Steam could be assholes.
They are not.
Best argument for no public trading of the company.
Steam could be assholes.
They are not.
Best argument for no public trading of the company.
including getting bought-out by a company that is (microsoft, ea, sony, etc)
What happens when Gabe moves on? I guess all good things come to an end.
About the only weak point Steam has, is the inconsistent and poor treatment of adult games. Hopefully we either see Steam stop being a prude, or someone definitively taking that segment away from them outright.
These guys are so privileged they think they are entitled to success without innovation.
THERE WAS NOTHING LIKE STEAM AT THE TIME.
If they want what Gabe has they need to do what he did: INNOVATE.
I cannot emphasize this enough. This is the entire modus operandi when it comes to venture capital and "entrepreneurs" in industry.
They have a singular talent: exploitation. Be it a mineral rich vein under a mountain, an oil/gas field, middle-class folks with spending cash, gig workers, or information economy workers (e.g. programmers), it's just one more resource to convert into wealth. Left unchecked, all the social evils we see from this thinking come into play: inequality, slavery, usury, fascism, and so on. The above even applies to their own employees, as there is no distinction in class of human being outside of the status of "owner". There is no higher calling, no alternative focus. There are only resources and money.
The instant you make "keeping the company alive", "make a product people actually want", or even "employ people"a focus, the goal is no longer exploitative. It's arguably more socialist, even if the overall goal is to continue to thrive as a for-profit business. As a result, it's not useful to these jackals as-is. It must first be converted into parts to be exploited.
Such a thing is also a pariah in capitalist circles. They fucking hate it. The bigger Valve gets, the more hit-pieces we see in the media. Also, the more we see CEOs circle the wagons when the likes of Epic attempts to topple their market dominance somehow, and it always fails. Socialist corporate ju-jitsu appears to be a winning strategy, and thank goodness.
Also not be shitbag garbage monsters.
If Valve just made using Steam as soul-crushingly painful as we imagine it must, we might have a chance! Imagine what could be if the wizards behind the Google Play Store took a shot at making Steam!
I have a great idea! What if we censor every negative review! People would see all these ~~amazing~~ shit games with amazing reviews and buy them!
when it first release, steam was ASS
True from what I've read, and honestly I never used it in that form. I was mostly gaming on consoles at that time.
Can someone do it? Technically, yes.
You need a FUCKTON of funding. Hire a large team, build a competitor app from scratch.
You can't just build a metropolis and it expect it to float. Undercut them on pricing. Provide strong publishing support and metrics out of the gate. Advertise partner games while on game load. Provide strong anti-cheat without kernel fuckery. Provide backend server support in the vein of roblox. Wire in clauses that server-based games either run on your backend, or escrow encrypted backend code to you. On long-term abandonment, you reserve the right to host or release the backend code. Players will come rally around you for supporting stop-killing games, and if you pull it off right, you might even make the creators happy.
The best they can do is drop the take to match your price and provide the same services you provide.
The tricky part: You need to keep them from buying you. Your venture needs to not GAF that it's going to take forever to return on that investment. You can tit-for-tat features in an AI world, but staying a step ahead of them is going to require deep pockets that are just content to eat some of their pi and sustain.
I do think steam needs competition because a monopolistic marketplace always ends bad, but also fuck epic and their whinging. It just feels like they expected to enter into the digital gaming marketplace landscape and valve would just roll over and give up.
Make. A. Better. Product. you dolts, its that easy. If you want to disrupt valves monopoly in the marketplace, you have to make something disrupting. A storefront that has 10% of the features steam has then trying to snipe developers into exclusive deals by trying to offer them lower rates isnt going to do the trick.
Make. A. Better. Product.
Certainly easier said than done when it comes to Steam, given how much of a head start they have and the resources available to them to compete with any serious attempt, but it feels impossible to Tim because he spent all of Epic's time and money whining, litigating, and giving out free games instead of making the EGS better for consumers.
Coming up on 8 years since its initial launch and they're only now adding "advanced digital commerce technology" like a shopping cart. All bluster no substance.
Exactly, this very much gives off "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!" vibe.
Not saying I have a clue what they could do to disrupt steams monopoly, but id gather one of the suits that Epic pays 7 figures to probably should get on that.
There's also the whole thing where Tim Sweeney is such a dick constantly running his mouth that I hate him so much I won't even use his platform for free stuff. And there have been games I actually wanted that were offered. I still chose Steam and / or GoG over literally free because fuck that guy and the AI slop version of a horse he rode in on.
It helps that the industry seems to always be inhabited by the greediest, most misanthropic companies on the planet.
Long live Steam
GOG might one day, but they need to step up their experience before that even becomes a possibility.
Maybe other competitors should start offering a better experience to compete instead of trying to shovel enshittified garbage onto everyone and then complain about other companies that don't shit all over their customers (looking at you, Tim Sweeney, you turd of a CEO).
They seem to be keeping themselves afloat at least. Theirs is the only launcher I've bothered installing besides Steams.
My steam account is 22 years old. I probably have 400+ games on there. I do believe in GOG and try to buy games there where I can, but if I have a choice between the major platforms, I will pretty much always choose steam. I bought a bunch of games on Xbox Live and my PS3 back in the 2000s that I no longer have access to. There's a certain subset of gamers for whom Steam will always be the platform of choice.
Do they realize that what they really said was: having shareholders destroys businesses.
I was thinking around the same, more specifically that what they're saying is that "in the long run companies managed to produce value for shareholders actually produce less value that companies managed to produce value for a single private owner".
This is actually pretty consistent with what we see in many industries with both kinds of companies and a pretty daming indictment of publicly traded companies as a mechanism for increasing value creation.
shareholders in public companies dont care about the health of the business
Lol, this is an unironically awesome takeaway.
Anyone who isn't head deep in Capitalism understands that, yeah.
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules: