• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      They can even list there and sell Steam keys on their website and not pay any of that to Valve, with the only stipulation that Steam keys cannot be sold for less than on Steam itself.

      So basically:

      1. You don’t need to publish there
      2. But if you do, you can still publish elsewhere
      3. And you can sell Steam keys directly with no cut to Valve

      You only pay the 30% cut for sales made through Steam.

      That’s incredibly reasonable.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      There aren’t many option and all of them except one are predatory. Regulation that would limit the amount taken would be a real boon to the industry. Steam, Epic, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are all guilty of this. The government should step in but they don’t because of lobbying and donations.

      No one defends Microsoft when it comes to this. Gaben gets a free pass because he pretends to be a cool guy when he’s just another billionaire essentially robbing his workforce and customers.

      • sep@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Steam is the only store putting the customer first. The refund policy is top notch. Heck just making proton, giving gamers the choice of os, is the best thing for gamers since computers was invented!

        https://youtu.be/gwoAmifo9r0

        • richmondez@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          4 months ago

          Putting the customer first? Call me when I can transfer my license to anyone else I want without valve having to okay it like I can a physical copy then we are talking about putting the customer first.

          • sep@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            4 months ago

            That they are miles better then the competition, does not mean there are no room for improvements.

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Microsoft’s refund policy is top notch too and I see proton as leveraging open source to avoid dev costs.

          More importantly, everything steam does could be done with 5% instead of 30% and Gaben would still be filthy rich.

          Steam is as greedy as the other platforms and it’s us, the consumers, and the indie scene that suffer for it. Are you okay with your favorite indie studio closing and your favorite game not getting a sequel because Gaben wants 8000 million a year instead of 1000 million a year?

          There is most likely collusion and soft monopolies, these platforms are clearly not competing in good faith.

          • xthexder@l.sw0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            4 months ago

            proton as leveraging open source to avoid dev costs

            As a developer, I have no problem with this. Why do work that doesn’t need to be done?

            • Grimy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              4 months ago

              I don’t either, that is what open source is for afterall. I’m trying to point out that this decision wasn’t out of love for his customers but out of love for his bottom line. This let him compete with platforms with devices while having a seriously low entry cost compared to them. It’s just a smart business decision but people treat it as if it was charity.

          • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            Hold up, how is proton leveraging open source to avoid dev costs? Are you referring to steam using and contributing to existing projects instead of reinventing the wheel? Or to game developers that use it as a reason for not making native Linux versions, which wouldn’t be Valve’s workforce in the first place?

            I can see how the things Valve does contribute to their business model - steam input giving their controller compatibility with games, proton letting them launch a Linux-based handheld, and the new recording feature probably there for the steam deck… But the thing is, Valve is still providing all those things to customers for no extra charge, and they keep adding new stuff.

            • Grimy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              My point is that it isn’t charity. It’s just a smart business decision that reduces their cost greatly and let’s the community work for them for free. With all the licenses involved, I don’t even think they can even add a charge.

              If they could have built the same product but closed source, they would have.

              I love FOSS and in the end this benefits he community, I just don’t think that was the driving factor behind the decision and it doesn’t excuse them bleeding dry developers and colluding with other store fronts.