We're not really headed to a subscription-based future. People like Game Pass, but it has no exclusive content. Nintendo's the only one trying to make a catalog of games exclusive to their service, but they're all retro games, and Nintendo can get bent, because we can all pirate and emulate those games better than Nintendo can rent them to us. They could get be getting some revenue from actually selling those old games to customers in the places they want to play those games, but Nintendo isn't interested in that. If this particular situation gets worse, then I might be worried. There's just too much diversity in the game industry for this to be a threat. There's no central cartel or representative group for games the way there is in movies and music to dictate those markets away from what the customer actually wants. In video games, you can switch to Xbox or, more likely, PC when Sony raises prices. PCs have gotten easier, and they've always been more open, and I think the gaming market has demonstrated that they value the openness.
This is not a surprise. Big companies have been very busy for the last decade in transforming video games into glorified visual experiences which feel more of a chore than fun to play.
please elaborate. because from what I’m seeing, people are outraged over just having more character creation options or more variety of characters. i can’t see how that’s exclusion.
The elusive Nazi on Lemmy. How funny.
I can't fathom how fragile your self identity as "white man" must be, if the inclusion of non white people and women in video games is somehow this upsetting to you. I bet you're one of those people who cry about wokeism on the Steam forums.
Black Girl Games is one of several consulting companies that promote more diversity in games and other media. Not to exclude white people completely.
Let’s see what we can agree on here, please stop me when you disagree with my statement.
Racism still exists and is a problem in the world today
The best tool we have against racism is knowledge and exposure to other cultures and ethnicities
Having more than two or three AAA games with a main character that is a minority will give gamers that first hand experience with the represented culture
Therefore, more representation is good for combating racism and as an extra benefit is giving more diverse worlds/stories to play
There are still a metric buttload of games with white main characters or character creators that let you be white
Minorities will be happy to see themselves represented
Diversity is not the enemy, and companies are trying to level the playing field, not erase white people
I want to know specifically what your problem with dei efforts are so we can clear up any confusion.
I hesitate to attribute it to accidental mismanagement. Surely Microsoft has enough experience by now to be pretty good at acquiring firms they think of as competition only to find some excuse to shut them down.
That could work if these firms were somehow competitors, but these aren’t Sony-aligned studios they’re buying, these are studios that were releasing games on Xbox.
This is definitely a case of, “what makes stock line go up? New games, Big names, More stuff!” Then later, “uh oh, did that and stock price not going up. Layoffs mean less cost, now stock line go up again!”
They really did nothing to limit scalpers. I like to imagine scalpers with dozens of Xboxes sitting around because they all came back into stock. Not taking a stand against scalpers will probably hurt in the long run, they don’t buy games or subscriptions
Good for them. Also glad they are going to continue developing the KOTOR remake, although with everything that's happened with that project it feels like it will be years before we see it again.
I see a lot of covid misinformation going on around this story which is extremely worrying. Just because the human race not currently at risk of imminent extinction from it doesn’t mean it’s not still a serious illness. Some people get long term complications from it. Some people are extra vulnerable to it. Some people are still dying from it.
“Just get the vaccine” is the worst kind of uninformed handwaving response to the concerns and worries of other humans, it’s upsetting it is becoming the norm.
Remember, if Valve actually lost this suit, which they almost certainly won’t, it won’t improve the videogame ecosystem. It will possibly make it worse.
What’s that about price parity? I’ve often bought games from 3rd party sellers like Fanatical, to name one, specifically because their prices were lower than Steam’s. What am I missing?
They used to have a price parity clause in their steam distribution agreement. They loosely enforced it, depending on what game and what service. I think they quietly removed it because I read through the agreement recently and didn’t see it but I remember it influencing choices I made for pricing my games on itch.io.
I see, thanks for the clarification. That does sound a bit shitty on their part, especially because when most people are asked “gaming on PC?” they answer “Steam”. Lower prices elsewhere might have given a better chance to other storefronts, although I don’t think that would have made a huge difference, since Steam is THE storefront
Steam wants to keep it that way. Any references to other storefronts in your demo or game aren’t allowed either. So if you’re demo has a list of every place to buy the game, it’s rejected, can only contain steam. Steam is deathly afraid of losing the advantage.
If they’re acting this way it means that either they’ve already seen a decline somewhere (or at least not as big of a growth) thanks to other storefronts (and maybe other companies’ launchers like Rockstar and similar), or anticipate things will get worse in the future. I get it, as a company they want to make more money YoY, but this is definitely an ugly move. Guess I’ll add another reason not to buy from them!
Denying references to other places that directly compete with you seems pretty reasonable to me. You don’t see toaster boxes at Walmart saying it’s also available at Target or whatever
If that is the biggest problem, I wouldn’t keep myself from buying from them. I think Valve is generally a “good behaving” company, probably mostly because they are not on the stock market, and I would expect mostly any other company to do much more shitty and monopolistic things when (or before) it has grown to the size of Valve.
It seems pretty fair to want equal pricing. You’ve been speaking as if Valve is actively killing small storefronts like itch.io and these little guys would be the one to gain from something like this. They might, but not nearly as much as Epic Games would which is the lead in a very similar lawsuit. Epic wants to be able to sell games available on Steam at a lower price to influence people to use their storefront instead. They’re literally giving games away so I think they’d love a chance to try and recoup some of that while still getting to look like the pioneers of cheap.
I honestly don’t think that’s a viable strategy. Retail businesses mostly have the same practices, so one could say that Valve just doesn’t want to start doing game price-matching like Best Buy. The closest I’ve ever seen is a store not having stock of something and a worker there suggesting a different store that might have it. But I’ve never been on Gamestop’s website and seen that Funkopop for sale cheaper at Walmart or Target? An individual working there might tell me because they’re not a corporation.
Given they also have pretty steep sales, I would imagine cheaper pricing could influence sale availability as well - if the game is always $20 cheaper somewhere else maybe the dev doesn’t want to put the game on sale as often/at all. None of that is antitrust though, so why use that as their argument? I guess the case will tell us for sure.
I also think that, probably to a lesser extent, it’s been to help Valve prevent the grey-market key selling. I’m of the opinion that Valve likely doesn’t care too much about you or I selling our Humble Bundle key of a game for $3.74, however they do want to avoid stolen credit card key sales and revoked licenses. I personally don’t think that Itch or Fanatical relates to this, but I do think there’s a general misunderstanding that people conflate Fanatical/Green Man Gaming and grey market sites like G2A and Kinguin. It can’t look good for Valve when a user buys 3rd party and their key is revoked and the user gets mad about it, and boy are there a lot of angry vocal people out there complaining about this very thing.
Frankly, you buy on Steam because you get the Steam Overlay to completely change your controller scheme and use community templates, access to per-game notes, and the Steam Workshop, in addition to whatever other peripheral things like cloud saving. It’s all very user positive so of all things I don’t really understand why this is the move that influences your decision when the other options, save literal indie stores, are decidedly worse.
Itch.io is great, it’s unfortunate that devs who want to sell on Steam can’t advertise to their alternate store listing but it also seems sensible? No business actively advertises the ability to buy somewhere else to give the devs 20% more of the sale. Does anywhere actively promote anything like this? Not as far as I’ve seen, so it seems odd to single out Valve when literally every single business in existence works the same way? And I’m not saying that I personally think it should/shouldn’t, I’m more trying to see if there’s any precedent in existence that would implicate Valve to have to do this in order to not be… “shitty?”
For posterity I just opened up Epic and checked out a few games and there’s no place where the storefront shows the existence of its availability on other stores. The Witcher 3 has no references to GOG Galaxy, Red Dead 2 has no references indicating to buy it on the Rockstar Launcher anywhere. For that matter, nor does Itch.io or Fanatical, ironically neither of these have links to go buy it on Steam instead either.
I’ll happily change my opinion if the arguments in court make sense but as of right now I’m skeptical. Personally when I google a game I discover it from a series of sources and Steam is where I end up choosing to buy it. I choose Steam because it offers the best service. I’ve regretted buying Control during its hostage situation on Epic because it’s caused me nothing but problems (lost saves, validation issues, needing to redownload the game every time instead of pointing to the existing location). Ubisoft and EA only have games that were bought on Humble Bundle and because of it I didn’t have access to Need for Speed: Heat for about 2-3 months while the Origin/EA App transition was happening. “You need to play this game on the EA App!” says Origin. “Sorry, we’re working on getting this game to the new EA App! Check back soon!” says the EA App. A waking nightmare.
I feel like the chances are high that these are the winners if the outcome of a suit is against Valve, not itch.io. Itch will just get drowned out by Humble Bundle and Epic and only indie indie developers will get sales through itch. I also doubt that the point of this suit is to allow devs to put everywhere else the game is available.
From Valve’s perspective I think it’s important to note that their ToS seems to indicate that other developers are allowed to sell on store fronts, but Valve does not get any of the commission despite providing Steam keys. However, since Steam keys are being provided, Valve is still providing quite a large service with cloud saves, forums, everything I mentioned earlier. I actually didn’t know this, so I can also understand Valve not explicitly wanting to give that service away for free and not get anything from it. I mean, that would basically mean that by advertising on the store that the developer can get 20% more if you buy on Itch while still getting a Steam key and access to all of its features…
All told, I am personally of the camp that I think equal sales on storefronts is fair. If Steam has a sale, other store fronts don’t have to have one. Other store fronts are allowed to have sales as long as an equitable sale is had on Steam in “a reasonable amount of time” per the ToS. And it legitimately seems insane to expect one store to advertise an unrelated store just because it’s available at both.
Anyway, these are all just thoughts. I don’t know anything and no one will until the evidence is shown and it’s settled. However, having liked Humble Bundle and the Wolfire team I personally am disappointed to see this suit coming from them. If I’m not mistaken this is literally being funded by Epic Games, they actually are the same case. If you’ve scrolled by the Epic. vs. Valve lawsuit ad on Instagram or Facebook, I’ve seen it quite a bit. That’s this one.
What role do you think the Steam workshop plays in this?
Obviously the people playing the AAA franchises don’t care, but when you see the sheer quantity of workshop content for some games (Cities:Skylines and Space Engineers come to mind for me, no doubt there’s other examples in genres I’m less familiar with), you see how much the modding community has contributed to the commercial success of these games. I’m wondering how this factors in to steam as a whole.
One of steams major profit points is the market place from what I can tell. The workshop less so. Modding might be a factor but a minor one compared to things that make money actively instead of passively.
Windows is trying to both maintain backwards compatibility and lock-in. That’s pretty hard at the best of times, moreso when you didn’t initially have lock-in. If I can get my games working on Linux (i hear it’spossible, but I need time), the only reason I’ll have to use Windows will be work-related.
@Quexotic@GreyEyedGhost for what it’s worth I’ve been working on Linux servers professionally for 15 years and I use a windows desktop and an osx laptop both personally and for work. I can’t think of a particular advantage a Linux client environment would give you. The last thing I want to do in either place is extra work making my local environment functional.
From a completely selfish standpoint, I hope they’ll do something with the neglected IP. Would love to see a new Sierra game, though that might just be the nostalgia speaking :)
Other than that, I recall Microsoft not going to interfere with any unionization attempts due to a neutrality agreement?
In the same vein: I hope they make a new Killer Instinct. PS4 was THE console for fighting games last generation. Microsoft is sitting on IP that would create a lot of hype for a sequel in the fighting game community. The dual sense controller is rumored to have a mushy D-pad while the Xbox controller has a very clicky one. Microsoft could make a real statement about fighting games having a home on the Xbox. To me, it seems like a really obvious strategic decision. The only problem is that fighting games are relatively niche so the weight of that decision isn’t too high.
The only problem is that fighting games are relatively niche so the weight of that decision isn’t too high.
Really? I thought fighting games got quite a bit of press attention, at least whenever a new game releases. Specifically because there aren’t a lot of them around but the interest is still pretty big.
I always saw them as kind of like a prestige thing. It might not be everyone’s favorite genre, but having the best fighting game looks good on your platform as a whole. There’s a certain… pedigree to them because of their arcade roots.
Anyway, I hope you’ll get your wish. It’s always a shame when these kind of titles are just languishing away because some company bought the rights but decides to sit on them.
You might be right. It does seem like we’re entering another golden age of fighting games. But fighting games don’t have nearly the audience of some of the other genres. Most people who buy Mortal Kombat don’t even play online. It’s not like a lot of shooters or MOBAs where it’s a daily ritual for huge numbers of people. The people who are like that, are really like that, but it just isn’t a lot.
gamesindustry.biz
Ważne