1074
It feels good to support
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2025
1074 points (98.9% liked)
Gaming
8215 readers
513 users here now
!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.
Our Rules:
1. Keep it civil.
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.
2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.
I should not need to explain this one.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.
Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Logo uses joystick by liftarn
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
UUhhhh no? Steam doesn't automatically change games' visibility if it's never on sale; it makes games on sale more visible, which encourages Devs to put their games on sale, meaning people who have never seen your game have seen it and might buy it. So in the end, MORE People have bout the game than would have otherwise, and if set at the right price, the Devs still get their cash and now have a larger market. I'm so glad I took Microeconomics in High School :)
And maybe if you studied beyond highschool level you would be aware this is a well studied thing in economics. If you sell a priority service and there is a limit to the resource in some way you are shutting out the people that don't pay. Like its the same problem as dating apps that sell priority matching, if enough people buy I to it you either have to buy into it as well just to get a fair chance, or except you will never get seem.
Yes the Devs that buy into it get more sales. The entire point is it works for those people, if it didn't they would have no reason to buy into it. But the people who don't buy into it are then inherently disadvantaged.
This post brought to you by a person who studied beyond highschool level and the phrase "buy into it".
That works when we're talking about big businesses and AAA games, but the problem is when we consider indie developers, who struggle to get attention so are pressured into putting their game on sale when they don't want to just get some attention.
Sure if you don't give a shit about other people, and then you can use the same logic to justify sweatshop clothes and any other shitty businesses practice you like.
No, what I said was you can use that same logic to justify sweatshops. That does not mean I think they are equivalent.
The problem is the coercion, steam tells smaller indie Devs that they basically have to agree to massive sales in order to get their game seen.
Again you're only listen to a part of what I'm saying to make it more convenient to argue against.
Pc part picker is not a distributer with a functional monopoly on the pc hardware market, nor are AMD Nvidia and Intel small indie teams. That's the key here.
Steam use their position as THE retailer of PC games as leverage to make small indie Devs put their games on ridiculous sales even when they don't want to, just to get featured, in order to benefit themselves by being the place that has the crazy sales.
If you want a more apt example think of companies that use unpaid or underpaid inters for work in return for "the exposure" it's very similar and widely considered exploitative.
Hey man, if you don't want to engage in good faith, it's better not to engage at all.