4
Steam is a ticking time bomb (www.spacebar.news)
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

If you want a preview of an uncaring and anti-consumer Valve, look no further than the company's efforts on Mac.

Valve never updated any of its earlier games to run in 64-bit mode.... Apple dropped support for 32-bit applications in 2019

Funny enough, the only platform with a 64-bit Steam client is Mac.

I don't disagree with concerns about monopoly, but the author's key example is Macs. And from the example, it sounds to me like Apple disregards backwards compatibility (dropping 32-bit support, moving to ARM chips) and Valve isn't investing to keep up. Meanwhile, Windows has a heavy backwards-compatibility focus, and Linux isn't too bad either, so no wonder they still get Valve's attention. So who is being "anti-consumer" in this example, Valve or Apple?

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Agreed. This is a superficial history lesson masquerading as an article. While nothing lasts forever and Steam has its issues, the examples being cited are not supporting the not outrageous prediction that Steam might get worse in the future. It's just not very insightful.

Anyone who, unlike the author, actually had to deal with early versions of Steam can attest to the fact that in most ways, the platform has dramatically improved.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

That has to be one of the dumbest articles I've read in a while.

While I personally use Steam very rarely (I prefer to use DRM-free versions of games), Steam has done very little to be considered on its way towards enshittification.

The macos situation is completely irrelevant because at this point its market share on steam is lower than linux and it makes no sense for them to invest only to be constantly screwed over by apple changing things on their platforms. My guess is it will be dropped within the next 3-5 years.

The author points out the deprecation of Steam on older platforms, but fails to mention the fact that this wasn't always their choice, for instance the recent drop of Windows 7 support was caused by the fact that there's an embedded chromium browser in it and google dropped support for Windows 7 around that time. A similar situation happened for Windows XP, which was dropped in 2019, a full FIVE years after Microsoft dropped support for it, and at this time Steam on XP was only used for retrogaming, it made no sense to keep supporting it, there are better ways to get old games on XP.

There's barely a mention of all the good things that Valve has done for Linux gaming, but the article complains about Steam being 32 bit (which is still a requirement for wine to run, at least until the new wow64 mode becomes stable, and steam comes with its steam runtime specifically to avoid distro compatibility issues); they could have made proton only work with steam, they could have made their dxvk and vkd3d forks proprietary like nvidia did, but instead it's all open source and very easy to build on all platforms and I use my own fork every day to play games without steam. Heck, there are even competitors for the steam deck that run proton.

Also, can we mention the fact that Steam has not turned into yet another subscription service like some of its competitors?

If I had to point at something that Steam absolutely did wrong, I'd say it's allowing third party DRMs on the store, it's a consistent source of issues, especially for old games. I understand that when they made the choice we didn't have cancer like kernel level anticheat and denuvo, but still, Steam launching a launcher launching another launcher that launches the game is a trashy gaming experience and adds points of failure as we've already seen several times when big titles launch and their DRM servers go down, or when games get old and the DRM servers are shut down permanently.

While I'm sure Steam will eventually become enshittified, I don't see that happening any time soon, maybe after Gabe retires, and that's why you should keep a collection of DRM free games on your drives and not rely solely on Steam and other stores.

Just my opinion of course, feel free to disagree.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

constantly screwed over by apple changing things on their platforms.

This was it for me. Like, you're going to blame valve because apple keeps pulling the carpet out from under devs and users?

load more comments (14 replies)
[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

What a garbage article lol. The only two arguments I can pick out are 1. Old steam games haven't been updated to work on macOS and 2. Some games require 3rd party launchers. I think the author was just angry that his mac dropped support for a 20 year old game.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Agreed, shitty read. The 30% cut is crazy high though, and IMO the best point the article has. Steam DOES have a monopoly and that's inherently bad

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

It isn't a monopoly though. Even ignoring the Blizzards, Epics and GOGs of the web, any developer can host their game on their own Web site and market it completely independently of Steam and keep 100% of their takings.

The monopoly on storefront argument holds water in mobile land where side-loading a game is not possible/easy. In the world of computers though, I don't think the same standard applies.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

That's still a monopoly. The article says it too, if you don't put your game on steam, your sales suffer. It's similar to how spotify has a monopoly on the music streaming market.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago
[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

If you market your game better it can "survive" outside of steam as well. I didn't hear about Ready or Not having funding issues. They didn't even announce a Steam release when they started their funding campaign.
It may result in less sales because users have to download and update the game manually. Can't deny that assumption but it's not a mandatory thing to publish on steam...

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Citing this article is probably a bad idea.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Citing this article that is upset about lack of Apple support but is silent on lack of Linux support from other launchers while probably using an iPhone that locks out everything compared to Android is funny.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

How are either of those a monopoly? A monopoly generally means you only have one option and that option is taking advantage of their outrageous market share by jacking up prices.

Where I live the only broadband internet is Comcast which is why I pay 2-3x more for my service than comparable services in areas where they don't have a monopoly (or areas with sane regulations).

Saying that you'll not earn as much money if you don't put your game on steam doesn't mean steam has a monopoly, it just means you're not getting as much reach as you could. Being popular doesn't equate to being a monopoly.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Not like any other app store does take 30% except for some high volume games/publishers.
Apple does the same. Hell they seem to have custom rules for each of the app devs (according to Linus and Luke from LTT: I believe this clip contains most of it. They recently talked about it again. Essentially they developed the app payment like Netflix. Apple said "No, that's against our rules" and refused the submission of the update. Meanwhile Netflix supposedly still had the same communication for a long time.)

Same goes with Google and probably a number of other external stores.
Amazon seems to take up to 20% depending on the item (Source: sell.amazon.com/pricing.

At least Steam does provide a forum, community features and the update framework and infrastructure.
Personally I would be happy to take the offering over maybe needing to host and maintain the tech stack myself. Now mind you, maybe some other dev would rather do it themself and maybe wish to opt-out of the ecosystem. That is totally valid.

(Warning/Disclaimer: I only heard about that. I do not have first hand experience!) Apple for example takes a percentage for processing a payment and offers an invoicing system. Some may like that. Others could maybe negotiate a better deal with another provider and maybe even offer tools that integrate better with their existing accounting and ERP software.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Steam DOES have a monopoly and that's inherently bad

Being popular does not make steam a monopoly... My son plays 80% steam games but has Epic launcher installed and plays rocket League regularly

There is nothing in Steam preventing or even making it hard for you to run PC games in any other way

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

having a market share like that is a form of monopoly. It's obviously different from absolute monopoly, but they wield too much power as is.

And to be fair, running games on linux without steam is definitely more tricky than without.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

There are two requirements to be considered a monopoly, or fall under antitrust laws:

  1. Have a large market share
  2. Be able to force competing products out of the market

Steam meets point 1, it doesn't meet point 2. On the other hand, things like the Apple App Store, don't meet point 1, but meet point 2, which makes them more likely to fall under antitrust. Windows meets both points, which is why the US sued Microsoft for not letting people choose their browser.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah, we only have to look at the FTC's lawsuit against Amazon to see what they consider an antitrust problem:

[...] Amazon violates the law not because it is big, but because it engages in a course of exclusionary conduct that prevents current competitors from growing and new competitors from emerging. By stifling competition on price, product selection, quality, and by preventing its current or future rivals from attracting a critical mass of shoppers and sellers, Amazon ensures that no current or future rival can threaten its dominance.

That isn't what we see from Valve - in fact it's the opposite, as Valve's strategy with Steam is simply to provide the best service and be the gold standard. The competition is almost always compared unfavorably to Steam, because gamers know how it feels to use a mature platform that isn't trying to abuse them.

Valve has even taken some steps that wind up increasing competition in adjacent markets, such as operating systems (Proton has contributed significantly to Linux popularity) and even handheld game devices (Steam Deck set off an arms race when electronics manufacturers realized Nintendo is asleep at the wheel). Steam is as pro-consumer as it gets, with the exception of GOG and possibly itch.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

But I always assumed that, unless you are blocking competition, it's not legally a monopoly and harder to penalize (not that they actually penalize monopolies much in north America)

Other than making a good product and easier to run games on Linux, there is nothing preventing anyone to install other launchers or games on their own or game makers from selling through other launchers or independently, etc

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I have my criticisms of Steam, but I see no sign of it marching toward some kind of big anti-customer explosion as suggested in this article. Unlike most others, it's run by a privately owned company, so it doesn't have investors pressuring toward enshittification. We can see the result by looking back at the past decade or so: Steam has been operating more or less the same.

Meanwhile, the author offers for contrast Epic Games, a major source of platform exclusives and surveillance software (file-snooping store app, client-side anti-cheat, Epic Online Services "telemetry"), all of which are very much anti-customer.

AFAIK, only one of the other stores listed is actually better for customers in any significant way: GOG. (For the record, I mostly like GOG.) But it was mentioned so briefly that it feels like the author only did so in hopes of influencing GOG fans.

Overall, this post looks a lot like astroturfing. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be sponsored by Epic or Microsoft.


Edit: I forgot something that has changed in the past decade:

Valve has spent the past five years investing in open platforms: At first by funding key parts (often the most difficult ones) of the open-source software stack that now makes gaming great on linux, and more recently by developing remarkably good and fairly open PC hardware for mobile gaming. No vendor lock-in. No subscription fees. No artificially crippled features. This has already freed many gamers from Microsoft's stranglehold, and more of us are reaping the benefits every day.

This is the polar opposite of what the author would have us fear.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

I get the risks of putting all eggs in one basket, but whenever people argue for competition using Epic as an example, a company that is demonstrably more anti-competitive and anti-consumer, it shows that they just think of the matter of theoretical ideals of evenness as opposed to benefits to the customers. I don't see any good coming from Epic having as much or more marketshare than Steam.

Unlike GOG which only offers DRM-free games, a substantial advantage compared to any other store.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Makes me think of a Walmart opening up in a town and people arguing that the residents should buy from there because it's competition. Company just existing doesn't make it good.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

This is why beehaw needs downvotes. Crappy submissions like this article that don't make any sense

Edit: OP has been spamming his nonsense across multiple communities, and has hundreds of downvotes on each of them. Except here on beehaw...

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Thank you.... I was reading and thinking "this makes no sense... Does the author know what a monopoly actually is??"

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

fwiw, OP wrote the article himself and then spammed it to lots of different instances. Definitely worth blocking this spammer.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Might be due to my instance, but I see downvotes. Not nearly enough as it should have after reading the article though.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Lemmy has gotten to the point everything is getting classed as enshittification or whatever

It's actually getting crappy being here

Like the whole section about macos. Apple constantly screws developers, and somehow, the author has seemed to blame Valve lol. There's a lot of reason lots of people don't develop for Mac, and they're mostly valid rather than political

Or GitHub. In the real world, developers don't have any issues. Only in Lemmy, where people are even focusing on stupid things, so a barely visible unobtrusive sentence on a table mentions copilot lol

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Lemmy has gotten to the point everything is getting classed as enahittification or whatever

You could say that the discourse around enshittification has become enshittified

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Apparently people at beehaw don't have downvote button, kinda explains this situation. The very same article on lemmy.ml is at -56 votes (at least that's what seems to me).

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You forgot the Mac

Lol, fuck Mac. If Apple cared about gaming, they wouldn't have created Metal and collaborated on Vulkan. Fuck them. Valve went with Linux because they can change it to fit their needs. Can't do that with Apple.
Microsoft is only supported by Valve because it has large marketshare and can't be ignored, but it's clear that Valve is doing everything possible to get away from them: see Steam Deck.

In general, I agree with Steam wielding too much power and if they abused it, I'd be out. I have my gaming hours and can live without gaming no problem. They wouldn't get any more money from me as soon as they enshittified.

What would get me away from steam is an opensource gaming store with games that have no DRM and are predominantly opensource. Or another gaming store that worked on Linux and allowed playing games with my other linux buddies.
Get us that and I'm out.

Anti Commercial AI thingyCC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Have you considered gog? They may not be betting heavily on Linux or have as a big of a selection but their games are DRM free. You can even install gog Galaxy, a game manager similar to Steam.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Doesn't seem like GOG galaxy is for linux

GOG GALAXY 2.0 Open Beta is available for Windows and Mac. Please download the installer on your PC.

That's a disappointment, but Heroic Launcher is. I'll give it a shot and see if there are new games on there for me. The name "Good Old Games" gave me the impression it was for stuff like boomer shooters or side-scrollers and stuff.

Anti Commercial AI thingyCC BY-NC-SA 4.0

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2024
4 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37340 readers
123 users here now

Rumors, happenings, and innovations in the technology sphere. If it's technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS