903
Valve rocks
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
903 points (97.6% liked)
Greentext
3705 readers
1603 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
That 20-30% tax also gives developers access to Valve's massive infrastructure (content delivery ain't easy or cheap) and Steam's audience, and that's something that can't be replicated with exclusivity deals.
Oh, and they KNOW that, too. Valve's entire business model is making other people work for them. Their third party relations talks are less keynotes and more thinly veiled, very pleasant shakedowns.
Not corpos, though. Corpos have deals with all platforms, they're not concerned about positioning on Steam. Valve will go to them, and if they don't their marketing budget will carry them.
No, it's the indies who end up bending over backwards to fit Valve's marching orders. It was contentious for a while, during the awkward period when Steam was figuring out how to crowdsource store placement. Now that they've successfully done so they invest very little and get to tell indies what to spend their budgets on, which they do often and explicitly.
If I had to compare the relationship, it's closest to Youtube and content creators. Have you noticed how every Youtube video now has a little intro with highlights from later on? Like that.
You get nothing from those compared to Steam, though. The only third party that can compete, and that's declined a bit, is Nintendo. And Nintendo is a bit of an additive thing, anyway. It's where you go when you can afford it or got big enough on Steam to get some attention.
I'm not gonna say it's impossible to survive around the edges of Steam, but man, if you're an indie dev and Valve says jump you are up in the air before you even ask how high.
I have to say, it's crazy how many things get more palatable in these conversation when you point out that Valve does them. Microtransactions, cosmetics, NFTs, content creation guidelines... it's a lot easier to get people to admit the upsides when it's those guys.
Which is fair. The thing is I'm not even against most of those practices in principle, and I agree that Valve are good at making them smooth and friendly. The big exceptions are the absolute mess they made of crowdsourcing store curation and the ungodly mess of the CSGO skin grey market. And they have more than enough brand clout to get those swept under the rug. Coca Cola wishes they had the brand loyalty Valve gets.
But indie devs don't work for Valve.
I guess technically video creators don't work for Youtube, although that one is murkier. Steam is a storefront.
Think of Amazon, actually. That's probably a better comparison. Amazon workers work for Amazon. Their relationship with Amazon has to do with labour conditions and so on.
But if you're a seller, or a small store that tries to sell online your relationship with Amazon is not a labour relationship but it's still extremely asymmetrical. You have no power in that dynamic.
I mean, you're absolutely right, that's modern late-stage capitalism. The astounding thing is how well Valve manages to position itself outside that. Just look at all the pushback that pointing that out gets you in this and other threads. Poeple HATE the idea that Valve exists in that space. "Good guy Valve" is deeply ingrained and it demands that you think about them in a different way than Amazon and Youtube.
There's nuance to it. You can't ever get good enough at driving that Uber gives you a special deal, and you aren't selling each of your rides to people on multiple services at once. The power dynamic isn't quite as lopsided, at least not for everybody.
But... it's also not completely different, especially for the smaller devs. Valve definitely comes from that same tech upstart mentality, and it only drifted further into it as they stopped being primarily a game developer and became primarily a storefront.
Piracy and its interactions with indie development are way more nuanced than that, but sure, yeah, Valve is a corporation like any other corporation. That's all I'm saying.
That their branding work spares them a lot of criticism and judgement from the same industry-standard practices that are seen as an affront elsewhere in both game development and the larger online content creation industry.
To add to this comment, remember that the base cut is 30%, but it goes down to 25% and later to 20% as the game reaches certain thresholds of revenue. This isn't meant to shake down the large corporations (indies benefit the least from this policy), but to make their system appealing enough to developers large enough to be able to try their luck somewhere else.
Exactly, they're offering useful services for monetary compensation. How dare they?
Not services, they are offerning their status. That's different.
You don't go to Valve and get services any more than you do from Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft. Valve isn't looking for content, though. They have all the content. The entire firehose.
To be clear, I'm not saying Valve is worse. But it's at best about the same, and arguably harder to work with on anything but getting out of your way to let you publish. The one thing I begrudge them is taking the social media model of making others work for you for free into game publishing, which I do think is a bit iffy. Maybe I'm just old fashioned there.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding what services they offer.
For starters, the infrastructure. Publishing a game, or any online content, is a massive undertaking. You need a robust solution for both storage and delivery. It needs to be scalable with the number of downloads, able to handle the bandwidth of parallel downloads, and resilient to hardware failure. You need a CDN to overcome geographic obstacles. You need a solution to orchestrate the distribution of software updates. In current year, most of these issues are solved by various platforms and the process is extremely streamlined. You upload a video to Youtube and soon enough a person in Timbuktu can watch it in full HD. Steam's infrastructure does the same thing for games. Storage, distribution, updates, and lots of smaller online services that make up a robust gaming platform.
Steam is a fairly competent storefront. I'm not a game developer, I can't speak for the full experience, but at the very least, Steam implements discoverability, payment processing, and license management. All things that a fully independent developer would have to implement or pay to have someone else do it.
Finally, you can't just equate Steam's large audience with their status. Community features, the almighty algorithm, discoverability (again) and recommendations are all features that would not exist without Steam.
If you can't see how all of those are valuable services to game developers, you're beyond reason.
No, yeah, Steam's business model is very comparable to Youtube's. That's my exact point. I've made that specific comparison elsewhere here. I don't know how long you've been around the "Fediverse", but when you're not actively defending a corporation you like way more than a human should like a corporation that's not typically considered a defense around these parts.
But hey, yeah, that's a good mental model for it.
Look, I'm aware of the work Steam and other gaming first parties do. Like, very aware. Way more aware than most. You're Internetsplaining the crap out of this to me right now. And I'm telling you Steam has been actively cutting down the amount of those things they do based on their quasi-monopolistic positioning. Their entire business model and concept is to create a platform that runs itself (or is crowdsourced to its audience and creators as much as possible). That goes all the way down to content creation, discoverability, curation and more. Their idea is to do game-publishing-as-social-media.
I have very mixed feelings about that, but I don't think it's fundamentally invalid. They've staved off enshittification so far because they have SO much money and they're a private company, so they aren't mandated to drive endless growth out of that model.
The observation I'm making is that Steam hangs in the same space, ideology and business practices as Amazon or Youtube, but they absolutely don't get the same crap for it as Amazon and Youtube. Which demonstrates a somewhat horrifying fact: It's not the existence of the billionaires like Musk, the monopolistic behavior like Amazon or the black-box gig economy algorithm that pisses people off. It's just the enshittifiation of the end product. If the incentive system in publicly traded companies wasn't so terrible at doing its job people would just live in the shadow of Google and Amazon and Twitter for the rest of their lives and actively love it.
I mean, I guess in a way it's comforting, in that it's proof positive that the liberal assumptions about the market self-regulating optimally are absolutely wrong, but it's still kinda disappointing to see the true power of branding.
Valve's entire business model is giving users what they want. People praise Gaben for a reason. When faced with piracy he didn't go and add Denuvo or something equally stupid. Instead he localized games and provided a better service to users than pirates did.
Trend these days with every company is to blame the customer. If it's Bethesda, then yeah you computer sucks you need to upgrade, optimizations be damned. If it's Epic, then it's exclusive deals with developers who later run to Steam in attempts to get some more money. Blizzard released Warcraft3 reforged in such a sorry state people couldn't play, but they made sure people couldn't use original WC3 game and had to buy reforged.
He literally made online authentication DRM mandatory for the biggest single player PC game of 2004 in an absolutely unprecedented move.
People were furious.
How has everyone forgotten how big of a ragefest it was to force everybody who bought HL2 in a box to connect to Steam? I swear that guy stumbled upon the One Ring or the spear of Longinus or some mass mind control device, because it's absolutely nuts how much people have memory holed all this stuff.
I think the mind control device is speaking to values people actually hold and then doing something completely different, kind of like mainstream political parties here in Australia. There's an imaginary honest, oldschool merchant Valve that lives in people's heads, and there's the actually practicing Valve the megacorp.
Or, more broadly, just the incredible power of cultivated charisma and rhetorical prowess and a cult of personality. The fervour with which people take any impersonal criticism of a business as a personal attack on a close friend, family member, or community is evidence of that.
See also a certain Square-Enix director spouting conservative, transphobic rhetoric and somehow being hailed as an ally, minus a small amount of people who saw through the smoke and mirrors act.
I swear there's a cohort of people that could have gotten into politics but decided the games and tech industries would make them more money.
Okay, by your own account Valve's good standing is "imaginary honest,old school merchant". So can you point out at least some malicious acts they performed?
I am not just blindly defending them, I have no benefit in doing so. But in reality, especially compared to other publishers, they are really benign. I can't remember when was the last time Valve screwed over their customers. Sure they disappointed some people with bad game releases, but all those people got their money back. Compare that to what Blizzard, EA or Bethesda do. It's night and day.
Again the memory hole.
Valve fought against pressure from regulators to have a returns policy tooth and nail. Memory holed.
The first major platform to establish one of those was actually EA's Origin. Valve only agreed eventually when the rest of the competition started making that a standard and it seemed easier to just go with regulator requests at that point. Memory holed.
I'll say this for your argument: Valve is much more likely to screw over devs than end users, as a matter of both strategy and corporate culture. Most of my issues with them historically go in that direction.
But still, there are plenty of examples of Steam getting weird about these things. You just acknowledged them using their position to enforce DRM minutes ago, and that's already down the memory hole.
I actually agree that Valve is pretty solid operationally when it comes to customer service, at least for their size. They have a good view of short versus long term gain. But there's a big, big gap between being good at community management and customer service and being "night and day" against the "malicious" competition. That narrative is nuts.
They did abuse their position to push Steam as a distribution service. Valve was ground breaking in many moves, good and bad. As for how people forgot how big of a ragefest it was, because people love to rage and Steam turned out good.
They did the work for global credit card transactions, tax, distribution, forums, cloud saves, multi-player support, anti-cheat, achievements, controller support, friends lists, unlimited game keys, workshop for mod support, add drm, voice chat, and more. All that for a 30% cut.
Yes, we've established they are a first party like any other. For the record, if you manage to get Microsoft/Activision, Sony, Nintendo, EA or Ubisoft to publish your game they'll also throw QA, marketing and localization into the mix.
The difference is you'll sign a specific deal and have a publisher at that point. Valve will tell you what they want you to do, then poof out into the distance and give you a link or at best an API to access all of those things at no extra cost to themselves. Their entire business model is for others (both devs and users) to work for them within their systems. Which is fine. I'm also less hostile to the gig economy than many around here, but even I am not gonna actively cheerlead for it.