Honestly, the secret is not being a publicly traded company. All the others have to make the shareholders happy while steam just does steam. If the line doesn't have to constantly go up you can pretty much do whatever you want as long as you're still making profit. And if what you're doing is already working you don't need to add gimmicks or advertisements to milk it as much as you can just to appease the shareholders.
Being a private company has allowed Valve to take some really big swings. Steam Deck is paying off handsomely, but it came after the relative failure of the Steam Controller, Steam Link and Steam Machines. With their software business stable, they can allow themselves to take big risks on the hardware side, learn what does and doesn't work, then try again. At a publically traded company, CEO Gabe Newell probably gets forced out long before they get to the Steam Deck.
That's just what happens to CEOs of publicly traded companies when they have a bad year. And Intel had a really bad year in 2024. I'm certainly hoping that their GPUs become serious competition for AMD and Nvidia, because consumers win when there's robust competition. I don't think Pat's ousting had anything to do with GPUs though. The vast majority of Intel's revenue comes from CPU sales and the news there was mostly bad in 2024. The Arrow Lake launch was mostly a flop, there were all sorts of revelations about overvolting and corrosion issues in Raptor Lake (13th and 14th gen Intel Core) CPUs, broadly speaking Intel is getting spanked by AMD in the enthusiast market and AMD has also just recently taken the lead in datacenter CPU sales. Intel maintains a strong lead in corporate desktop and laptop sales, but the overall trend for their CPU business is quite negative.
One of Intel's historical strength was their vertical integration, they designed and manufactured the CPUs. However Intel lost the tech lead to TSMC quite a while ago. One of Pat's big early announcements was "IDM 2.0" ("Integrated Device Manufacturing 2.0"), which was supposed to address those problems and beef up Intel's ability to keep pace with TSMC. It suffered a lot of delays, and Intel had to outsource all Arrow Lake manufacturing to TSMC in an effort to keep pace with AMD. I'd argue that's the main reason Pat got turfed. He took a big swing to get Intel's integrated design and manufacturing strategy back on track, and for the most part did not succeed.
When “everything is AI now” and your motion board/investors are watching nvidia nearing 1T, then they want you in the GPU business.
And now we’re back to the public companies are terrible at innovation argument. If the line can only go up, you can’t take risks and you have to hurt people to continue at some point.
Agreed, but if I'd had the money at the time, I absolutely would've jumped at the steam machine and steam controller. I want a modern one now more than ever. If it weren't for parts getting shittier and pricier, I'd probably build one myself this spring/summer and figure out which distro would be best for it. My steam deck is great and I want basically the exact same thing but more powerful at the cost of not being a handheld. Bonus points if I can easily remote play that new steam machine through my steam deck, which I think is a reasonable expectation. And I'd love to run an HDMI out splitter to easily swap between using it as a PC at my desk or using it as a console from my couch.
If you buy parts that are a couple of generations older there is absolutely a middle ground between the ridiculous new GPUs and the steam deck on performance, that you could probably build for a similar price to the deck. I would aim for an AM4 build to take advantage of how cheap ddr4 RAM is, with a 3xxx or 5xxx Ryzen CPU. Something like the 3080 is a great card for a cheap price but I personally would go for an AMD card. A few hundred extra (again in AUD) gets you a good 7800XT which is a pretty damn beefy card, but might be better to drop down a couple of models to save on power consumption.
Going even further, you can take someone's ATX PC secondhand, swap out the motherboard for a smaller form factor and slap it in a little case.
As for OS, if you want it to be exactly like the deck you could run Bazzite, but SteamOS is either available, or about to be available.
I was actually targeting a 7800XT on an AM4 build already lol!
Yeah, it's just hard to justify the cost when I already have a PS5 and not a whole lot of free time. It makes more sense to wait until the next generation of consoles comes out and then get something that runs games at that time at 1440p, 60+fps. Right now I'd just be building a lateral system for no real reason, pretty late in the current gen lifecycle.
I'd argue you could sell the ps5 and the games and make enough money to mostly (possibly entirely) cover the cost of building a more versatile device, but it's also a bit of effort when you already have a setup that works for you
Edit: also, the system we're talking about should comfortably run 1440p60 for the foreseeable future. Newer flagship hardware is targeting higher resolution and much higher frame rates.
I have exactly this (AM4, 7800XT, 3440x1440 monitor) running bazzite. Almost every game I have maxes 165Hz, works great for LLM inference too, really the nutso expensive stuff is only necessary for 4K+, which I find diminishing returns at present, LLM training (rent a GPU instead), and probably modern VR. Just to let you know you're barking up the right tree. :)
Oh, and the 7800XT idles / youtubes ~ 14-20W, 7 with the monitor off. I'm actually using it as a backup NAS / home server in down time, system pulls ~40-45W at the wall and I haven't even gone deep into power saving as it's a placeholder for a new homelab build that's underway.
I thoroughly enjoy the Steam controller and would've loved to try out one of the less conventional prototypes. I hope Valve can justify making another controller.
and figure out which distro would be best for it. My steam deck is great and I want basically the exact same thing but more powerful at the cost of not being a handheld.
Bazzite might be your jam. They're a sort-of competitor (?) to SteamOS, as in they have distros for handhelds in the same way Valve has with SteamOS (which they are now leasing out to manufacturers like lenovo). But they also have versions for laptops and desktop PCs.
I've been using their PC (nvidia) version for a week now, and it's been wonderful. Of course I probably wouldn't have made the switch if Valve hadn't helped pave the way and made proton so powerful. Also I probably wouldn't have switched if I hadn't given up on LoL and Battlefield (kernel-level anticheat).
I don't think I've even heard of that, so I'll look into it a bit more. I was leaning more toward an AMD build since that tends to play nicely with Linux compared to Intel/Nvidia. And there were a couple of distros I was interested in trying on my old laptop to compare before committing.
You are right, but let me add that Gabe knows that being tied to Windows is not a good idea, as he worked there and understood that they would block Steam if they could.
Valve supporting 'their' alternative OS, away from Microsoft (and Apple) or any other direct competitor in gaming is the only way to survive.
It's not like they pour all that money into Linux from the goodness of their heart. They need their own OS just as much as the Linux desktop community needs some stable funding.
Given how Valve lets children gamble with skins, I'm not sure how moral that company really is.
Linux was also the only way to make sure Valve was viable long term. Eventually Windows was going to have an Xbox store built in and would've basically been a monopoly on PC gaming, cutting out steam altogether. I think windows now sort of does have that, but it can't compete with Steam quite yet.
The steam controller didn't really fail, but the patent fight was a mess that took way too long (much too late disqualified patent over paddle buttons). That sucked a lot of energy out of the project. Don't forget the steam deck kept those touch pads (although with a different design)!
Steam Link IMHO also wasn't bad, but there didn't seem to be much interest in it then. (interestingly enough I think it could be recreated today in a Chromecast-like form factor)
Stream machines was definitely a big mess however, there just wasn't enough interest, too limited compatibility, the machines just wasn't versatile enough for average Joe to pay for one.
The problem with the Link is its wireless performance. It works perfectly with an Ethernet connection, but not many people have one of those by their TV, even today.
And also not be backed by venture capital firms expecting to make infinite profits. Private or Public, if the company shareholder's only goal is to continue to receive 10% gains on their investment after already making back 20x their principal, they'll squeeze the company for all it's worth.
Publicly traded companies mean that the people who invested get a say in how the business is run. Those same people are typically riding the success of other people's decisions and have no idea how to not fuck up. So they demand the company make stupid fucking choices or the CEO will be replaced by someone who will listen.
The trick is to remove the power of the board to remove the CEO and keep them as advisors instead of drivers. The CEO should cook and if they drive the business into the ground, that's what happens. Businesses need to fail because otherwise the wrong people end up leading.
Businesses need to fail because otherwise the wrong people end up leading.
When businesses fail, their competitors buy their assets, employees, customer bases, and get bigger. Keep playing that a few more rounds and you get a monopoly that can and will prevent or buy new entrants. Then anyone including the wrong people in the industry enter this one company because that's the only company in this industry.
This isn't an argument against letting businesses fail. It's an argument to show that the game of competition doesn't produce stable competitive environment in the long run. Instead it's a temporary stage that some markets exist in on the way to consolidation. You can find countless examples for this around us. And therefore letting businesses fail through competition isn't a long term solution to these problems.
I'm not familiar with the corporate landscape in Germany, but the US and Canada also have anti-trust law and competition agencies whose purpose is to prevent consolidation. Why hasn't that prevented it?
How does an oligarchy come into existence in a capitalist democracy that didn't start with a monarchy? Can you see a relationship between the process of consolidation and the creation of this oligarchy, where the oligarchs are the people who accumulated wealth through this process, gradually using this wealth to capture the regulators, leading to more consolidation, more wealth and greater capture, and repeat? We didn't wake up one day with an oligarchy that wasn't there yesterday. It's not like all of the current oligarchs can be traced back to an oligarchic family from the past.
I wouldn't call whatever the US has or had real Democracy to begin with. You only have two viable parties and it's so easy to abuse. Just look at the mess your electoral college ans gerrymandering is.
I'm not fully happy with the German system because we for example can't directly elect our chancellor and president but there at least five parties who jump the 5% hurdle to enter the Bundestag and ten or so others you can directly vote for.
Honestly, the secret is not being a publicly traded company.
Valve fortune doesn't come from not being traded publicly. They built a nearly monopoly on pc videogames with their walled garden proprietary third party launcher.
Does nothing? DOES NOTHING?! He spent the last few years ripping Microsoft a new a@@hole, rendering their operating system meaningless for gamers!
..but nice meme
Fun fact many don't know, Gabe helped create the first versions of Windows and claims he learned more at Microsoft than he ever did elsewhere (at the time). So in a way, he's transcended Windows, vs ripping it apart.
Just my two cents but as others have said, not being publically traded helps a lot. The focus on short term benefits that come with shareholders stops "master plans" when they come with mistakes. Learning from relative failures, like the steam controller and the like, ultimately contributes to major successes like the steam deck. Being able to stay committed to improving the software experience over time, instead of killing the product when it didn't immediately succeed, is fairly rare in the tech industry. And in all honesty, it would be better if they released a polished profuct, but being committed to it made it a success.
I feel like the pressure to have a majorly successful product day one means that smaller companies can't innovate the way they want to, so they have to find other ways to produce revenue. Huge companies, like Apple can afford to do both but still stumble, like with the vision pro. Maybe it'll be a success, but for now its not great and iteration makes it more difficult to maintain the original vision.
You can either be publicly traded and let greedy shareholders sell things for parts or you can have private ownership and pray to God that they're benevolent. There has to be another option, surely. Maybe one where Valve becomes employee-owned with a trust/foundation backing it once Gabe dies?
I’m not quite sure they have “done nothing”. They have made a digital storefront that other storefronts strive for, they have help with Linux compatibility with windows only games, have released a few bits of awesome hardware every now and then. I think this is what happens when you are not beholden to shareholders and the mantra “make line go up at all costs”
That's the primary reason I abhor the stock market. It no longer works for the creator/owner or the customers at all. It simply feeds the greed of the wealthy (special call-out to private equity here).
Yeah, the flaw there is that money can flow into and out of the stock market basically instantly, so you always have to manage their expectations to make sure your price doesn't crash.
I think the key was that Steam wasn't created to make money, but to solve problems they themselves had, like "How do we get new versions of Counter Strike out to all these players?"
Then as Valve wasn't the only company having these problems, the solution could easily be sold to others.
If the other companies really wanted to crack Steam's near-monopoly, the solution would be to tackle the problems associated with not having all your games on Steam. Work together on a open-source launcher supporting all stores, similar to GOG Galaxy. First make something useful that tackles an unsolved problem, then you can make money off it when it becomes successful.
Instead they go in just trying to make a buck, and end up just being worse versions of Steam.
That ended up being a bit of a rant, but I'm frustrated at their shortsighted market strategies :p
Oh indeed! And that's why I love GOG! I actually try to check GOG first just in case I can buy a game I want there before I go through with buying it on steam. I would actually gladly pay MORE for the GOG version because it removes bullshit like DRM!
I used to do the same, but I lost a lot of confidence in GOG after they retroactively restricted their cloud saves to 200 MB.
My hundred-hour Witcher 3 save is exactly the kind of thing I want backed up, but that's no longer possible. And the very low limit they set, and the urgency with which they started deleting the very data they were expected to keep safe, reeks of a desperation to save money that makes me hesitant to invest more in their ecosystem.
I really want them to succeed though, and I think they have the right idea with Galaxy. Even Epic giving me games for free doesn't make me actually use their client or store.
But somehow the obvious idea of forming a consortium to develop open standards and implementations for game clients, doesn't seem like something that will ever happen.
It seems nearly impossible for a person to be billionaire loaded and not make some irresponsible purchases. Is there anyone with that kind of money we should be highlighting as a role model instead?
the idea of earning billions of dollars is a fallacy, it requires an amount exploitation plain and simple. Steam has a great product that works really well. But they also are basically the seed crystal for a whole ecosystem of gambling with the CS loot boxes that preys on addicts and children.
There are some very rare exceptions where someone just happened to make the best thing out there at the time. Minecraft is a good example. Those people move on and live their lives rather than exploit.
Minecraft is yet another example of no expections. Minecraft is proprietary and they never lowered the price even after making millions, they actually increased it. It was sold to one of the worst company in the world for even more money.
After making millions a normal person would have make the game publicly available or at last free and they wouldhave never sell it to microsoft.
Steve Jobs also famously only made one dollar a year. Because normal income is taxed much more than giving yourself stock and calling it unrealized gains. You cannot be a billionaire without being a parasite.
Wu wei is a polymorphic, ancient Chinese concept expressing an ideal practice of "inaction", "inexertion" or "effortless action",[a][1][2] as a state of personal harmony and free-flowing, spontaneous creative manifestation.
Gabe Newell has a net worth of $9.5 billion and there is no such thing as an ethical billionaire. Steam is great and as long as the company behaves well there's no reason not to use it, but billionaires are not your friends.
Sort of agree but look how much he’s done for Linux gaming.
Let's not forget that Steam is a proprietary third party launcher that doesn't share any values with linux. Valve built the apple store of videogames, while they are now moving in a better direction keep in mind that they are part of the problem.
Sort of agree still. Steam deck is a great example. They built it to be user serviceable, and you can literally switch to the Linux desktop and use root, and reinstall your OS if you want. It's not locked down crazy like other systems. Remember the PS3 other os? Didn't even get graphics drivers, then they ultimately removed it when it was used to jailbreak it.
"yes"? He's definitely not building any significant fraction himself, but if he didn't care for these things he wouldn't let the company put so much resources into them.
Credit for the things built goes to the people building them. Credit for it being possible to build goes to the people who founded and funded the teams
A very typical arc for innovation is that the first organizational goal is getting people to buy it, then the next goal is getting them to keep buying it again and again. The original visionaries who were trying to solve a problem tend to lose interest by then and drop out, and the money weasels completely take over. New versions are released on a marketing schedule regardless of whether they're necessary, and the thing begins to suck progressively more and more until some new player shows up to solve that problem.
doesnt gabe already do basically nothing though? afaik there are other people managing valve and he only acts as valve's face
also theyd have to be extremely stupid to start enshittification when they already have the best ways to monetize games (skins in cs2, hats in tf2, etc)
im not saying its not possible, im just a very optimistic person
also theyd have to be extremely stupid to start enshittification when they already have the best ways to monetize games (skins in cs2, hats in tf2, etc)
Micro$oft also has the most dominant operating system in the market. Yet, with every update, I find an increase in "switched to GNU/Linux" and "Debloat Windows" stuff
Google once had the best search engine in the world, delivering the most relevant search results. Now it delivers the most relevant ads.
Mozilla was initially the innovator of the internet, seemingly destined to dominate the market. Then, it abandoned^(†) its main product, the browser, to pursue other endeavors that ultimately failed. The only reason that Firefox is relevant is due to the fact that even when stale, Firefox is much less enshittified than its competitors (and not dependent on Chromium).
^(†) Mozilla basically stopped innovating with Firefox until recently. On desktop Firefox, vertical tabs are absent; only recently, in nightly versions, have they been implemented. On Android, Firefox still lacks cross-site isolation, which has been in Chromium for basically forever now.
and steam is the largest game store, but that's not what i was talking about.
microsoft's money doesn't come just from windows, and from seeing how shitty it has (and will) become, they want to get more money from it than they already have. that could be because windows doesnt produce enough money for microsoft or for other reasons.
google's money comes from advertisements. as google grew to be used everywhere, there needed to be a better way to get money from it, so they started doing more advertising.
just like google's search engine, firefox doesn't produce money by itself. but mozilla didn't have any other means of producing money, so they had to do something else for that, even if it didn't work.
valve's money comes from the games and items sold in steam. people aren't going to stop producing or buying games and in-game items any time soon.
all of the other companies had to change their main way to produce money, because that wasn't producing enough money. but if valve changes anything they'll just be shooting themselves in the foot, because steam already produces an almost ulimited amount of money for valve.
I'm not going to use something that's shitty now in hopes it will be better later in order to avoid using something that's better now out of fear it might become shitty later.
If Steam becomes shitty I have no issue dropping it and pirating my already paid for collection.
A massive, massive astroturfing campaign Epic Games paid for in hopes of tarnishing Valve and Gabe Newell's reputation to try and bolster their failure of a shop ecosystem.
Unfortunately, it worked, because there are people on the net who don't remember the and days before steam, or even the initial versions of steam that people had Actual problems with, and not just made up ones.
While I am insanely grateful for proton (even if it was strategically important for them, they didn't do it out of kindness of heart), some other stuff disturb me:
Valve being so lenient on CS2 skin gambling, hurting the young people
A steam account being un-inheritable, making you defacto a tenant of your games
The 30% percent cut, stealing money from devs
Gabe spending his money on multiple mega yachts, like every asshole billionaire, instead of making the world a better place
Gabe claiming to be a libertarian, like Elon and other pieces of shit
Sigh. Here we go again. I'll just copy one of my older comments about that attitude.
Steam is not a parasitic middle man, it is a collection of services that would have to be provisioned and operated by the developer otherwise. The 30% cut pays for:
A massive infrastructure to store and deliver the game and its updates, worldwide, and at an acceptable bandwidth that Valve operates
A storefront that enables monetizing the game
The audience and discoverability that would not exist otherwise
The Steam API, achievements, cloud saves
The client itself, content management, validation, and Linux compatibility tools
Network and operational security
Also keep in mind that Steam and its services are operated by experts. A game developer would have to hire the experts or get training.
If the revenue from the cut exceeds the operational costs: it's called profitability, not theft. The world doesn't run on good vibes.
Yeah you're of course right, they are not a charity and shouldn't have to provide their service for free.
I expressed myself too quickly (the rage!).
What I meant is the this cut of 30% is fucking predatory, mafia or middle-age money lender style.
You get one third of the rewards of my efforts just for delivering my product? And don't talk about promotion because this store is now stuffed with too many games for visibility.
You can argue "but this is it the standard rate of the industry". Well it is predatory everywhere else and I hate Google and Apple as much for it.
A cut of 10% would be more humane. Or whatever to reach a "normal" profitability. But now the discussion becomes complex because we don't have the concrete numbers.
What is sure, is that it is possible without pain to take way less than 30%. This is something EGS got right, even if I dislike them for many other things (Epic and Tim Sweeney).
predatory, mafia or middle-age money lender style.
Your words have lots of sentiments, but present no facts. I know that Wolfire and Sweeney are independently throwing a tantrum, and we all hate taxes, but I don't see public exposés showing game developers who went hungry because they couldn't afford the 70-30 split.
I have read your link but they didn't say the EGS is at loss specifically because of the 12% cut nor that the Fortnite money is subsidizing the lower cut.
It could be that the EGS is at loss because creating a new store and client from scratch costs money ?
To be honest here, we don't have the numbers to say exactly how much margin Valve is making.
But my guess is the following: if EGS estimated that with a 12% cut they could be profitable if they had enough customers, it makes me think that the cut of valve is way overinflated in regards to their costs.
And yes Fortnite is awfully predatory. But the topic is Valve and Steam there 🙂
and forgot or ignored that it often is not the dev who gets most of the money at all but publishers like ea and ubisoft. why should customers act in defense of those companies who actively try and make gaming worse for everyone?
an indie dev paying 30% is expensive but steam is really a premium platform for distributing games. it would be nice if it were cheaper but I don‘t really understand the outrage here
This is a pretty spicy take. Let's consider two possibilities:
Game devs choose to distribute independently, and sell their game for $20. They sell 100,000 copies and make $2 million in revenue, and keep the entire $2 million.
Game devs choose to distribute via Steam, promote it with a 50% off sale, it goes to the Steam front page, sells 500,000 copies at only $10 each, for a total $5 million in revenue. Steam takes $1.5 million and the devs take $3.5 million.
In scenario 2 the devs make 75% more than in scenario 1. Did Valve steal from the game devs?
Yes you can workaround it. But this is still a society right they forbid you.
And who can say that in 2100 they won't implement a cleanup job that lock all accounts that are over 100 years old ? 🤪
I'm not sure about that either - unless you really want your real name on a Steam account, you just change the password and the payment method and you should be fine, right?
You can't change the login username. That's about it. You can change the profile link, profile name, avatar and other cosmetics, and edit payment methods.
Here's the thing - Theoretically we shouldn't give a shit about his political leanings and we don't have to, because he and his company deliver a good service. I can privately think he's another asshole libertarian tech bro whose only guiding principle is "everyone should be able to do what I want, but only some people should have the money to do those things", but it doesn't change anything about Steam or Half-Life 3.
Because the libertarian view of the world DOES have an impact on Steam: they have so much inertia to fight against hate speech and extreme right, they do nothing against gambling, and so on. All under the pretense "free speech" which is so convenient.
IMO this is the view of the modern libertarian: all the money, none of the accountability.
It is a problem, you're right. We shouldn't have to rely on people with the motivation to do good. Capitalism is failing because without regulation, it motivates people to fuck each other over for an extra dime.
I love Valve for a lot of things but I'll never forget that they spearheaded some of the most predatory microtransactions in the industry (loot boxes and battle passes) and were happy to help Bethesda try to sell mods until players raised a huge stink.
Frankly I don't even know if this clause can be enforced in Europa. I wanted to point out that we shouldn't rely on the customer protection laws of each country to address that: this clause shouldn't exist in the first place.
But to be frank, it most likely doesn't come from Valve and rather from the games company themselves.
Not to mention his insane Porsche collection, yeah he's just another billionaire
Valve ruined my favourite game (dota) by flooding the game with ridiculous cosmetics that even change particle effects with no way to disable any of this
I mean it's true for TF2 also, overwatch killed itself lol
They did the bare minimum of banning bots so TF2 has been going pretty great recently. I think I've encountered 1 or 2 bots in the last 2 weeks and I'm pretty sure those were just blatant cheaters and not actually bots
They were not liked at first, but they've spent enough time making money while not pissing people off that they are doing far better than every public company who must find a reason to piss people off to be more profitable.
They've been able to use that time to "cook". Valve time has been known to be within its own dimension, but from that we got Linux to be just click start and play for 90% of games like Windows, and with the Steamdeck a powerful, comfortable, DIY-able handheld PC gaming device.
You'd think it wouldn't be that hard for publishers with billions of dollars to hire enough competent devs for enough time to make a halfway decent storefront, especially when they don't even have to reinvent the wheel on a lot of UX and marketing research that's already been done for them by Steam existing as long as it's had.
That none of them have even come close to that is a monument to their incompetence.
Large companies do not generally innovate. Their internal inertia prevents them from successfully creating new things. Also the larger a company gets, the more layers of brainless MBA parasites latch on to suck them dry.
Large companies rely on purchasing innovation by buying up a never ending stream of smaller companies. They then take the ideas/products and launch them to a wider market.
Steam has remained small by rejecting massive buyout offers. This has allowed them to remain innovative.
Ultimately it's a slow and steady strategy. There goal is long term profitability, not short term gains. In the long term, the best strategy is not to piss off your customers.
The advantage of this is that it can snowball to impressive levels. At least until a exec with more education than brains does a pump and run on it. A mistake steam seems to know to avoid.
He was the first to make something and its extremely hard to compete vs the entrenched giant. Also he was the only one fighting for PC gamers so we had to accept the abuse or get no games.
And it's especially difficult to compete with the entrenched giant when that giant actually doesn't suck while some of the storefronts going up against it absolutely do, both in features and as toxic companies.
Oh no, a sales platform that takes a cut of revenue.
Valve isn’t a charity, and they provide very good services for what developers pay.
Devs don’t need to host download servers, they don’t need to staff customer service reps, they don’t have to set up banking infrastructure or worry at all about handling payments from hundreds of different banks across hundreds of countries.
It’s not like valve takes 30% and sits on it. They put that money to use.
"Valve used to be a company that made games, now it just makes money" is a joke so old I can't find the source, but I know it goes back at least 15 years.
It was the first centralised gaming platform/hub/whatever on PC.
I remember having to search for matches on the All-Seeing Eye.
I lost my first Steam account. It would've been from September 2003, the same month Steam released. So apparently it would have had some real life value.
Tried restoring it once, but the email I had had on it was a service that no longer even existed so...
Anyways practical monopolies make money. Microsoft, Amazon, Google etc.
Steam isn't really in any way anti-competitive unlike the other examples, though.
Dang! You got me beat. The account I still use is from 2004, when Half-Life 2 came out.
I remember thinking it was bullshit that I had to sign up for something, and connect to the internet to install a physical game I bought.
Then about five years later, I stayed at my mom's house for a couple nights, found myself bored, remembered I had my PC in her basement, and set it up. When I discovered that Steam remembered the three games I had, and let me download them (despite losing my HL2 disc years before), my head exploded. It's wild what it is now and how normalized that is.
He hasn't enshittified anything yet, and it's looking like he might not ever, which is why people respect him.
There's valid criticisms, yes, but that meme is dead accurate. I don't want to imagine what gaming would look like today if someone like EA the same vast influence over the industry instead of Valve.
That's what I was going to say. Sure, Gabe might not be that bad, but what happens to Valve and Steam when he's gone? Are we just hoping the next guy also isn't evil?
I was pretty pro-Gabe until I saw some video detailing loot crates and how they targeted kids. There really is no such as thing an ethical billionaire.
Ok, but if people like him didn't exist would we even have enshittification? In my view things get enshittified so someone who's probably already well off can "earn" them and other rich people more money. I thought we were mostly all in agreement here that there are no good billionaires.
As far as billionaires go, he's the least shit of the bunch. No idea what his personal life is like, and I don't want to know. Every billionaire that makes their personal life public so far has turned out to be a giant cunt.
Every one of them whose personal life goes public is a giant cunt because you have to be a giant cunt to hold on to billions of dollars. I'd say the waste Gabe produces with his fleet of aquatic toys means he's a piece of shit billionaire. I love games and Steam but I'm not giving him a pass. And I don't care if some of his shit is used for research purposes
Same, I know installing from other launchers on linux is possible using lutris, but since the steam experience is so smooth, I've never bothered to figure out how.
If a game isn't sold on Steam, It isn't going to sell well.
Because of the huge amount of Valve fanboys who only buy games if they are on Steam.
Games on other stores might as well not exist.
And more, if a game even dares to launch on a different store, it would garner unfavour of all those Valve fanboys and hurt their sales even if afterwards it does launch on Steam.
Honestly, the secret is not being a publicly traded company. All the others have to make the shareholders happy while steam just does steam. If the line doesn't have to constantly go up you can pretty much do whatever you want as long as you're still making profit. And if what you're doing is already working you don't need to add gimmicks or advertisements to milk it as much as you can just to appease the shareholders.
Being a private company has allowed Valve to take some really big swings. Steam Deck is paying off handsomely, but it came after the relative failure of the Steam Controller, Steam Link and Steam Machines. With their software business stable, they can allow themselves to take big risks on the hardware side, learn what does and doesn't work, then try again. At a publically traded company, CEO Gabe Newell probably gets forced out long before they get to the Steam Deck.
Man Intel are so dumb for firing Pat. And they did it while seeing positive reviews for their second gen GPUs!
That's just what happens to CEOs of publicly traded companies when they have a bad year. And Intel had a really bad year in 2024. I'm certainly hoping that their GPUs become serious competition for AMD and Nvidia, because consumers win when there's robust competition. I don't think Pat's ousting had anything to do with GPUs though. The vast majority of Intel's revenue comes from CPU sales and the news there was mostly bad in 2024. The Arrow Lake launch was mostly a flop, there were all sorts of revelations about overvolting and corrosion issues in Raptor Lake (13th and 14th gen Intel Core) CPUs, broadly speaking Intel is getting spanked by AMD in the enthusiast market and AMD has also just recently taken the lead in datacenter CPU sales. Intel maintains a strong lead in corporate desktop and laptop sales, but the overall trend for their CPU business is quite negative.
One of Intel's historical strength was their vertical integration, they designed and manufactured the CPUs. However Intel lost the tech lead to TSMC quite a while ago. One of Pat's big early announcements was "IDM 2.0" ("Integrated Device Manufacturing 2.0"), which was supposed to address those problems and beef up Intel's ability to keep pace with TSMC. It suffered a lot of delays, and Intel had to outsource all Arrow Lake manufacturing to TSMC in an effort to keep pace with AMD. I'd argue that's the main reason Pat got turfed. He took a big swing to get Intel's integrated design and manufacturing strategy back on track, and for the most part did not succeed.
k
The GPUs aren't even a drop in the bucket for Intel. While Gelsinger had the right ideas, he wanted everything all at once which just wasn't doable.
When “everything is AI now” and your motion board/investors are watching nvidia nearing 1T, then they want you in the GPU business.
And now we’re back to the public companies are terrible at innovation argument. If the line can only go up, you can’t take risks and you have to hurt people to continue at some point.
Agreed, but if I'd had the money at the time, I absolutely would've jumped at the steam machine and steam controller. I want a modern one now more than ever. If it weren't for parts getting shittier and pricier, I'd probably build one myself this spring/summer and figure out which distro would be best for it. My steam deck is great and I want basically the exact same thing but more powerful at the cost of not being a handheld. Bonus points if I can easily remote play that new steam machine through my steam deck, which I think is a reasonable expectation. And I'd love to run an HDMI out splitter to easily swap between using it as a PC at my desk or using it as a console from my couch.
If you buy parts that are a couple of generations older there is absolutely a middle ground between the ridiculous new GPUs and the steam deck on performance, that you could probably build for a similar price to the deck. I would aim for an AM4 build to take advantage of how cheap ddr4 RAM is, with a 3xxx or 5xxx Ryzen CPU. Something like the 3080 is a great card for a cheap price but I personally would go for an AMD card. A few hundred extra (again in AUD) gets you a good 7800XT which is a pretty damn beefy card, but might be better to drop down a couple of models to save on power consumption.
Going even further, you can take someone's ATX PC secondhand, swap out the motherboard for a smaller form factor and slap it in a little case.
As for OS, if you want it to be exactly like the deck you could run Bazzite, but SteamOS is either available, or about to be available.
I was actually targeting a 7800XT on an AM4 build already lol!
Yeah, it's just hard to justify the cost when I already have a PS5 and not a whole lot of free time. It makes more sense to wait until the next generation of consoles comes out and then get something that runs games at that time at 1440p, 60+fps. Right now I'd just be building a lateral system for no real reason, pretty late in the current gen lifecycle.
I'd argue you could sell the ps5 and the games and make enough money to mostly (possibly entirely) cover the cost of building a more versatile device, but it's also a bit of effort when you already have a setup that works for you
Edit: also, the system we're talking about should comfortably run 1440p60 for the foreseeable future. Newer flagship hardware is targeting higher resolution and much higher frame rates.
Give up haptics??
I have exactly this (AM4, 7800XT, 3440x1440 monitor) running bazzite. Almost every game I have maxes 165Hz, works great for LLM inference too, really the nutso expensive stuff is only necessary for 4K+, which I find diminishing returns at present, LLM training (rent a GPU instead), and probably modern VR. Just to let you know you're barking up the right tree. :)
Oh, and the 7800XT idles / youtubes ~ 14-20W, 7 with the monitor off. I'm actually using it as a backup NAS / home server in down time, system pulls ~40-45W at the wall and I haven't even gone deep into power saving as it's a placeholder for a new homelab build that's underway.
I thoroughly enjoy the Steam controller and would've loved to try out one of the less conventional prototypes. I hope Valve can justify making another controller.
Bazzite might be your jam. They're a sort-of competitor (?) to SteamOS, as in they have distros for handhelds in the same way Valve has with SteamOS (which they are now leasing out to manufacturers like lenovo). But they also have versions for laptops and desktop PCs.
I've been using their PC (nvidia) version for a week now, and it's been wonderful. Of course I probably wouldn't have made the switch if Valve hadn't helped pave the way and made proton so powerful. Also I probably wouldn't have switched if I hadn't given up on LoL and Battlefield (kernel-level anticheat).
I don't think I've even heard of that, so I'll look into it a bit more. I was leaning more toward an AMD build since that tends to play nicely with Linux compared to Intel/Nvidia. And there were a couple of distros I was interested in trying on my old laptop to compare before committing.
You are right, but let me add that Gabe knows that being tied to Windows is not a good idea, as he worked there and understood that they would block Steam if they could.
Valve supporting 'their' alternative OS, away from Microsoft (and Apple) or any other direct competitor in gaming is the only way to survive.
It's not like they pour all that money into Linux from the goodness of their heart. They need their own OS just as much as the Linux desktop community needs some stable funding.
Given how Valve lets children gamble with skins, I'm not sure how moral that company really is.
Linux was also the only way to make sure Valve was viable long term. Eventually Windows was going to have an Xbox store built in and would've basically been a monopoly on PC gaming, cutting out steam altogether. I think windows now sort of does have that, but it can't compete with Steam quite yet.
The steam controller didn't really fail, but the patent fight was a mess that took way too long (much too late disqualified patent over paddle buttons). That sucked a lot of energy out of the project. Don't forget the steam deck kept those touch pads (although with a different design)!
Steam Link IMHO also wasn't bad, but there didn't seem to be much interest in it then. (interestingly enough I think it could be recreated today in a Chromecast-like form factor)
Stream machines was definitely a big mess however, there just wasn't enough interest, too limited compatibility, the machines just wasn't versatile enough for average Joe to pay for one.
The problem with the Link is its wireless performance. It works perfectly with an Ethernet connection, but not many people have one of those by their TV, even today.
Unlike companies like Google or Microsoft, whose products are never disappointing!
And also not be backed by venture capital firms expecting to make infinite profits. Private or Public, if the company shareholder's only goal is to continue to receive 10% gains on their investment after already making back 20x their principal, they'll squeeze the company for all it's worth.
Publicly traded companies mean that the people who invested get a say in how the business is run. Those same people are typically riding the success of other people's decisions and have no idea how to not fuck up. So they demand the company make stupid fucking choices or the CEO will be replaced by someone who will listen.
The trick is to remove the power of the board to remove the CEO and keep them as advisors instead of drivers. The CEO should cook and if they drive the business into the ground, that's what happens. Businesses need to fail because otherwise the wrong people end up leading.
When businesses fail, their competitors buy their assets, employees, customer bases, and get bigger. Keep playing that a few more rounds and you get a monopoly that can and will prevent or buy new entrants. Then anyone including the wrong people in the industry enter this one company because that's the only company in this industry.
This isn't an argument against letting businesses fail. It's an argument to show that the game of competition doesn't produce stable competitive environment in the long run. Instead it's a temporary stage that some markets exist in on the way to consolidation. You can find countless examples for this around us. And therefore letting businesses fail through competition isn't a long term solution to these problems.
And that's why you have laws and agencies to prevent that like the German Bundeskartellamt.
I'm not familiar with the corporate landscape in Germany, but the US and Canada also have anti-trust law and competition agencies whose purpose is to prevent consolidation. Why hasn't that prevented it?
Because you have an oligarchy
How does an oligarchy come into existence in a capitalist democracy that didn't start with a monarchy? Can you see a relationship between the process of consolidation and the creation of this oligarchy, where the oligarchs are the people who accumulated wealth through this process, gradually using this wealth to capture the regulators, leading to more consolidation, more wealth and greater capture, and repeat? We didn't wake up one day with an oligarchy that wasn't there yesterday. It's not like all of the current oligarchs can be traced back to an oligarchic family from the past.
I wouldn't call whatever the US has or had real Democracy to begin with. You only have two viable parties and it's so easy to abuse. Just look at the mess your electoral college ans gerrymandering is.
I'm not fully happy with the German system because we for example can't directly elect our chancellor and president but there at least five parties who jump the 5% hurdle to enter the Bundestag and ten or so others you can directly vote for.
Because nobody enforces the law. There are so many mega corpos that needs to be broken up, but it doesn't happen.
Valve fortune doesn't come from not being traded publicly. They built a nearly monopoly on pc videogames with their walled garden proprietary third party launcher.
Valve isn't a walled garden. They allow other apps to be launched through their app and devs can sell steams key on other platforms.
It is still a mega corp, but trying to attack it from the walled garden angle is pretty dumb.
Does nothing? DOES NOTHING?! He spent the last few years ripping Microsoft a new a@@hole, rendering their operating system meaningless for gamers! ..but nice meme
Gaben has done lots of awesome shit. I fear what valve will become when he's gone.
I'm not actually too worried. He surrounds himself with champions.
you know they developed the iPod touch in secrete because they feared that if Steve saw the ugly prototype, he'd shitcan the project?
And where's the iPod now, eh?
In the iPhone?
Same
Fun fact many don't know, Gabe helped create the first versions of Windows and claims he learned more at Microsoft than he ever did elsewhere (at the time). So in a way, he's transcended Windows, vs ripping it apart.
Just my two cents but as others have said, not being publically traded helps a lot. The focus on short term benefits that come with shareholders stops "master plans" when they come with mistakes. Learning from relative failures, like the steam controller and the like, ultimately contributes to major successes like the steam deck. Being able to stay committed to improving the software experience over time, instead of killing the product when it didn't immediately succeed, is fairly rare in the tech industry. And in all honesty, it would be better if they released a polished profuct, but being committed to it made it a success.
I feel like the pressure to have a majorly successful product day one means that smaller companies can't innovate the way they want to, so they have to find other ways to produce revenue. Huge companies, like Apple can afford to do both but still stumble, like with the vision pro. Maybe it'll be a success, but for now its not great and iteration makes it more difficult to maintain the original vision.
eh, kinda think strapping a monitor to your face just isn't the future movies seem to think it should be
Yeah, Apple was able to fall on their faces with the Lisa but still get to the Macintosh and greatness.
You can either be publicly traded and let greedy shareholders sell things for parts or you can have private ownership and pray to God that they're benevolent. There has to be another option, surely. Maybe one where Valve becomes employee-owned with a trust/foundation backing it once Gabe dies?
I’m not quite sure they have “done nothing”. They have made a digital storefront that other storefronts strive for, they have help with Linux compatibility with windows only games, have released a few bits of awesome hardware every now and then. I think this is what happens when you are not beholden to shareholders and the mantra “make line go up at all costs”
"Don't interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake."
Private company with long-term strategy VS public company chasing short-term profits to pump stock prices for shareholders.
That's the primary reason I abhor the stock market. It no longer works for the creator/owner or the customers at all. It simply feeds the greed of the wealthy (special call-out to private equity here).
Yeah, the flaw there is that money can flow into and out of the stock market basically instantly, so you always have to manage their expectations to make sure your price doesn't crash.
You know sometimes I actually straight up FORGET that Steam is run by the same company that created Half-Life?
They:
(Video games exist; I want them on my computer)
(Digital distribution that conveys the games I want to my computer)
When you do something well, people don't notice you've done anything at all.
They simply did what everyone else refused to do, get out of their own way.
I think the key was that Steam wasn't created to make money, but to solve problems they themselves had, like "How do we get new versions of Counter Strike out to all these players?"
Then as Valve wasn't the only company having these problems, the solution could easily be sold to others.
If the other companies really wanted to crack Steam's near-monopoly, the solution would be to tackle the problems associated with not having all your games on Steam. Work together on a open-source launcher supporting all stores, similar to GOG Galaxy. First make something useful that tackles an unsolved problem, then you can make money off it when it becomes successful.
Instead they go in just trying to make a buck, and end up just being worse versions of Steam.
That ended up being a bit of a rant, but I'm frustrated at their shortsighted market strategies :p
Oh indeed! And that's why I love GOG! I actually try to check GOG first just in case I can buy a game I want there before I go through with buying it on steam. I would actually gladly pay MORE for the GOG version because it removes bullshit like DRM!
I used to do the same, but I lost a lot of confidence in GOG after they retroactively restricted their cloud saves to 200 MB.
My hundred-hour Witcher 3 save is exactly the kind of thing I want backed up, but that's no longer possible. And the very low limit they set, and the urgency with which they started deleting the very data they were expected to keep safe, reeks of a desperation to save money that makes me hesitant to invest more in their ecosystem.
I really want them to succeed though, and I think they have the right idea with Galaxy. Even Epic giving me games for free doesn't make me actually use their client or store.
But somehow the obvious idea of forming a consortium to develop open standards and implementations for game clients, doesn't seem like something that will ever happen.
'Not sucking'
Guy owns how many yachts? I think Gabe sucks personally.
Eh. He's a human being. I hadn't heard about his fleet.
https://luxurylaunches.com/transport/gabe-newell-luxury-yachts.php
It seems nearly impossible for a person to be billionaire loaded and not make some irresponsible purchases. Is there anyone with that kind of money we should be highlighting as a role model instead?
I'm of the opinion that billionaire is a pathology personally.
the idea of earning billions of dollars is a fallacy, it requires an amount exploitation plain and simple. Steam has a great product that works really well. But they also are basically the seed crystal for a whole ecosystem of gambling with the CS loot boxes that preys on addicts and children.
There are some very rare exceptions where someone just happened to make the best thing out there at the time. Minecraft is a good example. Those people move on and live their lives rather than exploit.
Minecraft is yet another example of no expections. Minecraft is proprietary and they never lowered the price even after making millions, they actually increased it. It was sold to one of the worst company in the world for even more money.
After making millions a normal person would have make the game publicly available or at last free and they wouldhave never sell it to microsoft.
Steve Jobs also famously only made one dollar a year. Because normal income is taxed much more than giving yourself stock and calling it unrealized gains. You cannot be a billionaire without being a parasite.
Being a private company, it's what it is called
Wu wei is a polymorphic, ancient Chinese concept expressing an ideal practice of "inaction", "inexertion" or "effortless action",[a][1][2] as a state of personal harmony and free-flowing, spontaneous creative manifestation.
They had some thinkers back then for sure
I can't really get my head around why people dislike Gabe Newell. As best I can tell, he's been a fantastic steward for Steam.
Gabe Newell has a net worth of $9.5 billion and there is no such thing as an ethical billionaire. Steam is great and as long as the company behaves well there's no reason not to use it, but billionaires are not your friends.
They are some rare cases where someone becomes a billionaire because something suddenly took off.
She would arguably be better, because she doesn't provide gambling services to minors.
Even then, a person can survive just fine with $900 million dollars, and $100 million to the right charity can do a world changing amount of good.
There are no ethical billionaires.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
That statement is an absolute.
Steam is selling lootbox and profiting from cs skins gambling. Pretty fucking scummy.
Yes, their profits.
Eron Wolf might be one of these exceptions. FUTO is trying to support and make sustainable small software projects.
Sort of agree but look how much he's done for Linux gaming. Also the steam deck was well thought out and designed to be user serviceable.
Let's not forget that Steam is a proprietary third party launcher that doesn't share any values with linux. Valve built the apple store of videogames, while they are now moving in a better direction keep in mind that they are part of the problem.
Sort of agree still. Steam deck is a great example. They built it to be user serviceable, and you can literally switch to the Linux desktop and use root, and reinstall your OS if you want. It's not locked down crazy like other systems. Remember the PS3 other os? Didn't even get graphics drivers, then they ultimately removed it when it was used to jailbreak it.
Was that all Gabe? Or was that people at Valve who had the ideas and executed the ideas and Gabe is given credit for?
"yes"? He's definitely not building any significant fraction himself, but if he didn't care for these things he wouldn't let the company put so much resources into them.
Credit for the things built goes to the people building them. Credit for it being possible to build goes to the people who founded and funded the teams
A very typical arc for innovation is that the first organizational goal is getting people to buy it, then the next goal is getting them to keep buying it again and again. The original visionaries who were trying to solve a problem tend to lose interest by then and drop out, and the money weasels completely take over. New versions are released on a marketing schedule regardless of whether they're necessary, and the thing begins to suck progressively more and more until some new player shows up to solve that problem.
Rinse and repeat.
doesnt gabe already do basically nothing though? afaik there are other people managing valve and he only acts as valve's face
also theyd have to be extremely stupid to start enshittification when they already have the best ways to monetize games (skins in cs2, hats in tf2, etc)
im not saying its not possible, im just a very optimistic person
Micro$oft also has the most dominant operating system in the market. Yet, with every update, I find an increase in "switched to GNU/Linux" and "Debloat Windows" stuff
Google once had the best search engine in the world, delivering the most relevant search results. Now it delivers the most relevant ads.
Mozilla was initially the innovator of the internet, seemingly destined to dominate the market. Then, it abandoned^(†) its main product, the browser, to pursue other endeavors that ultimately failed. The only reason that Firefox is relevant is due to the fact that even when stale, Firefox is much less enshittified than its competitors (and not dependent on Chromium).
^(†) Mozilla basically stopped innovating with Firefox until recently. On desktop Firefox, vertical tabs are absent; only recently, in nightly versions, have they been implemented. On Android, Firefox still lacks cross-site isolation, which has been in Chromium for basically forever now.
and steam is the largest game store, but that's not what i was talking about.
microsoft's money doesn't come just from windows, and from seeing how shitty it has (and will) become, they want to get more money from it than they already have. that could be because windows doesnt produce enough money for microsoft or for other reasons.
google's money comes from advertisements. as google grew to be used everywhere, there needed to be a better way to get money from it, so they started doing more advertising.
just like google's search engine, firefox doesn't produce money by itself. but mozilla didn't have any other means of producing money, so they had to do something else for that, even if it didn't work.
valve's money comes from the games and items sold in steam. people aren't going to stop producing or buying games and in-game items any time soon.
all of the other companies had to change their main way to produce money, because that wasn't producing enough money. but if valve changes anything they'll just be shooting themselves in the foot, because steam already produces an almost ulimited amount of money for valve.
I'm not going to use something that's shitty now in hopes it will be better later in order to avoid using something that's better now out of fear it might become shitty later.
If Steam becomes shitty I have no issue dropping it and pirating my already paid for collection.
Ah, so that's who this guy is. Thanks! Tbh I had no clue and thought it might be George R. R. Martin.
A massive, massive astroturfing campaign Epic Games paid for in hopes of tarnishing Valve and Gabe Newell's reputation to try and bolster their failure of a shop ecosystem.
Unfortunately, it worked, because there are people on the net who don't remember the and days before steam, or even the initial versions of steam that people had Actual problems with, and not just made up ones.
We are on lemmy, a decentralized and open source platform. Steam is closed as much as reddit is.
Promoting gambling to kids and use the profits to buy multiple mega yachts is peak scum.
Some people hate all rich people regardless of what they have gotten due to their work.
You can't become a billionaire ethically. Steam has a pretty big market for lootboxes and cs skins gambling is pretty widespread.
I have a mixed feeling about Gabe and Valve.
While I am insanely grateful for proton (even if it was strategically important for them, they didn't do it out of kindness of heart), some other stuff disturb me:
Sigh. Here we go again. I'll just copy one of my older comments about that attitude.
Steam is not a parasitic middle man, it is a collection of services that would have to be provisioned and operated by the developer otherwise. The 30% cut pays for:
If the revenue from the cut exceeds the operational costs: it's called profitability, not theft. The world doesn't run on good vibes.
Yeah you're of course right, they are not a charity and shouldn't have to provide their service for free.
I expressed myself too quickly (the rage!). What I meant is the this cut of 30% is fucking predatory, mafia or middle-age money lender style. You get one third of the rewards of my efforts just for delivering my product? And don't talk about promotion because this store is now stuffed with too many games for visibility.
You can argue "but this is it the standard rate of the industry". Well it is predatory everywhere else and I hate Google and Apple as much for it.
A cut of 10% would be more humane. Or whatever to reach a "normal" profitability. But now the discussion becomes complex because we don't have the concrete numbers.
What is sure, is that it is possible without pain to take way less than 30%. This is something EGS got right, even if I dislike them for many other things (Epic and Tim Sweeney).
Your words have lots of sentiments, but present no facts. I know that Wolfire and Sweeney are independently throwing a tantrum, and we all hate taxes, but I don't see public exposés showing game developers who went hungry because they couldn't afford the 70-30 split.
I'll also remind you that the EGS (12%) is barely profitable, and operated for years at a loss, only sustained by Fortnite (which used dark patterns to extract money from kids, in case you want to see something actually predatory).
I have read your link but they didn't say the EGS is at loss specifically because of the 12% cut nor that the Fortnite money is subsidizing the lower cut.
It could be that the EGS is at loss because creating a new store and client from scratch costs money ?
To be honest here, we don't have the numbers to say exactly how much margin Valve is making. But my guess is the following: if EGS estimated that with a 12% cut they could be profitable if they had enough customers, it makes me think that the cut of valve is way overinflated in regards to their costs.
And yes Fortnite is awfully predatory. But the topic is Valve and Steam there 🙂
you have not read the comment you responded to.
and forgot or ignored that it often is not the dev who gets most of the money at all but publishers like ea and ubisoft. why should customers act in defense of those companies who actively try and make gaming worse for everyone?
an indie dev paying 30% is expensive but steam is really a premium platform for distributing games. it would be nice if it were cheaper but I don‘t really understand the outrage here
This is a pretty spicy take. Let's consider two possibilities:
Game devs choose to distribute independently, and sell their game for $20. They sell 100,000 copies and make $2 million in revenue, and keep the entire $2 million.
Game devs choose to distribute via Steam, promote it with a 50% off sale, it goes to the Steam front page, sells 500,000 copies at only $10 each, for a total $5 million in revenue. Steam takes $1.5 million and the devs take $3.5 million.
In scenario 2 the devs make 75% more than in scenario 1. Did Valve steal from the game devs?
Obviously Valve and the developer collaborated to steal money from the consumers who wouldn't have bought the game without the promotion.
to make sure: /s
Can’t you just give your kids your steam password ? How would they notice ?
Yes you can workaround it. But this is still a society right they forbid you. And who can say that in 2100 they won't implement a cleanup job that lock all accounts that are over 100 years old ? 🤪
I'm not sure about that either - unless you really want your real name on a Steam account, you just change the password and the payment method and you should be fine, right?
You can't change the login username. That's about it. You can change the profile link, profile name, avatar and other cosmetics, and edit payment methods.
I didn’t knew about he claiming to be a libertarian. Rothbard must be turning over in his grave.
Here's the thing - Theoretically we shouldn't give a shit about his political leanings and we don't have to, because he and his company deliver a good service. I can privately think he's another asshole libertarian tech bro whose only guiding principle is "everyone should be able to do what I want, but only some people should have the money to do those things", but it doesn't change anything about Steam or Half-Life 3.
But this is a problem right ?
Because the libertarian view of the world DOES have an impact on Steam: they have so much inertia to fight against hate speech and extreme right, they do nothing against gambling, and so on. All under the pretense "free speech" which is so convenient.
IMO this is the view of the modern libertarian: all the money, none of the accountability.
It is a problem, you're right. We shouldn't have to rely on people with the motivation to do good. Capitalism is failing because without regulation, it motivates people to fuck each other over for an extra dime.
I love Valve for a lot of things but I'll never forget that they spearheaded some of the most predatory microtransactions in the industry (loot boxes and battle passes) and were happy to help Bethesda try to sell mods until players raised a huge stink.
This is unenforceable under US Law
Well I am European 😂
don't you guys have better consumer protections?
Maybe, maybe not.
Frankly I don't even know if this clause can be enforced in Europa. I wanted to point out that we shouldn't rely on the customer protection laws of each country to address that: this clause shouldn't exist in the first place.
But to be frank, it most likely doesn't come from Valve and rather from the games company themselves.
Not to mention his insane Porsche collection, yeah he's just another billionaire
Valve ruined my favourite game (dota) by flooding the game with ridiculous cosmetics that even change particle effects with no way to disable any of this
There's nothing wrong with having money or expensive hobbies. It's not like he's collecting Senators or buying himself a seat in the Oval Office
Don't ask TF2 player how they feel about this meme
TF2 released in 2007
I mean it's true for TF2 also, overwatch killed itself lol
They did the bare minimum of banning bots so TF2 has been going pretty great recently. I think I've encountered 1 or 2 bots in the last 2 weeks and I'm pretty sure those were just blatant cheaters and not actually bots
They were not liked at first, but they've spent enough time making money while not pissing people off that they are doing far better than every public company who must find a reason to piss people off to be more profitable.
They've been able to use that time to "cook". Valve time has been known to be within its own dimension, but from that we got Linux to be just click start and play for 90% of games like Windows, and with the Steamdeck a powerful, comfortable, DIY-able handheld PC gaming device.
You'd think it wouldn't be that hard for publishers with billions of dollars to hire enough competent devs for enough time to make a halfway decent storefront, especially when they don't even have to reinvent the wheel on a lot of UX and marketing research that's already been done for them by Steam existing as long as it's had.
That none of them have even come close to that is a monument to their incompetence.
Large companies do not generally innovate. Their internal inertia prevents them from successfully creating new things. Also the larger a company gets, the more layers of brainless MBA parasites latch on to suck them dry.
Large companies rely on purchasing innovation by buying up a never ending stream of smaller companies. They then take the ideas/products and launch them to a wider market.
Steam has remained small by rejecting massive buyout offers. This has allowed them to remain innovative.
Idk. With that camera setup I imagine myself on a black leather sofa with a plain white wall behind it.
Gabe , what kind of movie are we making? Gaben?
You're gonna want to avoid looking down the lens of that "camera", lol
Someone hasn't played TF2 lol
Half life 3 : ReLoaded
Ultimately it's a slow and steady strategy. There goal is long term profitability, not short term gains. In the long term, the best strategy is not to piss off your customers.
The advantage of this is that it can snowball to impressive levels. At least until a exec with more education than brains does a pump and run on it. A mistake steam seems to know to avoid.
I'm not looking forward to what happens to steam post-gaben. I expect a stupid successor to IPO and fuck it all up.
That makes me nervous as well. Hopefully, there are enough people involved to know not to kill the golden goose for a quick buck.
He was the first to make something and its extremely hard to compete vs the entrenched giant. Also he was the only one fighting for PC gamers so we had to accept the abuse or get no games.
Yep.
And it's especially difficult to compete with the entrenched giant when that giant actually doesn't suck while some of the storefronts going up against it absolutely do, both in features and as toxic companies.
His plan isn't based off trying to squeeze blood from stones, it's to sell some video games. Not a very capitalist mindset, but there you have it.
Valve takes 30% from every sale on Steam, which is quite landlord-like. Although there are much worse practices in the market.
you gotta take into account the insanely good service both devs and players get in exchange for those 30% here is a list
EGS finally has a shopping cart now, so it's basically equal now, right?
now it just needs to stop sucking
Oh no, a sales platform that takes a cut of revenue.
Valve isn’t a charity, and they provide very good services for what developers pay.
Devs don’t need to host download servers, they don’t need to staff customer service reps, they don’t have to set up banking infrastructure or worry at all about handling payments from hundreds of different banks across hundreds of countries.
It’s not like valve takes 30% and sits on it. They put that money to use.
I am not against it.
"Valve used to be a company that made games, now it just makes money" is a joke so old I can't find the source, but I know it goes back at least 15 years.
It was the first centralised gaming platform/hub/whatever on PC.
I remember having to search for matches on the All-Seeing Eye.
I lost my first Steam account. It would've been from September 2003, the same month Steam released. So apparently it would have had some real life value.
Tried restoring it once, but the email I had had on it was a service that no longer even existed so...
Anyways practical monopolies make money. Microsoft, Amazon, Google etc.
Steam isn't really in any way anti-competitive unlike the other examples, though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
Dang! You got me beat. The account I still use is from 2004, when Half-Life 2 came out. I remember thinking it was bullshit that I had to sign up for something, and connect to the internet to install a physical game I bought.
Then about five years later, I stayed at my mom's house for a couple nights, found myself bored, remembered I had my PC in her basement, and set it up. When I discovered that Steam remembered the three games I had, and let me download them (despite losing my HL2 disc years before), my head exploded. It's wild what it is now and how normalized that is.
I can imagine.
Absolutely thrilled.
Isn't it. But it was like 20+ years ago so no wonder a few things gave changed lol
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ocean_Strategy
"If you have the patience to sit by the river and wait, eventually, the corpses of your enemies will float by." Sun Tzu
The "do nothing and win" strategy.
Why does this photo looks like he's doing a porno
His shirt does kinda look like a white bathrobe
I was thinking more obi wan kenobi
Taking a long term view rather than exclusively focusing on the next quarter's numbers.
This is why Gabe is the goat
Paas Easter Egg strategy.
It's called making a product/service for their customers instead of for the shareholders bank balance.
Fabianism
<is billionaire <owns yatchs and subs People still wiping his ass with their noses?
He hasn't enshittified anything yet, and it's looking like he might not ever, which is why people respect him.
There's valid criticisms, yes, but that meme is dead accurate. I don't want to imagine what gaming would look like today if someone like EA the same vast influence over the industry instead of Valve.
Imagine if GabeN created some sort of co-op and left Steam to an employee-run board when he died.
That's what I was going to say. Sure, Gabe might not be that bad, but what happens to Valve and Steam when he's gone? Are we just hoping the next guy also isn't evil?
I was pretty pro-Gabe until I saw some video detailing loot crates and how they targeted kids. There really is no such as thing an ethical billionaire.
edit: pretty sure it was this Coffeezilla one
Ok, but if people like him didn't exist would we even have enshittification? In my view things get enshittified so someone who's probably already well off can "earn" them and other rich people more money. I thought we were mostly all in agreement here that there are no good billionaires.
As far as billionaires go, he's the least shit of the bunch. No idea what his personal life is like, and I don't want to know. Every billionaire that makes their personal life public so far has turned out to be a giant cunt.
I think the most cunty public thing he does is collect yachts.
Having even 1 big yatch is cunty but collecting them when people are poor and struggling is cuntyness manifest.
The bar is pretty low for billionaires. He's not a pedo as far as anyone knows, so that puts him in rare company.
The only bar when you are a billionaire is other billionaires.
Every one of them whose personal life goes public is a giant cunt because you have to be a giant cunt to hold on to billions of dollars. I'd say the waste Gabe produces with his fleet of aquatic toys means he's a piece of shit billionaire. I love games and Steam but I'm not giving him a pass. And I don't care if some of his shit is used for research purposes
Setting up an early monopoly while working to undermine brick and mortar stores?
Monopoly and gambling reliance
The American automotive strategy
You mean the Japanese one after the Americans shot themselves in the foot over and over?
His company is working damn hard to make sure you believe they don't do nothing. All billionares are scum.
What do you believe they do?
They do what every for profit company in the world does, they try to make as much money as possible and they spend money in advertising.
But that's in the open. You said they have hidden activities as well. What are they hiding?
Valves business strategy is called something close to a monopoly.
These kinds of comments are just silly. Explain how Valve has a monopoly.
I've got a whole bunch of free games on my epic account and I've never even bothered to try to figure out how to install them.
Same, I know installing from other launchers on linux is possible using lutris, but since the steam experience is so smooth, I've never bothered to figure out how.
I think that's just called having a good product
They provide the best user experience and aren't a publicly traded company so everyone uses them >:c
/s
If a game isn't sold on Steam, It isn't going to sell well.
Because of the huge amount of Valve fanboys who only buy games if they are on Steam.
Games on other stores might as well not exist.
And more, if a game even dares to launch on a different store, it would garner unfavour of all those Valve fanboys and hurt their sales even if afterwards it does launch on Steam.
It is a user enforced monopoly.
Fortnite, Apex Legends, Guild Wars 2 (which admittedly released on Steam later) and more all prove this claim false.
Nowadays pretty much every game is only available on Steam.
If you only check steam it sure feels like that. Try just looking at gog or epic and that feeling will go away.
Or on the game's website.
That's easily provably not true. You can get pretty much every single game on epic or good old games exist