Do you think Steam is a "cold and corporate beast and a textbook rent-seeker" exploiting creators and consumers?

Related Stores

Steam

• 1
• 2

• 

  Diji1 on 21/05/2017 - 11:16

  +8

  I think Polygon is a site that exists to spread outrage by appealing to social justice warriors because that's what sells ads. They're famous for reviews where the author hasn't played the game very much.

  • 

    Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 11:24

    +1

    That might be but everything in this article is true and verifiable.
    You cannot just put all stuff and all authors there into the same drawer.
    Have you read the article? Have you checked the truth of the contents?
    I am very intrigued how Steam does all of those rather evil things, especially before an Australian Court, and still gets away with having a "saviour" and "holy" reputation. Really baffling.

    • 

      macrocephalic on 23/05/2017 - 16:35

      +1

      There are really only two arguments in the long winded article: 1. Steam cultivates a good guy brand. 2. Steam has a poor/illegal refund process.

      One of the those is a dick move, but not unusual. The other, which is the majority of the rant/column, is a non-issue.

      • 

        FrankMcFuzz on 09/06/2017 - 12:09

        Well I have never, EVER had a problem refunding a game, but I wasn't dumb enough to buy No Man's Sky, which most complaints about the refund process seem to be geared towards. They are also very lenient towards early access or new release games. Several times I have totally finished a game in a few hours, (over the refund process, one time I'd played a game 7.8 hours but disliked it so refunded it) but realise I'll never play it again and steam refunds me.

        Overall, I think it's experience based, and mine has been good. I know steam takes a BIG profit cut of sales, but a lot of those are profits the game wouldn't have made on a less popular platform so it evens out.

  • 

    Scrooge McDuck on 22/05/2017 - 01:13

    +1

    I think Polygon is a site that exists to spread outrage by appealing to social justice warriors because that's what sells ads. They're famous for reviews where the author hasn't played the game very much.

    That's the first article I've read on there and it wasn't worth it, overly long winded and ranty.

    Tim Colwill is a political correctness fascist who self-destructed the best Australian gaming community, games.on.net, by decreeing that anyone who didn't agree with the feminazi side of #GamerGate should leave immediately:

    https://archive.is/C2BAQ

    https://archive.is/NQxpJ

    My rant:

    CounterStrike was a large part of my personal development, socialisation, recreation and sense of community until 1.6. I refused to install 1.6 because of Steam and was dismayed at the lack of revolution from the community. I persistently campaigned against Steam on games.on.net but found myself preaching to an already poisoned crowd. I refused to compromise on my values and so was consequently handicapped in my gaming choices. I found refuge in Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, Crysis, Crysis Wars, MechWarrior: Living Legends, Tribes: Ascend, Arma 2, DayZ and Planetside 2 before my flame for gaming died out.

    I'd have to say MechWarrior: Living Legends was by far the best game I've ever played and was/is entirely developed by the community as a total conversion mod for Crysis Wars. But it's development was snuffed out by legal threats from Piranha Games who produced the woefully inferior MechWarrior Online with support from Crytek.

    Unfortunately, Crytek sold-out just like Valve, heavily dumbing down Crysis 2 for console gamers and requiring Origin for Crysis 3.

    Bohemia Interactive also required Steam for ArmA 3 and DayZ Standalone.

    😔

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 22/05/2017 - 09:25

    +2

    I think that people who use the term 'social justice warriors' are usually the ones getting outraged

  • 

    Autonomic on 22/05/2017 - 11:13

    +2

    I think "social justice warriors" are the new bogeymen. Why not judge the article on it's content? I'd be interested in hearing these reviews that they're famous for.

    • 

      Lysander on 22/05/2017 - 23:53

      I was in fact hoping for that but unfortunately some people prefer to take issue with the author, his previous articles, and/or his writing style.
      All of these things may be as they are (and I am not making a judgment either way) but the facts he states are true (and can be verified by anybody) and hence those can be discussed free of any feelings towards the author.
      So, I totally agree with you and I am glad that some people do see it that way, too.
      Have a great and pleasant evening.

• 

  Wystri Warrick on 21/05/2017 - 11:25

  Please add voting.

• 

  Draxxx on 21/05/2017 - 11:35

  +10

  Vote with your dollars.
  If you don't like them, don't use them. Simple.

  • 

    Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 11:40

    +5

    Of course. But they are kind of a monopoly now and then voting with dollars becomes difficult.
    Also, given how many people are outraged here when companies such as G2a "cheat" developers, I wonder why the same outrage does not hit Steam. That is all I am wondering. They really are the worst in terms of trying to wiggle out of their legal obligations it seems to me.

    • 

      Draxxx on 21/05/2017 - 14:43

      It's evolved as a form of DRM. It's nice to want to install from disc like the good old days, but piracy would put any small dev out of business in no time. I'm sure I've read anecdotal evidence that piracy rates can be >50%. The fact is these days it's either Steam, Ubi, or Origin. But not limited to games: Microsoft & Adobe have moved to a subscription (rent) model as well.
      I've been using steam for 12 years and never had an issue. I guess whether they are evil comes down to your personal experience.

      • 

        Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 15:11

        +1

        There are plenty of sites where you can get the latest Steam games for free as iso. I am not even a hardcore gamer or by any means a "hacker" in any kind of sense but even I know those sites. Steam is not necessarily a protection against piracy.
        The discs of old days had copy protection mechanisms too.

        What it comes down to is that there is no 100% protection. However, sometimes the protection used disadvantages a lot of honest users and people (example: copy protection on music Cds resulting in original cds not being able to be played in PCs or even on some stereos).

        Adobe is rent only now. Microsoft still has one-off purchases for Office.
        But even then one can easily get pirated copies (stand-alone) of every piece of software.

        The only way to make piracy unprofitable is to offer products at a fair price and make them available everywhere equally.

      • 

        definitive on 22/05/2017 - 01:05

        @Lysander: I think the difference is that Steam isn't just your way of getting games - its more like a gaming lifestyle, don't you think?

        The past few years, I've found many friends through steam. I built up a collection of games in my steam library to proudly display (having come from a torrent absolutely everything stance and feeling bad afterwards). It's not just getting the games, its more like showing your library and using this platform to connect with other people.

        When I buy a game on steam, I know I can't trade this, resell it, and until fairly recently, I even happily accepted the fact that I probably couldn't return it at all. But I knew all that before buying, and the convenience, the satisfaction of the collection and my Steam friends cover those issues up.

        I agree, Steam DRM is not great - but the platform (at least to me) is more than just a method of buying games.

      • 

        Lysander on 22/05/2017 - 01:12

        @definitive:

        Thanks for your opinion. Very well put.
        Personally, I cannot see any point in the profile stuff (displaying games, badges etc.) but of course everybody is different.

        Have a great night.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 22/05/2017 - 22:21

        @Lysander: Sometimes a fair price for a software product is still highly undesirable to consumers. Specialty software needs a lot of development for a small audience which are required to pay a high price to fund development as there is only a small market.

        If you're talking about additional "wants" kind of software the consumer wouldn't purchase if the price was too high I agree, for example using photoshop instead of something like gimp or paint.net. Sometimes it is related to a monopoly such as Office which won't open it's standards but sometimes it's small code that took a company of like 10 people a few years to perfect and relies on honesty.

• 

  outlander on 21/05/2017 - 11:41

  +5

  Steam is evil, Microsoft is evil, the whole damn system is evil. But the more of them that there are in the game, the more they fight each other and the less they focus on us. If you buy stuff at full price, its probably a good idea to diversify, but when you're a bottomfeeder like me and only buy games when they're 95% off, it really doesn't matter what you do

• 

  [Deactivated] on 21/05/2017 - 11:55

  -4

  Why isn't a poll selection of TL;DR?

  • 

    Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 11:58

    +5

    Not sure if I understand your comment correctly.

    There is a poll.

    Not a big fan of TL;DR - if one cannot be bothered to read a paragraph then one should not vote.
    However, the last two lines are really what you want anyway - it just does not say TL;DR.

• 

  trustnoone on 21/05/2017 - 12:07

  +3

  Yeah I've hated Steam for ages, though I do admit I feel they've slowly gotten worse over the years and have become even more about money by throwing the users under the bus. I don't mean just in terms of certain policies but even features I feel they are happy to remove just to increase their own coin.

  It feels good to know people are starting to feel less inclined to Steam.

• 

  supnigs super skids on 21/05/2017 - 12:12

  Steam has steam box and pimps games to us all! Good bargains can be had. Toot TOOOT

  • 

    Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 12:15

    -1

    You obviously do not care about the game creators but simply about bargains regardless of those making games that give you joy being exploited.
    As long as you get bargains from Steam you do not care about exploitation and anti-consumer behaviour.
    Is that how I need to interpret and understand your comment?

    • 

      supnigs super skids on 21/05/2017 - 12:18

      -1

      I understand you are upset because you must be a content creater that probably isn't doing too well in consumer sales so would like a bigger share of steams distribution cut

      • 

        Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 12:30

        Actually I am not. I am just fairness and socially just minded.
        And I recognise it is not fair that Steam started out with a 75%/25% profit split for creators (75% for Steam, 25% for creators) which already was outrageous and now they have reduced it to 5-7% which is appalling.
        And yet the work is done all by the creators and none by Steam. If you think that is OK I will offer you a job where you make me money (say $20000 a month and I pay you $1000-$1400 for your troubles and I keep the rest for doing nothing). Let me know if you would go for that.

      • 

        supnigs super skids on 21/05/2017 - 12:35

        +2

        @Lysander: steam created a sales and publishing platform which enabled developers to get their product out there. They enabled many small companies to have direct exposure to a vast audience.

      • 

        Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 12:49

        @supnigs super skids:

        At what price though?

        Also, what price are the consumers paying in terms of loss of their rights?

        Given the profit shares on Steam, workshop items could costs 7% of their current price and the developers would still get the same money. The consumer would save 93%.

        Or with games: a game costing $30 normally, could have a regular price of $20 without Steam (and that is without sales). The consumer would save 33%.

        Would you be prepared to pay a 33% or 93% premium on other things such as Amazon's one-click button for the sake of a bit more convenience?

        Or if a car delivery service drove your new car to your door (say 5km) and instead of $20,000 for the car (which you paid to the dealer or manufacturer of the item) the delivery service would then charge you $30,000 or even better $285,714 for the car for the privilege of buying it through them and having it delivered to your door?

        And also, you seem to forget that Steam did break the law on several occasions landing them in court, including Australia!

      • 

        supnigs super skids on 21/05/2017 - 13:00

        +2

        @Lysander: you obviously think everyone on steam is slapped the same % cut. There's different sales tiers.

        Every company goes to court about something. That's reality. Don't like steam? Go elsewhere. It's that simple.

      • 

        Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 13:05

        @supnigs super skids:

        The problem is that one cannot due to them having a monopoly.

        I suppose that in the near future the EU and then the US regulator will break it up and force regulation upon them.

        You are right. The percentages I mentioned are the best sales tier - the ones below get even less!

      • 

        supnigs super skids on 21/05/2017 - 13:13

        @Lysander: so you want to leverage off steam's distribution but don't want to pay it's asking fees? Lol!

      • 

        Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 13:19

        @supnigs super skids:

        Of course not.

        But if you ask 93% you can hardly also claim you are pro-consumer and it is for the benefit of the consumer, now can you?

        Fairer fees would be OK. Maybe 75% for the creator and 25% for Steam.

        I find it strange that this kind of distribution margin is accepted with Steam (when there are minimal costs involved) and yet people complain about $5.95 delivery fees for a physical item where a lot more things are involved.
        Or when people on Ebay make profit on the postage fees.

        For a $30 game you pay $10 delivery+profit fee. For workshop items the delivery+profit fee is 93% of the purchase price.
        The fact you find this ok and normal is really concerning and explains why companies try to rip consumers off in Australia and set much higher prices than elsewhere in the world for many items.

      • 

        supnigs super skids on 21/05/2017 - 13:40

        @Lysander: again, steam is not just "postage". The amount of content on there speaks for itself.

      • 

        Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 14:20

        +1

        @supnigs super skids:

        Not created by Steam though! That is the whole point. All the contents with the exception of a couple of games are created by developers, game creators, independent people and Steam reaps the profits of their work. For those works Steam is just a delivery service, no more, no less.

      • 

        ozhunter on 21/05/2017 - 16:14

        +1

        @Lysander:

        For those works Steam is just a delivery service, no more, no less.

        Isn't that the same for ebay, Google Play, App Store etc? There's a fee to pay to be part of that distribution network.

      • 

        Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 16:20

        @ozhunter:

        True. Interestingly, those companies you listed are also very greedy and are all currently being investigated in various parts of the world (or already paid fines) for tax evasion.

        I am not criticising paying a fee for providing a distribution service - but when you have little or no choice that fee must be fair rather than being extortionate.
        And if those companies cannot self-regulate they must receive a little "assistance and nudge" from the law and regulatory authorities. Relying on them to do the right thing is like waiting for the day when education is completely free in Australia. ;-)

      • 

        tebbybabes on 21/05/2017 - 18:28

        @Lysander:

        I would definitely go for saving the 93%!

        or the $20 game instead of $30.

        That's why it doesn't matter to me whom the seller is! I always try to find the best price for the good. And to be completely honest, I don't think I've purchased straight from the steam store in ages. I've been pretty much price sensitive and (selling) platform agnostic

      • 

        tebbybabes on 21/05/2017 - 18:34

        @Lysander:
        At the back of my mind, yes I'm aware these companies are very greedy. If they're so horrible, wouldn't that mean that someone could come up with something better?

        I mean, there already are alternatives to steam's digital storefront. Which I, and I gather a fair number of other buyers use. Wouldn't a better service e.g. cheaper, fairer, etc, win out by virtue of it's superiority?

      • 

        Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 19:21

        @tebbybabes:

        No, it would not unfortunately. Steam is so rich now that it can use price-dumping, employ a huge marketing machinery, even pay incentives to publishers to put their products exclusively on Steam so that the barriers for entry for small services are extremely high.

        You can see this in many areas of life where the most popular is not the best product or even best value for money product but the one produced by the company with the deepest pockets and hence biggest marketing power.

        I wish it was as you described but unfortunately it is not.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 21/05/2017 - 12:48

  I wouldnt read clickbait, Steam caters to a niche, not really your average joe, they'll be things some like, some dont about it.

  That publication isn't Microsoft owned, they are very clickbaity like most sites that exist for outrage or game schilling for advertising clicks. I think At one point they did some documentary with them once i believe (not sure entirely, game coverage is console war trash, has been for a while, pandering to insecure overgrown adult nerd culture/ the small overinflated internet "gamer" group). Some of the games writers currently on some game sites actually work with ps and their blogs.

  Most of these sites shill for the PS platform in the current era.
  I wouldnt worry to much. Games writing is terrible, atrocious. Gaming isnt considered important enough for it to be taken seriously, then again all writing/journalism is quite bad, has been that for a long time.

  • 

    Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 12:51

    +2

    You might be right but the substance of the article is actually true. I checked every claim.
    So, really it does not matter to me whether their other article are sensationalist or click-bait. This one is actually well written and contains very true statements.

• 

  Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 12:53

  +2

  Just a question out of curiosity:

  the last option in the polls was an '"dud" option: if you do not care about gaming, why are you in a gaming-related post/thread?
  ;-)

• 

  plmko on 21/05/2017 - 13:10

  +2

  I try to shop on alternatives like GoG as much as possible.

  • 

    Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 13:11

    I do too. And prefer to buy and use the DRM-free version on Humble Bundle.

• 

  scrimshaw on 21/05/2017 - 14:02

  +3

  I haven't bought a game from Steam for almost 2 years now. All my purchases so far on Steam have been

  1. Trading cards, probably less than $2 worth in total
  2. DLC packages (less than $20 in total)

  Oftentimes you cannot buy DLC items as a seperate SKU outside of the Steam environment (for e.g you want nice cars in Rocket League), you're forced to go thru Steam. And I don't like that. I would prefer the developer offered some kind of in-game store where the 100% of proceeds actually went to the dev and you're not forced to buy the crappy Steam Wallet credits.

  In regards to steam having too much market share, that's due to the fault of the developers choosing to go Steam as their sole content delivery platform of choice.

  They could easily partner with GoG (like CD Projekt Red did with Witcher 1-3) and Blizzard (Bungie Studios did with Destiny 2)\
  However indie game developers see Steam as a good platform because Steam offers great visibility and if you want your game to succeed, Steam usually is a better choice over Itch.io or GOG Galaxy.

• 

  Axelstrife on 21/05/2017 - 14:33

  +3

  I only like steam as a almost all in one place for pc games.
  Drm is a evil debs must have as it is games get cracked fast no drm no crack needed immediately put up as a torrent.

  Though I do wish developers sold keys at a competitive price on there own website which would mean steam not cashing in. Like they do. I don't buy off steam as it's insanely expensive for Australians.

• 

  Baebs on 21/05/2017 - 15:18

  +4

  They're all about profits and keeping the lion's share. Valve doesn't give two shits about the community, they were happy to leech off the disgusting gambling underbelly, only to shut it down once things went south. I drew the line after they tricked users with supposed "limited edition" content, only to make it mainstream to milk an already expired game dry.

• 

  chriise on 21/05/2017 - 15:47

  The first I heard of Steam was when they moved CS on to it's platform.. (early 00's)… Didn't like it then, but that game has grown in popularity hugely, even after 15 years. They must have done something right…

  • 

    Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 16:04

    The game is just good. It has nothing to do with Steam. Steam grew through CS, it was not CS that grew because of Steam.

    • 

      chriise on 21/05/2017 - 16:08

      That is true.

    • 

      trongy on 21/05/2017 - 22:19

      And Counter-Strike started out as a mod for the Valve game Half-Life.

• 

  tebbybabes on 21/05/2017 - 18:22

  +1

  Hmmm, it provides a service for me. I can get reasonably cheap games with reasonably well managed patching at stuff. I can't see why that would make me feel bad.

  Now if I were to take into account how little of the profits the developers got because steam is shafting them, that would be disappointing but it doesn't diminish from the convenience I get from the service. If I continue to buy from them, does that make a me a terrible person?

  Yes, Steam has become somewhat of a monopoly and a developer would be pretty crazy not to put his game on the biggest storefront, but in the end, that's not my decision, it's the developers. Why does it then become my problem?

  I admire your fairmindedness and if I were so inclined like so many others, I would try to find ways to make the dev got more for their work. But really at the end of the day, I don't see the benefit of making it a crusade and making it my personal problem. Kudos to the people who go out of their way, but I don't think my conscience will suffer if I didn't.

  • 

    Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 19:34

    +3

    What you say is fair enough. However, if people let companies like Steam etc. get away with this kind of greedy business practices, in the medium to long term we all pay for it, for example by higher prices (than they would otherwise be), reduced competition, less creativity and innovation etc.
    There is a reason why virtually every country in the world as laws prohibiting monopolies - because they are bad in many ways for everybody but the monopolist.

    When Steam basically told the Australian courts (who in that instance were representing the Australian public) "F..k you, we don't care what we are obliged to do and what is right - we will not do it unless forced and even then we will delay until the very last second!" that is when the Australian gaming community should have shown them the finger. Essentially Steam told every Australian "F..k you" and that they are above Australian law and the Australian people.

    Anyway, have a great evening. Thank you for your opinion which was nice, interesting, and a pleasure to read.

    • 

      frewer on 21/05/2017 - 20:17

      I can have the url to that court case ?

      • 

        Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 20:27

        +2

        If you read the article, it is mentioned there. Then maybe Google. Search "Steam court case Australia" and you will find information on it.
        I would have to do the same as I do not keep thousands of court cases on file.

        By the way, they did the same in Europe and tried to wiggle out of their obligations under the "distance selling directive" attempting to show the middle finger to the people there, too.

      • 

        trongy on 21/05/2017 - 22:30

        +3

        Here you go: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Valve Corporation (No 3) [2016] FCA 196

        Valve have lodged an appeal that is yet to be heard.
        Kotaku: Valve And The ACCC Are Still Going At It

• 

  [Deactivated] on 21/05/2017 - 18:42

  +1

  Steam give publishers so much freedom and control. They can generate add many steam keys as they want and set their own pricing. Valve has done so much work to it, barely set and forget. DRM itself is inherently evil (especially when the pirates can use a DRM free copy instead) but it is/was necessary for most publishers to accept Steam and they do it in a way that adds value for the customer. Valve as a company are not perfect but they are not that bad either .

  • 

    Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 19:26

    Well, if that is your approach and I compare features introduced by Steam and Origin then Origin should really be considered less evil (although in fact they seem to be considered the epitome of evil in gaming) because for example they introduced a refund policy 2 years before Steam and did so on their own accord (not because they were forced by the law as Steam was).

    I know some people who do business with Steam/Valve - not so much freedom and control. Steam dictates in fact what they can do very strictly.
    Steam puts on a face for the media, and the real face underneath is quite different only that you normally do not see that unless you are a developer.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 21/05/2017 - 23:11

      If you wrote this before the refund policy I might have agreed with you, but as far as I'm concerned they have righted that wrong, even offering refunds outside the return window for pre-refund policy in individual circumstances, and their new refund policy (with the 2 hour window) goes above and beyond the minimum requirement, nor are they giving out the refunds with a grudge.

      • 

        Lysander on 22/05/2017 - 23:58

        You are right that they do. The point is though that they had to be forced to do this (and are in fact still battling this in the Australian courts because refunding is not good for them; in Europe they tried again to wiggle out of this by sneakily asking users to waive their rights under the distance selling directive) while Origin voluntarily introduced this.
        I believe that introducing such a feature voluntarily should be judged very positively while Steam' behaviour is on the other end of the spectrum and should be judged negatively.

        What would assess more positively? Someone who apologises or is remorseful on his/her own accord as opposed to someone who only does so because he/she is forced?
        To me that makes a big difference and in other settings of life it does too (for example in the courtroom).

• 

  Hirolol on 21/05/2017 - 19:37

  +1

  so what have they done that is shady?

  You really need a TL:DR section for the article you linked.

  the most shady shit was that csgo gambling thing, how they actually allowed it to go on for so long and then when shit hits the fan thats the only time they step in.

  do people know that steam actually help new developers with the release of their games?
  I'm not a fan of the early access games system but its still good to help devs get set up and start off with a bit of cash flow.

  • 

    Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 20:32

    +1

    Guys, you need to be a little less "laid-back" and use google yourself. There is tons of info on this. By the way, there are changes coming changing the trading cards system, abolishing (I think) the greenlight system etc.
    Whatever changes Valve makes it is for their benefit only. If there is a slight benefit to others, so be it but the motivating factor for Valve is to grab as much cash as possible.

    Examples:

    https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=steam+court+case+aus…

    https://www.pcgamesn.com/valve-dont-have-plans-change-after-…

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/2quaeo/refunds_are_c…

    By the way, the example you mentioned is more than sufficient to get a glimpse of Steam's ethics and morals.

    • 

      Hirolol on 21/05/2017 - 22:09

      +2

      You are the one that made the thread about steam being shady but you don't say what they did.
      (Thank you for the links you provided now though)

      You just linked an article written by some steam hater.
      Huge conflict of interest from the start.
      Of course he is going to point out everything steam has done wrong.

      All these companies just want money at the end of the day.
      How they go about it can be shady as (profanity) but game developers can do the exact same thing.
      Isn't origin run by EA? They aren't known to be the most moral company out there either.

      I don't really care about the trading cards but I really doubt they would be getting rid of the green light system.

      Pretty much everyone is going to go for the cheapest price and unless Steam does something really (profanity) up then people aren't going to go and change platforms.
      Everyone has all their friends on steam, all the good games are released on steam.
      Origin and uplay have not had any game released on them that is out of this world or E-Sport worthy, so why would anyone change?

      • 

        Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 22:59

        They are getting rid of the green light system. It is being replaced with something called Steam Direct and Explorers.

        You do not need Steam to be successful - see World of Warcraft.

        The article is not by a Steam hater - and even if it was, the facts he states are true and verifiable (google it if you must).

        I am not saying Origin is moral but they did things Steam is celebrated for two years earlier than Steam and without being forced to by the law as Steam was. And yet Steam is celebrated while Origin and other similar services are hated.

        Valve admitted that "fake games" make their money off the trading card system - what they forgot to mention is that Steam makes tons of money from those very same games too. I do not know about you but I find that morally reprehensible.

        So, if you go for the cheapest price, do you buy from sites where there is a chance that you could get a key cheaply because it was bought with a stolen credit card or stolen from developers (see accusations against G2A for example which of course are not proven)? If that is the case I suppose you do not care about whether developers and creators get fair remuneration for their work, is that correct?

      • 

        ssyl9 on 22/05/2017 - 16:40

        +1

        @Lysander:

        You do not need Steam to be successful - see World of Warcraft.

        misleading example. WoW is made by one of the largest gaming company by far. Blizzard is a whole other monster on their gaming distribution.

        Would you say the same about indie games? Can ANY indie games actually take off if it is not on steam?

        In one way steam undercut devs, however in a different view, the devs might not even get 1/4 of the sales if it is not on steam. They would need to spend a hell lot more in advertising, in marketing to get noticed.

        So, if you go for the cheapest price, do you buy from sites where there is a chance that you could get a key cheaply because it was bought with a stolen credit card or stolen from developers

        No, because they could be revoked when they are found out. I am all for getting things as cheap as possible (or else why will I be on this site) but I will need to get it with the same quality (in this case, a true copy of the game)

        If that is the case I suppose you do not care about whether developers and creators get fair remuneration for their work, is that correct?

        No, I have to say I actually don't care.

        Let me question you.

        Do you care that the owner of a closing down sell is probably going to be in heavy debt if you buy things this cheap? Do you offer to pay the full price or even the cost price even it is discounted more than that?

        No you don't. Because that is not your problem. Your problem is how do you buy the thing you want with the least amount of money. Whether the owner will make money out of the sale, you don't really care.

        Also, this is not my fight.. If the Devs don't want to be undercut, then they can very well release it in an individual platform. But the chances of it being noticed is much lessor than releasing on steam.

• 

  Liqqeh on 21/05/2017 - 19:47

  +8

  Your long list of rhetorical questions clearly paints the picture of a biased individual. You've read the article and soaked it up for all its worth. I've scrolled through the author's twitter and he seems like an intelligent guy so I've got no qualms with him personally. Some of his views are ridiculous though. Steam provides a service that consumers and content creators pay for. There is no bait-and-switch happening, and content creators are aware of how much they'll be paid in exchange for exposure to millions of consumers through steam.

  You use "evil" quite often, seemingly without understanding that people are buying these products. The author talks about the old days of going into a brick and mortar store, but I think he (and perhaps you?) have forgotten the difficulties gamers have faced getting refunds from Gamestop/EB in the past. Microsoft(the company associated with your link, right?), as well as Apple, and any number of other giants are responsible for their own indiscretions. In the case of the Australia, they did wrong and they paid the fine. Oh no, $3million is not enough? 10mil? 50mil? 100mil? what is the point you or the author are trying to make? It's been forever recorded that a mistake has been made and they've been punished accordingly, and now a precedent is set for future incidents. I'd argue that that is far more valuable to future consumers.

  A quick scroll through your history shows you've got no qualms with sending people into the arms of steam (http://imgur.com/gallery/k4RkV), so I don't know why you're suddenly outraged. I'd venture that you have had recent difficulties trying to refund something? If so, then all the best, I've had no issues in the past.

  Finally, the author himself owns a troll clickbait site and is writing for a competitor of Valve. Hardly an "unbiased" source as you claim.

  They're far from being "Good Guy Valve", but they're no more "evil" than any other company with this degree of reach in any other industry. No need to take a holy war out against these guys.

  • 

    Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 20:40

    -1

    Sorry mate, Neither I am biased nor am I having difficulties trying to refund anything. My question was actually meant as it was asked: neutral. I am just a bit puzzled as why a company that is restrictive, controlling, greedy is loved so much when other companies providing a similar service such as Origin (who in fact introduced refunds two years earlier and on their accord) is so villified by people.
    I agree with you that the other companies such as Microsoft etc. have done wrong and paid fines.

    As I said, I only care about the facts in the article which are true and if you google them you will find they are true. If the author does other BS is irrelevant as that does not make the facts that are relevant to the case here, untrue.

    You are right of course. No need for a war. But that being said, no need to villify other companies such as Origin or UPlay either, who objectively looking at the introduction of features, provide better customer service and yet are so hated by a lot of people.
    Even G2A who is criticised for depriving developers of hard earned money then should not be criticised as Steam exploits developers and creators much the same.

    TL; DR: They are all evil and anti-consumer - hence they should also be treated and judged the same instead of being differently.

    • 

      canyoudoitcheaper on 21/05/2017 - 21:56

      +2

      Origin and UPlay are less well regarded that Steam simply because the latter is a better product. It is much more user friendly and a great platform for game devs to sell their products.

      EA and Ubisoft are also guilty of pioneering the whole micro-transaction and 'annual release' (Battlefield series) aspects of gaming, which is why their DRM platforms are less liked.

    • 

      trongy on 22/05/2017 - 08:20

      +3

      I think your bias is inherent in your poll question. I didn't respond, because I don't agree with any of your offered responses.

      Valve corporation (the owner of Steam) is neither good nor evil, but amoral. As a corporation it has no more capability of being good or evil as it does of feeling love or hatred. To believe otherwise is childish and naive.

      As a for-profit corporation, Valve's behavior is best explained by the profit motive. e.g. the company's management initially saw the gambling thing as increasing short term profits. It was only when they realised that it was damaging the reputation of the company and threatening long team profits that they acted against it.

      As a for-profit corporation, I don't see Valve as being fundamentally different to any other for-profit corporation. A civil society needs to constrain the behaviour of all such corporations through its laws. I hope that Valve loses it's appeal against the ACCC and is compelled to offer refunds in line with the Australian Consumer Law.

      • 

        ssyl9 on 22/05/2017 - 16:54

        This is true.

        why is there no choice for

        OP is being misleaded and things are not as bad as he think.

        I think the reason is that every time a for-profit corporation get more profit is considered evil (see banks)

        They are not running a charity. Advertisement, server upkeep, distribution all needs $$.

        however people do not know that these profits benefits the vast community (shareholders, Super funds, investment funds) coz they all need to pitchfork at something when they think someone is earning too much money.

      • 

        KBZ on 22/05/2017 - 18:00

        I agree. OP really you have no bias? Nice revision bud.

        Do you still think Valve/Steam is good/beneficial for gaming and consumers given its past actions and upcoming changes?
        Do you think Steam is a "cold and corporate beast and a textbook rent-seeker" exploiting creators and consumers?

      • 

        Lysander on 22/05/2017 - 20:31

        -1

        @ssyl9:

        As I said before, running a company to maximise profit is perfectly fine. Just do not pretend to do things for consumers' sake but simply say "Hey, we are a business and whatever we do is to maximise profits". Don't try to sell it to the consumers as "Hey, we are doing this for you because we care so much about you."

        If you really believe companies like that benefit the wide community, how do you explain the fact that Steam is making lots and lots of money in Australia and yet refuses to pay any tax on such income while you and I pay tax? How does that benefit the community?

        Also, in essence you are saying the banks are the same. If so, how come people complain about their greed all the time but when Steam does it it's fine?

        And why is Steam good and Origin bad? Origin is bad by virtue of being a service offered by EA which again is simply considered evil? And why? Because they tried to maximise their profits with various stupid actions, just like Steam does. Except Steam is still great while Origin is evil - it seems no matter what.

      • 

        Lysander on 22/05/2017 - 20:32

        -1

        @KBZ:

        Wow, so you know how to use that function.
        It was done right at the outset, so nothing dodgy going on there.
        And no, no bias.
        Steam does a lot of things right but also a lot of things wrong, the biggest being their pretense to be so beneficial and doing everything for the good of the gamer rather than their own balance sheets.

      • 

        ssyl9 on 23/05/2017 - 13:29

        +1

        You keep saying how people think "When steam does it, its fine"

        where is your basis on this?

        I think it is fine for a company to raise profit as it is. Consumers are basically gonna vote with their wallet.

        Why is steam not criticized as much as Origin?

        Because simply to commit to not playing any steam game is much harder than committing to not play any games on the Origin platform.

        Complaints alone doesn't hurt. Removing accounts and boycott games will. But to boycott steam is basically saying goodbye to PC gaming bar a few Blizzard releases.

        Thus why the backlash is small, not because the whiners are ok with it. It is because they cannot do anything about it, so might as well as not complain as they wont be able to answer the question "well why do you still give them money if you hate them so much?"

        It is simply whiners are whining less about steam.

        Maybe you should be asking your own kind why they whine less and disregard people here who don't really care.

        As for the tax avoiding thing. Nearly every international company does it. It is not news. Its not up to me to chase their taxes up. Am I ok with them tax avoiding. No, but can I do anything about it? Unless Australian laws change, it will always be like that. So maybe your question should address to the parliament? If you are gonna boycott any international company who don't pay Aussie tax.. good luck with surviving..

    • 

      Liqqeh on 22/05/2017 - 22:02

      "Neither I am biased nor am I having difficulties trying to refund anything."

      "a company that is restrictive, controlling, greedy"

      Both statements were said within the same paragraph. Choose one, as you're far from unbiased. I didn't dispute any of the "facts" that were presented in the article. No need to reaffirm that statement with me.

      Furthermore, go clarify your understanding of the word "neutral". E.g.:
      - "What are your thoughts on steam? (poll included)" - that's a neutral title
      - "Do you think Steam is a "cold and corporate beast and a textbook rent-seeker" exploiting creators and consumers?" - not a neutral title.
      - Similarly "What are your opinions on OP?" - fair title.
      - "Some guy on the internet said "OP IS A (profanity)" do you agree?" - not a fair title as you're inciting bias through a quote.

      You're not an idiot, and you know full-well what bias is. There's no harm in admitting you're biased. We're all consumers of steam products, it's literally impossible to be unbiased. It's fundamental logic. You're wrong, and in arguing that you're not biased is a fallacy itself.

      This is a community of shrewd cheapskates, myself definitely included, all but 2-3 are explaining you're wrong. You've read one strongly-biased article and have latched onto it. You've been thorough bent over and pumped by this comment section. I'd suggest finding a more fruitful topic of debate, and continue waging your war in private. All the best.

      TL;DR: Git gud.

      • 

        Lysander on 22/05/2017 - 23:44

        -2

        You are entitled to your opinion.

        From your comments I would suggest you are biased towards Steam.

        It is funny you say this a community of shrewd cheapskates but yet in deals involving G2A or Origin, the same community of shrewd cheapskates (your term, not mine) passionately argues about morals and paying a bit more to ensure the developers do not get shafted. Somehow that does not fit the image of shrewd cheapskates that are only after the cheapest deal that you suggest.

        To me it thankfully suggests that most people still have a morals compass and do not leave their morals at the door just because of the cheapest deal.

        And regarding the other comments - I read the numbers very differently. Besides, probably for good reason no-one has so far answered why "good guy Steam" refuses to pay taxes (among other companies such as Amazon, Ebay, Google etc. which are equally wrong and reprehensible) while the average Joe pays taxes and not just a few cents. That does not sit well with the image of a "good company" and one that has corporate responsibility and is beneficial to the society it operates in. It rather screams "give me your money and then I want to gtfo as I do not care about your community, society, and our moral and legal responsibilities".

        By the way, of course you can have a provocative title if you want to call it that and still be unbiased.
        I use Steam and have games there - that does not mean I have to accept everything they do and lose my right to criticise them (I also have a bank account and yet I do not approve of many of their business practices).

• 

  Fiximol on 21/05/2017 - 19:52

  +1

  Steam is a natural monopoly - it is far better for the consumer to have all their games in one collection than to have it distributed over multiple services. It would be more inefficient to suggest any anti-monopoly regulation - that's why I dislike origin.

  • 

    Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 20:43

    -1

    If that is the case, would it not be better and certainly more efficient to have one big pharmaceutical company providing each and every medicine?
    The problem with that is the pricing power which you can see in that industry because of patents - essentially companies can charge whatever they want for their new patented drug.
    I am sorry but I think regulation is necessary to ensure competition. It might be less efficient but in the medium to long term it is better and cheaper for the consumer.

    • 

      Fiximol on 21/05/2017 - 21:10

      You are confusing the role of a manufacturer and a distributor.

      If you want to talk about medicines, you are absolutely correct, and you should have a look at the CSO where wholesalers are paid by the government to ensure that they provide each and every medicine available on the PBS.

      This is very different to a pharmaceutical company who manufactures the medication.

      • 

        Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 23:05

        Steam is both though. And in which industry does the distributor take 75% of the profits while the manufacturer only takes 25%? I do not know any as that profit or sales split is just outrageous.

        The example holds though: why don't we centralise everything into one distributor, certainly that would be more efficient, right? Whether or not that would really be the case, one thing is sure - any market dominated by a monopolist or markets with little or no competition have higher prices for the consumers and yield more profit for the monopolist or few players.

        From a pro-consumer perspective that is not good and hence regulation is needed to ensure healthy competition.

      • 

        Fiximol on 21/05/2017 - 23:34

        @Lysander:

        Valve has like 4 games that they publish. It is not the same.

        There is absolutely nothing stopping competitors entering the market and certainly Blizzard Ubisoft and EA have done so with their own catalogues. The fact that Activision , which owns blizzard and hence has their entire playerbase who all use the program formerly known as battlenet does not use their own distribution means that the working relationship with valve is perfectly fine. You are also free to buy from other electronic distributors including Amazon or from your local brick and mortar. There is zero reason to regulate steam when it comes to market power.

        If you want to complain that indie artists only get 25% for their work I would argue that they would get $0 if not for a distribution system via steam. For comparison, the nba collective bargaining agreement only gives players 50% of all revenue and they have much more pull and influence than any single individual artist making 3d skins would.

        And if you think that the final point of sale retailer pocketing 75% of the total sale price is outrageous then you should look at what margins are in retail. Do you think Myer pays much more than $5 for that shirt they sell for $20?

      • 

        Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 23:53

        @Fiximol:

        Except that Myer does a lot more than Steam, namely source, quality control, employ people, pay taxes in Australia (something that Steam does not do!), custom fees etc..

        Even if I buy from a Brick and Mortar store I have to use Steam, unlike in the old days where buying a PC game on DVD meant I could install it and play it without someone looking over my shoulder and forcing me to verify my purchases via the internet all the time.

        Indie artists would not get $10 if it was not for Steam - the conclusion from that would be that it is Steam who creates all the value.

        I find it strange to have people defend Steam so much when probably the same people forced Steam to undo the "pay for a mod" system they tried to introduce because Steam tried to profit off the work of indie developers and creators.

        Personally, I support GOG and other DRM-free platforms whenever it is possible. Sure I have Steam games but have not bought anything from Steam itself - most are from bundles or free.
        Allowing Steam to cement its monopoly and anti-consumer behaviour will increase the possibility of them being able to increase prices at their discretion (and Oz is already ripped off when it comes to pricing).

      • 

        Fiximol on 22/05/2017 - 10:24

        +1

        @Lysander:

        I am not defending steam as much as show that they are just your average corporation/business entity. The main problem with the article you referred to is that for some reason the author expected there to be a "good guy valve" when any high school student who did economics would tell you that the aim of a company is to maximise profits within the constraints of the law.

        If you want to say that valve does not pay Australian tax so you don't want to support them, that's fine. However, this has nothing to do with their market power (Valve did not invent tax dodging). Moreover, does GOG pay Australian tax?

        There are plenty of games before and after steam where user made content was available for free (for example, XCOM long war, or Sims content packs) by fans; now they get paid for a business transaction. I don't see the issue here. Valve is not forcing people to make content; they are giving them an OPTION to charge for their content.

        Overall, you are entitled to your negative opinions to Valve as a corporation - EVERY corporation does something that a subgroup of people will dislike (just like Governments). However, to wrap it in some pro-consumerism spin is misguided since their position as the sole provider is one of necessity. Your response is a purely emotional response (and that's perfectly legitimate - just like most religious debates) and I respect that, but I do not agree with your "pro consumerism" spin on this.

• 

  gimli on 21/05/2017 - 21:22

  +1

  bikies?

  • 

    Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 23:07

    Do you know any who would be willing to make the long trip to the US? ;-)

    • 

      AlienC on 22/05/2017 - 11:53

      I know one that used to live in the US does that count?

• 

  Black Brown Blue on 21/05/2017 - 23:44

  This is why you get a PS4 and join the PlayStation ecosystem.

  • 

    Lysander on 21/05/2017 - 23:53

    Well, I will probably do that as soon as I am all played out on the PS3 that I have many unplayed games for and which is currently unused due to too much work. ;-)

• 

  cdaddy on 21/05/2017 - 23:56

  +2

  Just read the steam subreddit. There is always dodgy shit + bugs related to the steam store (bundles costing more, free to play games actually not free, fake reviews…)

• 

  SilentBob on 21/05/2017 - 23:56

  Steam seems fine as far as I'm concerned.

  Despite the cut they do take, people that put their games on steam have a better chance at making more money with the cut taken than if they tried to distribute it on any other platform.

• 

  johnno07 on 22/05/2017 - 00:09

  +2

  That article was a difficult read. I'm sorry - but what a whingefest. As far as I can tell, the author simply takes issue with Valve being a for-profit company, and thinks anyone who likes the service is a braindead zombie. 30% is substantial, undoubtedly, but so is 125 million potential customers. And can we also take a moment to talk about the service being pretty damn good? Amazing servers that let you basically saturate your bandwidth when downloading games, the ability to stream your games to other devices over LAN, and semi-share your games across accounts? Valve is no worse than any other capitalistic corporation out to make a buck - they just happen to be selling a good service while they do it.

  • 

    Lysander on 22/05/2017 - 00:51

    You are right. The article was long and not easy to read. However, the law suits and breaches of law committed by Valve are real and factual.
    Also, I am not saying Steam is bad per se. What I take issue with is the fact that Steam tried to pretend they are the good guys when in fact they only introduce many features such as refunds because they have to and not because they think it would be a good idea or be good customer service. And other services such as Origin do that 2 years before Steam and yet they get slammed.
    I really do not understand the magical power of Steam. ALL DRM services decrease user-control and hence are not as good as DRM free. Plus, no-one really knows what data Steam, Origin etc. record secretly in the background.
    In my opinion, instead of supporting any DRM system, consumer should push for freedom and DRM-free - no more and no less.

    • 

      johnno07 on 22/05/2017 - 08:53

      ALL DRM services decrease user-control and hence are not as good as DRM free

      This is where I respectfully disagree. In a vacuum, yes, DRM is worse than no DRM (for the end user). But it's not a vacuum. In reality Steam is DRM plus its whole service. A social platform, marketplace, game library management, cloud storage, cross-system sharing, game streaming, a public api exposing useful stats (player counts etc) steamworks for dev etc etc. I would personally rather a game on steam, than not - especially multiplayer games.

• 

  ruddiger7 on 22/05/2017 - 08:56

  +2

  I used to think they were alright a few years back. Sales prices were actually reasonable then when they had the summer/winter sale and I would actually buy quite a bit, now these sales blow and I dont buy anything. Infact I probably buy most of my games from cdkeys. Their failure to charge in AUD and not have reasonable prices for Australians is another reason I am put off them.

  When it comes to functionality I think steam is great though, in regards to game updates and installing games from your library it's very fast.

  Their support is atrocious if you ever have an issue though. People bag EA quite a lot and mostly rightly so, but the origin support is fantastic in comparison.

  So in summary, how they could improve for me is to not charge out the ass for Australians, maybe give devs more of a cut for their games (steam can maybe keep 25% instead of the 33% I think they keep now) and they can hire a handful more on the support team that dont respond with robot responses. All wishful thinking though and I dont think anything will change.

  • 

    PDeez on 22/05/2017 - 10:53

    Yeah Steam sales are generally rubbish these days, I rarely buy my games there when I know they're going to be cheaper at most bundle sites or GOG or any other number of alternative sites.

• 

  Kegsta on 22/05/2017 - 09:17

  Steam is fine IMO, sure they take a 30% cut, but so does pretty much every online store. They also allow devs to generate unlimited keys to sell as hard copies / other methods that they don't see a penny from and then must support forever with their servers, I doubt apple would do something like that.

  I like having all my games in one place, accessible any time in the future, I only have origin for battlefield, and still feel like EA made a mistake not allowing their games on steam also, even with a 30% loss you would think they would make more money having the steam option also.

  I for one don't like the refund policy much as it killed the old steam sales system which was great fun for those of us always looking for a bargain, since it's implementation I buy almost everything from elsewhere to activate on steam, so valve doesn't get much of my money at all.

• 

  Godric on 22/05/2017 - 10:52

  Games that aren't on steam i barely bother with, unless it's like Quake or something real good, ily steam

• 

  Bigboyburrito on 22/05/2017 - 11:04

  These poll options are pretty bias, several are all saying steam is bad and the one that says it's good makes out that whoever votes for it is mindless.

  Steam is great. They aren't the best, but they're a business like any other. The steam platform itself is friendly enough and they've done their best to open the doors to Indie devs through greenlight. Sure they take the cut for anything you buy/sell on the site, but that's you paying for a service. If you don't like it, that's fine, but I doubt you'd find an alternative that's even half as good; whoever you are, buyer or seller.

• 

  narcoleptic-haze on 22/05/2017 - 11:30

  Honestly, people tout the old "they're only in it for the money!" thing as being evil like some conspiracy theory loon wearing a tin foil hat but guess what, they're a business. That's what businesses do. They make money selling products that they try and source for as little as they can to maximise the money they make.

  As for taking 30%, well that comes with having 125 million potential customers to sell and market to (as of a 2015 survey). And they're not the only ones. iTunes is somewhere between 30 and 35% I believe, and it only gets worse when you start to consider streaming services.

  In the end, I've bought literally 100's of games on Steam. I find it easy to access and use, and have never had an issue with access to my games. Had a service like Steam not existed, I'd probably be sitting on a collection of 10 - 20 games. Now that's got to better for the game makers right?

• 

  AlienC on 22/05/2017 - 11:51

  Steam is a monopoly not necessarily evil but heavily restricting. They could do their platform better like making games less drm and so forth. Having all your stuff tied to one account does kind of feel limiting but for their features to work that is the way it has to be/is.. eh.. it could be worse..

• 

  mavis30551 on 22/05/2017 - 11:59

  Some points are quite good.

  Sounds like people need to start realising they arnt as good as they see. I will still use them though but I will think twice about if I have to use them or not.

• 

  ProjectZero on 22/05/2017 - 12:42

  I think this is one of those necessary evils in this case, DRM helps combat piracy (how much it helps is beyond me). What I believe is Steam started as a way for people to combat piracy and at the same time assist the consumers to keep their games in one place as best it can. However, as everyone knows, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Considering Valve is a company, it is in their interest to generate profit and that leads to price gouges and unfair terms for the weaker parties of a negotiation, which in this case is usually the developers. The best way we can stop this is simply not supporting them (Valve/Steam) but that is quite difficult considering their wide reach.

  I think that until GOG or other companies catches up to the amount of games in their library, Steam will continually have a near monopoly on digital distribution.

  Considering that the link seems way too long and way too ranty that I lost interest in reading, I did not know of any wrong doings on Valve's part but I did suspect something dodgy or unfair would be happening behind the scene. It's just how some companies do business, appear to be a "good guy"in the public and pressure their smaller business partners to give in behind closed doors.

  At the end of the day DRM vs DRM-free is not important to me, I know I am paying for my games and contributing to the developers and distributors. I am in no way doing anything illegal so as long as the games are at a reasonable price and the digital distributor allows for a wide collection in the library, I will go to them.

• 1
• 2