• Meldrik@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s a good monopoly, for now and hopefully for a long time.

    The fact that Valve went out of their way to make gaming better in Linux, says a lot imho.

    • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I like Valve, but I will point out what’s been said before - Valve has a stake in making Linux gaming better, since it enables the Steam Deck to exist and prosper. They could’ve chosen other options that don’t help the community, but they didn’t choose this entirely selflessly, since they reap the benefits from not just their own work, but also that of the open source developers.

      • Meldrik@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t doubt that, but Steam was available for Linux, a long time before the Steam Deck and even SteamOS, as far as I remember.

      • jerkface@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        The steam deck wasn’t even a sketch on paper when Valve started pushing Linux. It’s been their route forward into all forms of hardware. I’m sure it’s not long before we get a stand alone VR headset that runs Linux, which seems to me to be the real goal. The Deck was just a step along the way.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      The only good monopoly is one where the profits goes back to the population or the customers.

    • MudMan@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      It says (pretty explicitly, if you go back and read interviews), that Gabe Newell really doesn’t like Microsoft in general, that the feeling is mutual and that the fact that his multibillion dollar empire is stuck as a Windows application MS may try to muscle out at any point has motivated him to bring PC gaming out of Windows from very early on.

      Granted, MS has been sucking at attempting exactly that for a long time, but that’s the ultimate motivation here. That’s not a particularly disputed fact.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      There is no such thing as a good monopoly. He leverages a 30% tax on a huge chunk of the gaming industry. Steam, Microsoft, Epic, Sony and Nintendo all essentially participate in collusion and anti competitive behavior.

      Think of all the indie studios that closed and sequels that got canceled and ask yourself if they could have made it if steam only took 5%.

      They leveraged linux to save on development and maintenance costs. Capturing the handheld market at a tenth of the price while making the same profit isn’t altruisme.

      • sexual_tomato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s not like the value added for that 30% tax isn’t there. Steam has made so many things so easy that it’s easy to forget what things were like decades ago.

        If you were an independent game publisher, you had to figure out how to set up a web storefront, a content delivery network hosted in perpetuity, take payments, do multiplayer, add in-game chat, map every weird joystick and gamepad in the universe to your control scheme, achievements, friend lists… And every game developer had to do that independently because there was no public solution, really. The friction to enter the indie dev space was so much higher.

        Also, steam does not force you to use their store- you can generate steam keys and sell your game away from the steam platform. The only thing that they enforce is if you sell it for a lower price elsewhere, they’ll de-list your game. Which I think is reasonable.

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          You can use the same argument about Musk or Benzos as well. Clearly, they are over charging for the value or they wouldn’t be billionaires.

          Steam could give the same value on 2% taken and Gaben would probably still be able to afford at least one of his 6 mega yatchs. But there’s indie companies that are struggling where just an extra 10% would go a long way.

          In the end, Gaben and his friends greed is killing indie companies, affecting the quality and amount of games we get and is having a detrimental effect on the industry.

          Yet because Gaben has a really good pr team and managed to convince everyone he’s “not your average billionaire”, we now have comments comparing him to Jesus and applauding his monopoly as being the only good one. Fucking hell.

      • Meldrik@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Only if the game is purchased directly on Steam. A developer can sell Steam keys on their own website and not have Valve take a cut of the price. I think the only rule is that you can’t sell the key cheaper than the price the developer has set on the Steam store.

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          It’s just a way to bring in and trap people in their ecosystem. It’s free like Gmail is free, not out of altruism. The bad seriously outweigh the good when it comes to steam, we shouldn’t praise them.