From the opinion piece:

Last year, I pointed out how many big publishers came crawlin’ back to Steam after trying their own things: EA, Activision, Microsoft. This year, for the first time ever, two Blizzard games released on Steam: Overwatch and Diablo 4.

  • qooqie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    122
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    This isn’t really that hot of a take. Steam does keep winning and it’s because of convenience for consumers. Valve also is probably the best of those companies when it comes to not violating rights. I really hope when Gaben passes the torch for valve ownership that it’s someone with his vision and priorities

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      78
      ·
      11 months ago

      Steam does keep winning and it’s because of convenience for consumers.

      As a Linux user, nothing else comes even close. I can read on ProtonDB if I can expect a Windows game to just work, and more often than not, it does.
      GOG is also a great concept, and somewhat Linux friendly, but it doesn’t have the Steam “click and play” convenience.
      Epic Game Store however, has been decidedly Linux hostile for some reason??? As I see it, Steam and GOG are for gamers, Epic Game Store is for business. It would be a dark day for gamers, if Epic ever became dominant.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        60
        ·
        11 months ago

        The contributions Valve has made to Linux really, really can’t be understated.

        It’s been 20 years of the joke “It’s finally the year of the Linux Desktop” and Valve took the desktop for a miss and made 2023 “the year of the Linux Portable PC Gaming Handheld.”

        • hips_and_nips@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          11 months ago

          Why would they have to open source anything? Just because it’s running on Linux doesn’t mean it’s OSS or even F(L)OSS. Steam isn’t open source either.

          • Rose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            Not to mention that open source software can and sometimes does contain spyware.

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Not to mention that open source software can and sometimes does contain spyware.

              That seems allot more like a one-off, a one time thing.

              Also, anyone can view the source code for the open source product.

            • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Nobody with two brain cells says foss can’t have spy/malware. What’s true is only that in important projects, it is very likely it will raise flags very soon. For example, see your link

        • Nix@merv.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          That makes literally zero sense. If anything Chinese investors would want the open source operating system to be the most popular since the US is becoming more hostile and banning them from stuff more and more. Its why they’re investing in RISC-V development and the US is considering being hostile towards it for “national security reasons”

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I would think China would be eager to get out of western (USA) dominated Operating Systems.
          I know Russia has attempted it as couple of times, but with very little success.

      • BargsimBoyz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Steam and GoG are not just free services for gamers either. At their core they are businesses, and they invest significantly to try and make people spend more/get addicted to their services.

        I hate this whole idea that some companies are your friend. That just shows their marketing and branding is working on people and blinding people.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          11 months ago

          I hate this whole idea that some companies are your friend.

          It’s not a matter of them being your friend or not, it’s a matter of them respecting their customers, and giving their customers what they want, generating a win-win.

          These days most corporations are very happy with the win-lose scenarios, as it maximizes their profits.

        • CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Publicly traded companies, which we’ve all learned to hate and not take as our friends, are in no way comparable to Steam which is privately owned. Gabe Newell is in no way forced by shareholders to push for increased profits, the company has no interest in pushing for enshittification unlike VC funded startups.

          • BargsimBoyz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Thank goodness Gabe will live forever and Steam will always be a private company then!

            Oh… Shit.

            This is exactly what I mean. It’s like people just have no concept of the future. Point me to any private company that’s been around a long time and is still not shit.

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      GOG is also good for consumers, too (in some ways, moreso than Steam, like DRM-free games with install files) but it doesn’t get the same love. I understand why, Steam was already the market leader, has a way more polished product, and GOG really still focused on “what’s in the name” of Good Old Games. Most of their catalogue seems to be focused on older titles, which definitely makes it seemingly more catered to an older, classic gaming audience.

      • the_weez@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        I love the idea of gog but they need to invest in their own store. They need to make a client that’s worth a damn, or make the website work better, or both. I routinely forget that gog exists, if I had a client on my computer with a store that worked I would probably give them more money. Getting old games from gog working on Linux is usually fine but new releases are often a shit show. Lack of steam deck support really kills my willingness to buy from them. I will never enjoy downloading X amounts of 4gb files to run a game, just use a better protocol like BitTorrent or something. I don’t think it’s fair to consumers that the best gog clients are 3rd party, unsupported and receive zero funding from CPR for making gog a usable platform.

        I don’t like monopolies, but it’s hard to argue that any other service offers the same value to the end user.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Well yeah, because gog is selling games ethically… That’s great, I think it’s good that they exist, and if I want a specific game I’ll often go to them first

        But that’s kind of the limit… They don’t have much power, they advocate against drm and all, but I don’t see them fighting in the courts or the media the way the EFF always leads the charge.

        That’s fine - they’re a store, and like a local shop, I’d rather give them my business than a chain

        Steam gets so much praise because they’re Walmart, but instead of destroying the local economy, they go out of their way to add value to it and lower the barriers of entry for everyone. They’re a monopoly that goes out of their way to improve the industry they dominate, including by improving competition

    • runjun@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’ve said this before but as soon as Valve becomes a public company, immediately start protesting and sailing.

    • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      They were the company who had people who recognized that they already did all of their ideas and their best bet was to get out of the way for the next generation of developers. The other studios are apparently run by narcissists who still think they are at the top of their game. The world could learn a big lesson from Valve.

      • Copernican@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s not narcissism. It is a rational decision with major upside if you can pull off building your own storefront and launcher. If you can stop paying steam 30 percent of every sale, and have direct access to the user for data collection and targeted advertising, you try to execute. There is a ton of upside for Epic, EA, or Ubisoft to go direct to consumer and not have a middle man (and possibly be the middle man for others).

        • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          I’m referring to the young Gen X and elderly Millennials who still run the industry and still think that everything should be full of micro transactions, huge bugs, and DLC with no content. I’m referring to the people who are scared of Baldurs Gate III and claim that nobody can reach that standard. They are still thinking of games as they were 15 years ago but the world has moved on.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            young Gen X and elderly Millennials who still run the industry and still think that everything should be full of micro transactions, huge bugs, and DLC with no content.

            As a Gen-Xer I can say with some level of confidence that my gen was all about Shareware and cheering developers on when years later they would release the source code to their games (Doom, etc.). And the games you bought were all complete, no DLC.

            I can’t tell you how many years I used the RAR compression format before finally paying for a license for it.

            Early gaming/computing was a lot more socialistic than it was capitalistic.

            • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Also Gen X. I seriously never paid for a single piece of software. Then it started to come with your computer. Then you got it for free or through a work account.

              In the end I only pay for games.

          • Copernican@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            So much contradiction and ageism in this comment. Older people are the problem thinking of games they were 15 years ago, but also aggressively pushing micro transactions that a pretty new for non mobile games in the past 10 years.

            • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              That’s literally my argument. That’s literally what I’m saying. This is not a boomer problem, it’s a problem with those that came after. The world is ready to move on but the industry insiders aren’t.

              Older millennials got in and reinvented the world. Time to let the zoomers do the same.

              See also CD Project Rekt saying that they don’t want to be bought up because they are about to become big again.

              • Copernican@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                What are you talking about. Millennials are just now turning 40 years old. Gen X is the age of the major CEO’s and leaders in the industry. How do millenials “get out of the way” when they finally are hitting mid career where they have a say?

                • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I specifically said younger gen x and older millennials. When the millennials got in, they had great new ideas that changed the world. Now they are out of touch and holding back the industry. Just look at Bethesda and EA s examples of this.

                  All I’m really trying to say is that when you run out of ideas, get out of the way of those who still have them.

                  • Copernican@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    So your years of relevance are supposed to be 22 to 35 years old… What do people do with the last 30 years of their work like before they retire? I don’t think you understand how careers work. And ideas don’t just magically stop after you turn 30.