4 ms·

> Technically $100 is a barrier. The smallest non-free barrier, but a barrier nonetheless. To be fair, it's only a barrier to Steam. Every device that can inst

> Technically $100 is a barrier. The smallest non-free barrier, but a barrier nonetheless. To be fair, it's only a barrier to Steam. Every device that can install Steam can also install another game, app or even launcher. Steam will even put it in your library and launch it with Proton if you add it, just not give it a Store page or discussion/workshop/whatever. > Because they didn't have their own successul hardware until 2021. How exactly did that change things, though? No part of the Steam Deck is capable of being locked down in a potentially harmful way. > yup, just not for the kinds of games people care to try and defend. Except that Stein's Gate one. Never underestimate anime fans, I guess. facepalm Taking games off an optional storefront is not "censorship". It's the same argument as people who say that Walmart is censoring America by taking confederate flags off the shelves. > Heck, Steam marketplace is worse than any paid mod. > Any other AAA studio woulda been burned for this (and still are burned). You seem to miss the point of why people don't care. Contrast these two scenarios: - Scenario A: EA not letting you play as Darth Vader until you unlock enough lootboxes; Bethesda making certain in-game missions exclusive to pre-orders or specific retailers; Blizzard locking off Overwatch characters even to paying customers who bought both games; et. al - Scenario B: Valve selling hats for Team Fortress 2, letting users trade and purchase cosmetics in Dota, giving users a platform to trade game stickers and trading cards, etc. It should be plainly obvious why other studios are burned and Valve is not. Honestly speaking, the closest Valve ever flew to the sun was with Mann Vs. Machine requiring paid tickets to play. The marketplace itself doesn't prevent you from enjoying anything in any of their base games.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
>Every device that can install Steam can also install another game, app or even launcher. technically, you can put apps on Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft's consoles as well. It's more a matter of popularity and long term support. I guess we can definitely talk about adding other game stores on consoles, but it doesn't seem like a conversation that got much traction. Even from people like Epic that is going hard after Apple over this issue. >How exactly did that change things, though? you can't lock down hardware if you don't make hardware. I'm not speaking metaphorically here. Steam is a software company that dabbles in hardware. The hardware being open source is not its selling point nor a point of business, like other hardware manufacturers. >Taking games off an optional storefront is not "censorship". in the same lens that rating a game AO isn't "censorship", sure. Ewen though such a rating kicks you out of all major brick and mortar stores and doesn't let you publish on Xbox/Playstation/Nintendo. I agree the term is used loosely in the games industry, and I am using the term loosely here. But really, there isn't much ACTUAL censorship in games period, so it's not really a plus to say "steam doesn't allow games it doesn't allow on its optional store". I am more criticizing its opaque rulings and its infamous non-communication to devs over such issues. >It should be plainly obvious why other studios are burned and Valve is not. because others can make money off the cosmetics instead of just AAA studios, sure. Makes sense. That's what Crypto promised but that also crashed and burned because the wrong leadership was behind it, so that boat has sailed. I think AAA should just eat the cost like Valve and even older games like Second Life and just make a normal marketfront. I think Blizzard kinda did this with Diablo 3. That doesn't explain the paid mod kerfluffle, though. What's the difference between modding a hat to sell for $5 and collecting a hat in-game to trade for $5 to someone else? Hell, one of them involves work to actually create that asset. >The marketplace itself doesn't prevent you from enjoying anything in any of their base games. I guess it depends on framing. I don't play GaaS, but the only difference between Darth Vader DLC and Darth Vader Lootbox is a guaranteed transaction. You can argue neither is "in the base game". But I guess players complained about on-disc DLC back in the day too. the difference in "base game" is much more ephemeral now that you can launch updates on the fly.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>Every device that can install Steam can also install another game, app or even launcher. technically, you can put apps on Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft's consoles as well. It's more a matter of popularity and long term support. I guess we can definitely talk about adding other game stores on consoles, but it doesn't seem like a conversation that got much traction. Even from people like Epic that is going hard after Apple over this issue. >How exactly did that change things, though? you can't lock down hardware if you don't make hardware. I'm not speaking metaphorically here. Steam is a software company that dabbles in hardware. The hardware being open source is not its selling point nor a point of business, like other hardware manufacturers. >Taking games off an optional storefront is not "censorship". in the same lens that rating a game AO isn't "censorship", sure. Ewen though such a rating kicks you out of all major brick and mortar stores and doesn't let you publish on Xbox/Playstation/Nintendo. I agree the term is used loosely in the games industry, and I am using the term loosely here. But really, there isn't much ACTUAL censorship in games period, so it's not really a plus to say "steam doesn't allow games it doesn't allow on its optional store". I am more criticizing its opaque rulings and its infamous non-communication to devs over such issues. >It should be plainly obvious why other studios are burned and Valve is not. because others can make money off the cosmetics instead of just AAA studios, sure. Makes sense. That's what Crypto promised but that also crashed and burned because the wrong leadership was behind it, so that boat has sailed. I think AAA should just eat the cost like Valve and even older games like Second Life and just make a normal marketfront. I think Blizzard kinda did this with Diablo 3. That doesn't explain the paid mod kerfluffle, though. What's the difference between modding a hat to sell for $5 and collecting a hat in-game to trade for $5 to someone else? Hell, one of them involves work to actually create that asset. >The marketplace itself doesn't prevent you from enjoying anything in any of their base games. I guess it depends on framing. I don't play GaaS, but the only difference between Darth Vader DLC and Darth Vader Lootbox is a guaranteed transaction. You can argue neither is "in the base game". But I guess players complained about on-disc DLC back in the day too. the difference in "base game" is much more ephemeral now that you can launch updates on the fly.