Guys I know he is not perfect but it’s understandable that people like him in a world where the average CEO drinks the blood of newborns daily.
Huh, so that’s why they’re all so prolife. Need to keep the source of fresh babies going…
“Don’t get an abortion! Have that baby and dispose of it at your nearest “Leave your baby here for our coalition of friendly CEOs to take care of” location for a 25$ amazon gift card!”
That fully sounds like a program a literal vampire would implement with wild success. Parents selling their kids for money happened in the past, so not even that much of a stretch. It does sound like a potential cobra problem though.
Would watch a full length film of this
very literal cobra problem as well
Mmmm billionaire boot must be delicious
Steam is not a bad company but it is still a company that holds a lot of power, don’t forget that.
Yeah. I am a fan of valve but their complicity in cs:go skin gambling uhhh… gets worse and worse the more closely you look at it.
Its fair to appreciate the good they have done for linux and largely very consumer friendly business practices AND, companies are not your friends.
Valve’s “hands-off” approach extends far beyond CS:GO gambling. They have the same willful negligence toward moderating their own official group chats.
For weeks, the official Steam Deck group chat has been flooded with racist slurs and hate speech. I and many others reported the individuals responsible, yet weeks passed with zero action taken.
Frustrated, I opened a formal support ticket. I detailed the offenses, provided evidence, and explained why a basic filtering system or active moderation is necessary for their own official spaces. Valve’s response? They closed my ticket without taking any action at all. They have confirmed, through inaction, that providing a non-toxic environment in their official communities is not a priority.
This experience has made me lose a significant amount of respect for Valve. I will now be actively purchasing my games elsewhere in protest.
Steam has had this power for ages tho and never abused it to the disadvantage of customers.
Supporting companies that don’t shit on consumers is equally important as boycotting companies that do.
Hmmm. Everyone takes Steam refunds for granted now. But until late 2015 they refused to do refunds for any kind of game purchase, even if the game was literally unplayable by buyers - until they were dragged through the courts by the ACCC and fined, with similar legal demands happening from the EU around the same time.
Dunno if I’d call that, “never abused their power to the disadvantage of customers”.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/australia-fines-valve-over-steam-refunds
That is not true. I know this because I had one case where I did get a refund for a game called “War Z” - I also found an article that explains that the game was pulled by valve and they have indeed offered refunds: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/how-not-to-launch-a-video-game-starring-i-the-war-z-i-
On the same site, I also found this article talking about a ubisoft game that was pulled: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/report-ubisoft-offering-refunds-on-i-from-dust-i-through-steam
Now, it’s debateable if this was a valve or a ubisoft decision - however, knowing ubisoft, I’d say they were pressured by valve to give in lmao.
I’ve also found this article on polygon that talks about another Early Access Title that was pulled by valve and refunded to buyers because it was shit: https://www.polygon.com/2014/5/6/5686826/earth-year-2066-refund-steam-early-access/
And that’s just what I found with a few minutes of research. I’m fairly confident if I search some more, I’ll find much more of those cases.
So yes, while the stance back then was “all purchases are final”, you were absolutely able to get your money back if the game was truly broken and unplayable. Don’t get me wrong, the current rule is significantly better, but claiming that steam hasn’t been on customers side back then is just straightup wrong.
And I have an anecdote that counters your anecdote. I’ve been refused a refund. It was at their discretion. Game crashing withing 10 minutes of playing every time isn’t always enough to get them to deign to give you your money back…
So, yes, it IS true. Them occasionally making a PR friendly move and going against their own policy doesn’t change that
Their policy was that if a game was activated on your account then you were not entitled to a refund. The fact that they pulled some games from the store due to significant complaints about those individual titles (or at publisher request), and subsequently decided to make an exception to refund that particular game for some people does not disprove that their standard policy was ‘you are not entitled to a refund’.
Of course it doesn’t disprove that, I never said it was, infact, I stated quite the opposite. However, the fact that they were handing out refunds in cases where games were just outright broken or a scam proves that they have been on the consumer side. Just look at what bethesda did with FO76, where they actually denied refunds for that game when it was obvious it was a shitshow.
Again, I’m not saying that it was a great move from steam to not have a refund window, but claiming they were “abusing their power” when “no refunds” is basically the default for american companies (where refunds are not legally mandated, but each merchant can set his own refund period) is just stupid.
And if they get rid of most of the competition then they can treat us like garbage and we’d have nowhere to go.
If Valve would want to do that, they could have done so years ago. To the contrary, there are more stores where you can buy games online then ever before (Epic, Windows Store, GOG, Itch.io, Fanatical, Humble and so on, with steam keys and without), and i haven’t heard of a single aqcuisition by Valve yet.
What competition lol
At least they are not beholden to parasitic shareholders that demand quarterly grow at all costs.
It seems from your response that you have at least some desire to educate… Why must that also come with derision?
It isn’t that hard to convey a message without such a contemptuous tone, and I’d venture to guess it would be more likely to persuade. Someone has seen some good in a thing. You can disagree without scorn.
My apologies, this community is generally memey/jokey in tone, and I was going with that. /gen
I’m also firing off dumb comments at like 2 am where I am, lol. Please do not take my short soundbites (text bites?) seriously.
On a more serious note, one billion dollars is a legitimately unfathomable amount of wealth and, by extension, unilateral power. That’s a dangerous thing for any one person to hold, regardless of how kind their heart is since it means the use of that power is dependent on the whims of one person.
Corporations are also, by their nature, driven by a profit motive. A corporation can do non-evil, customer-friendly things but that can also change very quickly. It’s important to differentiate between beneficial behavior and altruism.
Also, I typically don’t expect people to read my unsolicited soapboxing rants under a green text meme lol.
Also also, I am quite appreciative of the benefits of Valve’s efforts. I just don’t assume they’re purely doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Nor do I expect/demand them to.
I’ve lurked on Lemmy for over a year and this post, for whatever reason, compelled me to register an account to respond; I took your comment to be a tad critical. It seems I may’ve misread the room here - my apologies if so. I agree wholeheartedly with pretty much all you’ve said. Thanks for the response.
Your concerns are valid since text is hard to interpret due to lack of inflection, context, and other intonation indicators. I try to remember to use tone tags but don’t always.
Thank you for your thoughtful responses and engagement, though. Good faith discussion is an important thing on the web, and is a large part of why I like Lemmy over Reddit and other centralized social media sites. I appreciate you for that and adding to the constructiveness and positivity :) /gen
Yes, it’s better to have companies that have no power and do nothing.
I am a fan of Valve, but this is just way exaggerated. For example, encourages you to save money by having sales? Isn’t that about manipulating you into buying more games than you would otherwise, because you perceive the value as being better?
I fall for it every time and I couldn’t be more proud
Yeah, Valve are certainly one of the best options for buying games other than sometimes GoG or directly from the developer. But this level of simping for Valve is odd.
Right? The best method of saving money is not to spend it in the first place, no matter how good the deal is. I mean, good deals are nice and all if you really need a thing.
Where I am, games in Steam cost about five to ten bucks normally, and two or three bucks on sale. Ten bucks goes quite far here, and without sales many wouldn’t buy games at all. Now, is it good value to buy games instead of not buying any?
Gaben and steam are not perfect, but are monumentally better than what we would be stuck with on sony-soft
They’re succeeding by not actively running their platform into the ground, which is somehow inspiring and disappointing at the same time
That’s because they’re a privately owned company. They can decide when to prioritize long term profits over short term profits.
Most of their competition are publicity traded companies that have no such luxury. They have to make next quarter’s number higher no matter what.
The very core of pretty much every enshittification you can put a finger on
All that’s between you and success is a consistent and reasonable performance, but seemingly everyone else in the world is too greedy to pull this off.
That’s because they’re a privately owned company. They can decide when to prioritize long term profits over short term profits.
Most of their competition are publicity traded companies that have no such luxury. They have to make next quarter’s number higher no matter what.
succeeding by not actively running their platform into the ground
As someone who began to use Steam from 2007, and play their games since 2000 - they not only made their platform better over years, they also now branching out lately. Their hardware is either the best in price/performance or outright innovative.
They are not “succeeding by not actively running their platform into the ground”, they succeeding in actually providing a good service and getting better the more time passes. All that while all competition does is to attempt to expand their user base without actually providing a good service.
Just thought that if not Valve, we’d be stuck in the same shithole streaming services been lately.
Nintendo too. look, I love their creative, but holy hell have they become exceptionally money grabby.
Nintendo has used up all there goodwill, for me personally. Sucks.
agree, it’s depressing that such a part of my childhood is basically… moneygrubbing
I know this novel strategy that Valve employs might be difficult to conceptualize for people whose thinking only extends as far as “company evil, success bad”, so let me summarize it in a format that is easier to understand:
I receive: half-decent product
You receive: my money
end of story
The sad thing is that them having a half decent product is something special in this world
How would you like to see it improved?
STEAM- Give a reasonable good platform for gaming.
OTHERS- Kill themselves with shitty optimization and spam policies.
STEAM - Sit. Enjoy the sunny day. Drink a coffee. Improve a bit the navigator to help you find new games.
OTHERS - Keep their shitty platforms unoptimized and double down on AI Slops.
STEAM - Doing some yoga. Walk the dog. Add an AI disclaimer for the games.
(update) OTHERS - Complaining about Steam AI disclaimer on socials without fixing a single fuck on their platforms.
STEAM - Trying the new Turkish restaurant down the street. Read a book. Add a disclaimer to alert the user if there’s a cheaper bundle for the same game they are buying in the cart.
BTW the way refunds work is that steam withholds the money for a month to pay refunds with it. The publisher has no say, they just get gross - 30% - VAT - refunds.
Also giving refunds is required by law in some countries, it’s not like valve invented it out of the goodness of their heart.
Australia sued them into their current refund policy
Is this supposed to be a negative?
deleted by creator
“You immediately got weirdly defensive”, and the dude asked a single question.
“Your cute little indie game”, bro why do you talk like a Disney bully?
How was I being “weirdly defensive”?
deleted by creator
Believing that sales exist to save people money is the funniest shit i have ever seen.
When he dies gaming lives on within us.
Step 1. Make a good product
Step 2. Corner the market
Step 3. Build up good will
Step 4. …?
Step 5. Keep building up good willStep 4 is “buy the company that builds the yachts you like”
Lol everyone always gets mad that dude has yachts.
Do you think that the CEOs of Microsoft and Sony don’t have yachts?
So that’s something they have in common. But consumer good will and overall happiness with the service isn’t. Only one of the companies have that distinction and you know which one it is.
Which is not great, but is a lot better than actively destroying the fabric of the society, like all other billionaires are doing.
I was extremely impressed that Valve did an RMA replacement for one of my Index base stations even out of warranty. They explicitly did not have to do that. It’s been years but I’m still amazed
Yeah my white OLED Steam Deck broke (it was definitely my fault), and they sent me a replacement, no questions asked. Also white OLED, after you couldn’t even buy them anymore.
I think this is factually wrong, Steam only introduced refunds because they were forced to for the European market
I believe it was Australia
No, the EU doesn’t force refunds for software
Not explicitly, but 2011/83/EC does state that it applies to everything but “financial services, gambling, healthcare by regulated professionals, package travel, property transactions, social services, timeshare and most aspects of passenger transport” and reservers. And steam’s refund policy is most likely a reaction to this. See https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32011L0083, which mentions the 14 days basically everywhere as a default withdrawal period.
The current version, at article 16, also includes software:
contracts for the supply of digital content which is not supplied on a tangible medium if the performance has begun
Didn’t spot that, thanks
Lets pray valve never goes public
Why would they?
The fuck do they need investors for?
Depends on who gets the crown - or prices thereof - when Gabe passes. There are lots of cases where the beneficiary of an estate can’t afford to keep the asset due to a lack of liquidity, and is forced to sell.
“Sells hardware at a loss to hook you into the steam ecosystem and make more money by selling you software” FTFY
Don’t get me wrong, as companies go I like valve, but to say they aren’t making decisions based on making more money and just out of altruistic motives is madness. Businesses that aren’t healthy and competitive die, even if they have rabid fans.
Steam deck supports Xbox live streaming, gog, epic via lutris and heroic. It’s about as far from a locked down ecosystem as one could possibly get.
Never said it was locked. But being locked or unlocked doesn’t change the motivation and is irrelevant to my point. The more people on the steam ecosystem, the better for them. It is far easier to use steam on the steam deck than any of the options you put forward. Even so, not preventing their use means people are more likely to buy the steam deck, which in turn means they are more likely to use steam as their primary store.
Epic, etc are not a default and at the beginning were not easy to get working.
Oh and you got it the wrong. Those things support the steam deck (usually via third party hacks), the steam deck doesn’t support them, it you would be able to install them from the steam store with tight integration into the library by default. It just doesn’t prevent them. That is a BIG difference. But yes, doing similar things on other hardware might not be possible or at least as easy. I’m grateful their are so many enthusiasts out there making such things possible.
I quite explicitly named lutris and heroic which are 3rd party apps. These apps are installable via Discover which is the app store running on the OS. I’d agree the wording could be seen as ambiguous.
Sony and Xbox do NOT support any other app stores on their devices - I think the use of support is clear and understandable in this statement.
Yes Discover is part of the Linux distro, not the valve added value. It is by virtue of their choice to base on an established Linux rather than anything. Again lutris and heroic both support steam deck not the other way around.
But none of this changes my original point. Valve wasn’t you to use the steam store. The stream deck is a tool to get you to do that. You are free to bypass because they don’t stop you, but they are willing to take a loss on hardware because they know it means more sales on the steam store. Or they wouldn’t be here much longer.
You seem to think if I were to write an app for Windows and release it tomorrow that it means Microsoft support my app.
You seem to think if I were to write an app for Windows and release it tomorrow that it means Microsoft support my app.
I did not say that at all.
The road outside my house supports cars, lorries, bicycles and foot traffic. If I breakdown on that road the local govt. will not come and fix my car.
I understand now. You are using the general definition of support so we are taking about different things.
I suspect translation later for ARM will be industry shaking
