purpose of will, which is how they’ve done so many great things for the gaming industry. The issue lies with said leadership vacating their role (GabeN is getting old) and some greedy bastard taking the company in a wholy different direction. tl;dr: we need a strong competitor, but not now, and ABSOLUTELY not Epic.
Are my exact words from this very thread.
You assume I’m helping Epic whatsoever. I get free games, that only costs Epic… So yes, this is helping me and costing Epic. Net win for consumers.
Did you think Epic’s financial department had an extended vacation or something? They don’t give a shit that you downloaded the game they made available for free, that was the whole point of their stunt and they were prepared to use money in order to claw some market share.
If a developer/publisher wants the choice to pay lower fees they can do so via Epic. It’s great they have the choice, I support devs being able to do what works best for them.
And I boycott devs who sell their souls for a quick buck. Darkest Dungeon is one of my favorite games of all time - I still haven’t bought DD2, even though it was made available on Steam after the period of exclusivity elapsed.
it’s just logical that it’s a good outcome to have competition.
Except it isn’t. It’s only good to have good faith competition of well behaved market players - Epic does not qualify.
why is a monopoly by Steam a good thing? Long-term it’s completely unsustainable and they will do bad things, so why would you support that?
Again a horrible question. Something doesn’t have to be perfect in order to be markedly better than something else. Steam is, right now, no questions asked, infinitely better than Epic. Why support a shitty company that would happily bring everything crumbling down if it meant a quick buck?
Valve is good now so it doesn’t need a competitor? And only when it goes bad should another company exist as competitor? This makes no sense… It’s just not how the world works. Once you have a monopoly it typically stays a monopoly. Look at any of the current monopolies - many are going to shit like Google but there’s no real competition regardless.
You’re also discounting the fact the opposite fact - Epic might be terrible now, but change leadership and its now amazing.
You’re buying way into a very specific case of looking at where things are at now and making a judgement VS. Thinking of longer term ideas like competition is good.
Also, is steam infinitely better than Epic? That’s very debatable, I have no issues with either. To be honest, they’re much of a muchness. You may just be too heavily emotionally invested in these companies. Realistically, they are both just trying to make as much money out of you as they can. For instance, Steams use of their market and giving out digital cards to collect and level up is very predatory.
What spyware? The CEO has been a big advocate for lowering store prices (including Google and Apple stores) to help smaller developers. Their exclusive deals have also helped a lot of developers get their games made. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a game developed these days. Xbox, Sony, Nintendo all have exclusives.
As an indie gamedev, yes, I DO know how hard it is to make a game – I also don’t think getting funding is worth selling your soul for.
They don’t want to lower percentages and prices to “help smaller developers”, but to gain market share. Your brainless whataboutism on consoles is also irrelevant – it’s bad there too. The only acceptable exclusivity is when the company behind the market also happens to develop (not fund) the game.
Look up the concept of loss leading. Do you think Epic are really just doing this for the benefit of developers or are they after something more insidious?
But that’s ok - this is why competition is good. Devs make some more money, consumers get some free games.
Even if Epic ends up only matching Steam then this is a net win for people.
Asking for a monopoly is just short-sighted. Gabe leaves and then the next person in line is some $-hungry mofo who makes terrible decisions and you end up with a shit system. You need competition to keep things in check.
My biggest issue with Epic is them very clearly doing the classic tactic of selling goods at unsustainably low prices in order to drive out competition before jacking them back up again. Their whole free game shtick can’t possibly last forever and they know it.
It isn’t (at least over here) but the “cost” for a game is really iffy to define because if you want to be pedantic the distribution cost for a digital game are cents and that only if you actually factor in infrastructure costs. So technically they can just price them however they want because technically a single game download has 0 cost.
Technically because we all know that the production costs have to be regained somehow, just that with enough lawyer bs you can ignore that as a product cost on paper (for example if you label the entire production a learning experience or smth)
I could always get one of those games off the high seas and pay the same amount. I’m not going to give Epic the engagement numbers to get investors with.
I believe these Indy devs get paid when you boot a game you got for free, so I’m happy to install stuff and boot it once just to support gaming in general
It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it… anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
I wish we had a branch of government filled with randomly selected people.
Imagine if we filled each house seat by randomly selecting 5 people, having the 5 people debate, and then people could vote for which of the 5 they wanted. We would then have a government filled with normal but likable people.
Wait, this is unpopular? Well shit, I’m right there with you. I was already not liking Epic for many reasons, but the Satisfactory exclusivity deal seared them to a cinder for me. At least Valve is not publicly traded and the owner never has any intent on doing so. He is able to base his decisions on what he wants and is able to treat employees, customers, and content creators more fairly, even if it hurts his bottom line. Honestly, that is all I need to know about the man. He could go public and make billions, but he doesn’t. He wants the control and wants the closed company. In the modern world it is rare and, to me, laudable.
I’ve used GoG once for a game that wasn’t on steam but I have done much more. Honestly I acknowledge that this ephemeral moment in time where PC gaming is kept in balance by Gaben can’t last. But I really think the lens we should look at PC landscape today is one of appreciation. If EA ran the game in steam’s shoes we wouldn’t get things like summer sales or games at reduced prices long after their launch.
Don’t be sad it will be gone be happy it happened.
Both Valve and Epic are private companies. I still trust Valve over Epic, but I think technically Tim Sweeney has pretty much full control over Epic as well (for better or for worse).
He does, but not the stake Gaben has. Sweeny sold 40% to tencent. This still gives him control, but thats a very large shareholder that can push and pull when they want.
They can’t “push and pull” anything. With Sweeney owning 50%+1, Tencent and anyone else he sold shares to can literally do nothing - he will always have the final say. And since the company is private, there’s almost certainly an agreement/contract in place on those share purchases that if someone wants to dump them they have to offer them back to him/the company first. Since it’s not a public company they can’t just go sell their shares on an open market. The threat of a large shareholder is gone in a case like this - they can’t stage a hostile takeover and they can’t dump and run.
You’re thinking of technically taking the decisions in the company. But shareholders can do much more. Like influencing the value of stocks by selling too many at once.
Another point for me at least, I actually put in effort to not getting made in China products where feasible. The same thing applies here, supporting epic is supporting China. I really just prefer not to support China, so no epic games for me.
Gaben has been hands off at valve for a decade. He’s off breaking world records with research submersibles. Playing with his rubber duckies in the bathtub.
The point is that, other than Gabe, Valve doesn’t have any shareholders to put before their customers. A publicly traded company, on the other hand, effectively has no choice but to cause as much harm as possible to their customers and to society in general in order to maximize short term shareholder profits, leading to runaway enshittification.
A publicly traded company, on the other hand, effectively has no choice but to cause as much harm as possible to their customers and to society in general in order to maximize short term shareholder profits
Nobody is talking about public companies here. Both Valve and Epic are private companies.
If you want to complain about profit motives, that’s a capitalism problem overall, not an issue with public vs. private corporations.
twitter.com
Aktywne