I remain baffled at how few studios sell their games directly on their own site.
The practical barriers are virtually nonexistent, so I’m assuming there’s some form of capitalist fuckery going on behind the scenes that makes it financially unviable?
There are practical barriers still tho. You’ll have to either maintain or outsource maintaining:
- hosting infrastructure
- CDN
- Security (both frontend and backend)
- DRM (either serial numbering or yet another hosted verification services)
- user accounts and data handling
- payment processing
And that’s for a basic game, if you want feature parity with steam, add on top:
- version control and access (playtests, betas)
- version control for other platforms (Mac, Linux)
- hosting for savefile sync, achievements
- hosting for UGC (mods, screenshots, configs, recording)
- hosting and infrastructure for user livestreaming
- CDN for mods
- review (automated or manual) for mods or UGC
- legal protection and compliance against UGC
- multiplayer service infrastructure
- automated/manual moderation of game servers/lobbies
- anticheat system
- hosting for newsfeed (update announcements, news)
- and so on, you get the point…
By the time you implement the basic stuff and half of the extras, might as well pay the 30% commission and just focus on what you wanted to do: make games. Instead of having to cosplay as a sysadmin or orchestrate 15 different providers
The things on that list are all technically true but at the same time not really that big a deal? Certainly they’re all solved problems already. Making a good video game in the first place is harder than any of those things.
there’s some form of capitalist fuckery going on behind the scenes that makes it financially unviable?
Uhh. It’s that Steam is an effective monopoly?
They hold all the attention, all the recommendations, so if you aren’t on Steam you are practically invisible.
There are a few major games that only self publish. Starsector is one, of the top of my head. Hence it is practically invisible to most.
Ok but publishing yourself doesn’t block you from also listing on Steam, or does it?
It determines the price. If you “self-publish” on a web shop or something with DRM free downloads, you have to price it the same as on Steam, otherwise Steam may delist you. So devs can’t get around the 30% fee by offering a discount on their store.
And… practically, if the storefronts are the same price, most will just buy on Steam.
There can be other complications related to scammers, but that’s not Valve’s fault. Supporting both also takes more dev effort.
Rimworld took this route, at least for some time. It started only self published via the Ludeon Store yet ended up mostly on Steam because that’s where all the attention and mods went. I have the game bought both places, oddly enough.
Common misconception. You only have to price-match when selling Steam keys on another platform. If you sell a non-Steam copy of the game, you can price it however you want
also it didn’t particularly make sense on its own terms. Even if I am committed to pricing the same as on Steam, I still get to keep that extra 30% on the sales that I do make.
And it’s not as though the sum total of marketing you do for a game is stick it up on Steam and wait for the recommendations to pour in. But still most game promos and ads I see include a Steam link rather than one to the studio’s store.
There’s over 100,000 games on Steam now, so the notion that you’re relying them to market your game for you is highly suspect.
Do people here, on Lemmy of all places, still not worry about Valve being a monopoly?
It worries me, deeply. Especially with how the community already makes up excuses for them doing anticompetitive things.
There is only one way that ends.
I can’t think of a single example of a “happy sustainable monopoly” in history, but at best they must be vanishingly rare.
As far as I’m aware only gog really “competes” with them the other platforms are worse by a lot.
…This is exactly what I am talking about.
Why do people pivot to whataboutisms?
Valve is an effective monopoly. There is no talking around that.
They have made many straight-up anticompetitive moves, to cement that. The biggest example in my mind is the “other storefront pricing policy,” but there have been several over the years.
What other companies are doing is irrelevant to that point, unfortunately, as they don’t have enough market share to compete. It does not excuse Valve or make the situation any less worrying to me.
I recognize there is potential for a major shift in business practices to cause Steam to turn to shit, yes. I just refuse to worry about it. Other competators do exist, and I’ll move over if and when the need arises. For now I’m happy with having at least one company not trying to screw me over in the present.
Valve is only a monopoly because they are the best. If another storefront showed up and covered the gaps in what valve offers then they’d be able to carve out a niche for themselves like gog with drm free downloads. You can’t get that on steam. The others such as epic only seem to be able to come up with anti competitive bullshit that only harms the consumer. All these fucking companies these days seem to have forgotten that they exist to serve us. Steam at least still has a great deal of momentum in that direction. They do far more for us than any of the other options IMO. It’s not even close.
oblig
I mean both true but yeah
santa, gaben has been good this year, give him another boat
100% hard agree. Not launching an IPO is the single best thing Gaben has ever done. Letting in corporate executives would utterly destroy Valve and run them into the ground to fund their golden parachutes. It’s happened time and again. Professional “executives” do not run companies for the benefit of the customer they run them into the ground to make themselves richer. Kudos to Gaben for being intelligent enough to recognize this and keep Valve private.
Well that’s because pretty much all of the competition are terrible.
There hasn’t really been much innovation in digital market space since the concept arose. Valve started it and a few other companies over the years of tried, including Microsoft and all have failed.
I think valve succeeded because they weren’t trying to make a digital market place, it started out as just a distribution platform so not every decision was about how to make the most money out of the customer. You make the money on the games, not the platform and then you build up from there.
Yeah really is down to the only platform that isn’t repeatedly shooting itself in the foot is GoG and their no DRM policy has a lot of major publishers saying no deal.
In all other cases it’s less what Valve does right, and more what everyone around them is doing wrong.
I and I guess itch.io as well but that’s mostly because of how easy it is to get a game on the platform so it’s really good for small games and demos.
Gabe’s strategy is public information at this point. He’s gone on record several times with the information.
The focus is on what gamers want first. Reduce barriers to entry. Simplify the process. That naturally attracts customers and the money making happens as a result.
Every single other company has this reversed.
Have they tried making a better product?
Or scratch that. Have they tried making a product that is as good?
Probably not. Even MS couldn’t do it and they owned the platform. Now Valve push Linux. No other store really runs on that, and certainly not in a way that lets you run games written for Windows.
Epic are closest to being a competitor, and they’re still just a free games platform that will only run until the Fortnite money stops coming in.
One of my favorite quotes about Epic (it may have been Tim Sweeney) was something like “people would rather pay for a game on Steam than get it for free on the Epic Store” and it’s true. Hell even games I’ve got for free on Epic I’ve still purchased (probably on sale) on Steam.
Epic are closest to being a competitor, and they’re still just a free games platform that will only run until the Fortnite money stops coming in.
Appreciate the reminder to play the games I need to on that platform
Valves secret is that selling digital games is profitable 100% of the time, so they never needed to enshittify.
A lot of services are straight up unprofitable and need to go to extreme lengths of ruining the experience just to make a single positive dollar. Those lengths are also often poorly thought out or actively destructive to the platform. Valve just sells games with essentially 0 overhead past servers (insanely expensive, btw, but you know what i mean)
Turns out that the best business plan is a profitable one out of the gate with people who care about their work instead of vampires that bleed your customers dry
Yeah, but have you considered being an MBA demon and wanting even more money?
More money now temporarily is better then always getting money forever.
Investing into customers and their overall happiness and loyalty works out, go figure.
The King who has never seen grass will starve to death on an iron throne.
Even if I’m playing a game I bought from GoG, I still need Steam involved for its controller support or Proton if I’m on Linux.
You can run proton without Steam.
Do they realize that what they really said was: having shareholders destroys businesses.
Anyone who isn’t head deep in Capitalism understands that, yeah.
The full quote in the context of the article makes it even worse:
“As long as Valve is independent and not a publicly traded company, they probably have a certain ambition, but not an extraordinary ambition,” Rosier says. “So I think they can still decide to make some decisions that are player-first, and that helps, right? To get the goodwill from the players.”
So, customers like using a product that focuses on the customers to create profits, rather than extracting profits by abusing the customer? How unambitious… /s
and that helps, right? To get the goodwill from the players
It helps?! It HELPS?!! That’s the fuckin customer base right there, that’s engagement, customer retention, customer satisfaction and THE top reason for sales.
“It helps” pffftt… it does not help, it’s the ENTIRE PRODUCT
The industry is unwilling to cope with this fact
This is what is endemic in our current shareholder first sustem, it’s not about profits, it’s about leveraging the stock, products, customers, image and every other tool at their disposal to manage the value that the shareholders control so they can game the stock market as they see fit. Everything else is secondary.
Lol, this is an unironically awesome takeaway.
shareholders in public companies dont care about the health of the business
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.
Note the exception to the rule is Private equity looking for a place to unload debt and need a fall guy
deleted by creator
Private companies have shareholders as well.
That’s a new one for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder
Both public companies and private corporation have shareholders.
But only for companies participating in the equity ownership, right? I’m not fully versed with that, so need to ask here. I don’t know how this works with Gabe and Valve. I think the important detail here is, that Valve is not publicly traded and can decide who buys shares from their company and could reject any money. I don’t think this is possible with publicly traded companies, right?
Ownership of companies via shares is only for LLCs (which is a possibility but in practice uncommon) and Corporations and both Sole Proprietorships and Partnerships do not have shares.
That said, it is indeed possible for a company to have ownership by shares and not be publicly traded (i.e. not in the stock market) so for example a corporation with no traded shares would be a private corporation.~
This is what I found out for the US by searching for “types of companies” and “LLC shares”.
The countries I lived in and owned companies in Europe have similar things but with different names (for example what a Partnership in the US is roughly what’s called a “Society by quotas” in Portugal and is actually the most common kind of company).
In my experience people that never had their own registered business don’t usually know any of this because they have no need to look into it.
i think in private corporations only a very limited amount of shareholders can have shares
If they are shareholders, they hold at least one share. Every one of them. There’s no limit on number of shareholders or shares held. But those shares are not publicly traded.
There are limits on shareholders in private companies.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/5/500-shareholder-threshold.asp
Looks like the number is 2000, but that excludes employees. It used to be 500.
That’s only a (USA) reporting limit. A private company can still have more than 2000 shareholders, but it must then publicly report its finances like a public company would.
Fair… but why would any private company do that without going public? Do any?
Yeah, often times if a company needs a loan then they open up a stake.
Amazing what is possible when you’re not beholden to shareholders that only give a shit about quarterly profits at the expense of everything else, including the entire business.
Perhaps businesses should have a rule that investors can’t take money out for 10 years. Perhaps then they would actually engage in some long-term strategies.
There is already short term vs long term capital gains tax, but it’s only one year. Maybe they could tweak that a bit
- Provide a good and cheap service.
- Improve the service over time with some of the money you make.
- Make pro-consumer choices knowing full well you can afford it.
- ???
- Watch competition repeatedly shoot itself in the crotch.
- Profit.
Huh. What an unexpectedly damning indictment of the extraction-oriented enshittification market aka capitalism
It’s not, really. Steam runs under capitalism. They’re just a super outlier in that they’re a billion dollar company that doesn’t have shareholders. They’re basically the wet dream that conservatives are trying to sell you but that just fails 99.9% of the time due to greed.
They’re basically the wet dream that conservatives are trying to sell you but that just fails 99.9% of the time due to greed.
I wonder what is the driving force for capitalism…
Is it the Singular pursiut of profit to enrich oneself?
Is there another wird for that?
Could that be the very motivation the system is build upon?
So the whole system doesnt Work how it is promoted, but is just a facade to keep the status quo and that means the rich stay rich and the poor stay barely not revolting.
So of course No Steam doesnt run under capitalism it crawls under capitalism. It works despite of capitalism.
Comrade Gaben’s yacht is the people’s yacht, apparently.
The Point
Whoosh
Your Head
The support and research vessel https://aftermath.site/gabe-newell-steam-valve-yacht/
You’re confused. Steam is an American company and America is (you may have noticed) a capitalist nation.
The point is that you can participate and thrive in capitalism without doing every resource extracting enshittification strategy in the book, which seems to be just Business 101 these days.
Is Steam perfect? Probably not. But most other major players in this space seem to leap at every chance to charge people more while worsening their product and then we get thought pieces wondering how Steam remains popular by virtue of not actively making things worse.
The point is that you can participate and thrive in capitalism without doing every resource extracting enshittification strategy in the book
The point is, that’s still capitalism.
When someone asserts ‘capitalism is intrinsically awful because it’s inseparable from x y and z’ they cannot then praise a successful company doing capitalism without x y or z. You’re supposed to experience this thing called cognitive dissonance. Contradictory ideas should not fit in your brain.
So you would disagree that the driving Factor of capitalism is Profit?
Because that is all i said factually. I said in a tone you dont like, but nonetheless.
What other economic system do you imagine Valve is operating under?
Didn’t say it wasn’t still Capitalism. But there is still nuance between one company doing everything it can to squeeze alout as much ‘potential profit’ possible at the expense of their products and the consumers v one that maintains the quality of product and service a the expense of ‘potential profit’.
Whatever Ism you prefer still requires people to set and maintain a standard. The lack of standards and accountability is how you get the race to the bottom.
You didn’t but the person they replied to did.
So of course No Steam doesnt run under capitalism
So of course No Steam doesnt run under capitalism it crawls under capitalism. It works despite of capitalism.
I really don’t know what you’re trying to say here. These terms are not mutually exclusive. It really just feels like you’re being pedantic.
To be honest to explain this to you is like explaining a fish what is Air or a blind Person the color yellow, so no worries.
Yeah I didn’t think so.
Capitalism SLAMMED by Steam Store market analysis. “Eat my shorts, jabronies” capitalism was heard saying in response.
We only need one digital store front. The people should collectively own it.
Steam could be assholes.
They are not.
Best argument for no public trading of the company.
Valve wanted to be assholes when it came to returns, but a court case forced them to be good. I am sure there are more examples.
Public trading results in short-sighted planning because investors can always buy/sell stocks and move on to whatever is profitable moment to moment. Private companies plan longer term because the investors benefit from the company’s long-term success. Their profits come from the company’s profits, not the value of the stock.
Make no mistake, Valve is in it for the money. They’re as greedy as anyone. But they operate under a corporate structure that values the long-term viability of its platform.
And they’re still assholes. They are all about lootboxes, DLC, etc. And they take a massive cut of sales. Do Sony and Microsoft and Nintendo do the same? Yeah - but they also provide the hardware platforms. Does Best Buy and Gamestop charge similar fees? Yeah - but they have the overhead of the retail locations. Steam makes stupid money off a download platform and game launcher.
Gabe is a billionaire yacht collector, not your friend. His greed just takes a longer view than that of someone looking to sell their shares from minute to minute.
The biggest thing these days is that they are not hostile towards their customers. The bar is that fucking low.
Their assholery isn’t customer-facing, but it ABSOLUTELY impacts customers.
So you are saying that the devs don’t like using the steam platform?
They don’t like the largest expense on their books being Steam’s cut of the sales. After overhead, marketing, locensing, etc the actual dev teams making the games probably make less than Gabe personally does on the same game.
Yeah they could be 10x cooler by just being slightly less greedy, but they want lots and lots of money, so
At this point in time I care way more about Valve’s investment in Linux gaming than I do about Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo working on their next closed proprietary PC with custom controllers.
So Gabe is a billionaire asshole who is not your friend. But unlike other billionaire assholes that aren’t your friend he doesn’t choose to go out of his way to fuck over his customers and his products for a few pennies more. There’s gotta be a term for that.
successful.
Public traded companies are short sighted because they give the CEO et al large amounts of stock, making them stock holders, aligning their interests with making the stock go up.
Best argument for no public trading of most companies.
you do not want Gabe Newell answering to a bunch of cunts who want to enshittify for a quick buck.
including getting bought-out by a company that is (microsoft, ea, sony, etc)
