6 ms·

I'm very scared about the future though. What happens when Gabe is gone? The entire PC Gaming industry is essentially locked in to a single platform. If Steam d

I'm very scared about the future though. What happens when Gabe is gone? The entire PC Gaming industry is essentially locked in to a single platform. If Steam decided to charge $10/mo people have so much invested into their libraries they would likely do it. What about $20 or $30 per month? I'm not sure why Steam always seems to be exempt from the "perils of digital ownership" arguments

newsclues 1y ago
Microsoft/xBox are waiting to buy Valve.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised, especially after eventually there is a management change. Most folks aren't keeping tabs on how many studios Microsoft nowadays owns as publisher, even moreso after the ABK deal.
  - jayd16 1y ago
    Easier to track the ones they don't own and that's almost not a joke.
markus_zhang 1y ago
I’d just quietly turn to GoG and download all of my games just in case. But anyway I’m no longer that interested in games now. Reality is more challenging and fun.
Hendrikto 1y ago
> I'm not sure why Steam always seems to be exempt from the "perils of digital ownership" arguments Because they have been consistently good citizens for more than 2 decades. They built a reputation. Something other companies are eager to piss away at the first opportunity to sell out or squeeze their customers. It’s not surprising that Valve is successful and trusted with this approach. What is surprising is that it is apparently so incredibly hard for other companies to understand this very simple fact. 1. Build a good product. 2. Consistently act in good faith. 3. Profit.
- xandrius 1y ago
  Still a for-profit company, wouldn't bet on this, even though I'd love it to be like this (that companies who have been doing good will continue to do good instead of increasing their profits). Been burnt too many times.
- sarchertech 1y ago
  Which is a great way to run a business that you care about owning for a long time. But as a consumer you have to think about what happens when leadership changes—PE buys them and starts reputation mining. It takes a while to burn through the good will and for a few years you can make a lot more money off of that than you can continuing thing as usual.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - Aeolun 1y ago
    You think Gabe will sell to PE? You need someone willing to sell to be able to buy something. I’m betting that won’t happen, and that the next BDFL is not going to run the thing into the ground fast enough for it to matter to me.
    - gjsman-1000 1y ago
      Dude, Gabe could get hit by a bus tomorrow, and all it takes is for 0.2% of Steam shares to be given to a secondary person, for any reason, due to a legal order (as he owns only 50.1%) to cause the takeover. Valve is also facing a class action lawsuit for anticompetitive practices. If they lose, even though they will almost certainly survive, watch the tables flip upside down fast.
      - bigyabai 1y ago
        That would be very distressing, but the important things (eg. Proton, Gamescope, OpenXR) they built would live on in their legacy. Plus, the PC games industry can survive just fine without Valve - but Valve can't survive without the support of PC gamers. Anyone succeeding Gabe would have to accept that, or squander what little value their shares possess. Products like the Steam Deck or Steam Controller don't need any Valve software to play games. Valve knows a post-Steam world will exist one day, and they're fine with that. From a consumer standpoint, I respect that.
squigz 1y ago
> I'm not sure why Steam always seems to be exempt from the "perils of digital ownership" arguments They're not, really, but they've given us little reason to distrust them. I'm also fairly confident there would be some fun legal stuff going on if Steam tried that. People have thousands - tens of thousands - of dollars worth of stuff on Steam. That isn't really the same as, say, having to watch ads even after paying for a subscription.
- vintermann 1y ago
  Also, let's say we decided to not trust Steam because all corporations cash in on their goodwill eventually. What would be the alternative?
xandrius 1y ago
At that point I'd feel entitled to keep the games I bought by pirating them.
- martin-t 1y ago
  This is the right approach. I only buy games if the money goes to the original creators, not some parasitic company who bought the "IP".
- kaashif 1y ago
  It doesn't matter how entitled we think we are, pirating won't give us access to e.g. online play or Steam Workshop, which are critical to many games.
  - xandrius 1y ago
    Many but far from most. And part of the services provided by Steam is the multiplayer experience, so you definitely cannot expect to keep that without paying Steam, unless the developers want that too.
brainzap 1y ago
the same as always happens :)
jader201 1y ago
I’ve already received 95% of the value from the game library I have on Steam. Worst case, if I lose access to all of them, whether by choice or by force (they go under), there are other options of obtaining (most of) the same games, and that’s even if I’m interested in playing them again. Most of the games I really care about, I probably already have on other platforms anyway, in addition to or instead of Steam.
vikingerik 1y ago
It's not exempt. I don't trust Steam long term and so don't spend any significant money on it. I only ever buy cheap games for like $8 or less, where I know I'll get that much worth of gameplay in a short time frame and it won't bother me if the platform ever later enshittifies. Gabe says that the platform will fail-open if ever necessary, that it would revert to offline DRMless functionality. I believe that he has that intention, but the realities of operating from receivership or assimilation by Microsoft would likely be very different.
raron 1y ago
People would go back to piracy. Exactly as that famous quote says, currently Steam is the better product, but if Valve would go rogue, that could change easily. > If Steam decided to charge $10/mo If you think about games already purchased I suspect that would be illegal in many parts of the world.
- paulryanrogers 1y ago
  Considering how quickly new games become unplayable on PC, it amazes that current circumstances pass as legal. StopKillingGames.com

newsclues 1y ago

Microsoft/xBox are waiting to buy Valve.

pjmlp 1y ago
I wouldn't be surprised, especially after eventually there is a management change. Most folks aren't keeping tabs on how many studios Microsoft nowadays owns as publisher, even moreso after the ABK deal.
- jayd16 1y ago
  Easier to track the ones they don't own and that's almost not a joke.

markus_zhang 1y ago

I’d just quietly turn to GoG and download all of my games just in case. But anyway I’m no longer that interested in games now. Reality is more challenging and fun.

Hendrikto 1y ago

> I'm not sure why Steam always seems to be exempt from the "perils of digital ownership" arguments Because they have been consistently good citizens for more than 2 decades. They built a reputation. Something other companies are eager to piss away at the first opportunity to sell out or squeeze their customers. It’s not surprising that Valve is successful and trusted with this approach. What is surprising is that it is apparently so incredibly hard for other companies to understand this very simple fact. 1. Build a good product. 2. Consistently act in good faith. 3. Profit.

xandrius 1y ago
Still a for-profit company, wouldn't bet on this, even though I'd love it to be like this (that companies who have been doing good will continue to do good instead of increasing their profits). Been burnt too many times.
sarchertech 1y ago
Which is a great way to run a business that you care about owning for a long time. But as a consumer you have to think about what happens when leadership changes—PE buys them and starts reputation mining. It takes a while to burn through the good will and for a few years you can make a lot more money off of that than you can continuing thing as usual.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Aeolun 1y ago
  You think Gabe will sell to PE? You need someone willing to sell to be able to buy something. I’m betting that won’t happen, and that the next BDFL is not going to run the thing into the ground fast enough for it to matter to me.
  - gjsman-1000 1y ago
    Dude, Gabe could get hit by a bus tomorrow, and all it takes is for 0.2% of Steam shares to be given to a secondary person, for any reason, due to a legal order (as he owns only 50.1%) to cause the takeover. Valve is also facing a class action lawsuit for anticompetitive practices. If they lose, even though they will almost certainly survive, watch the tables flip upside down fast.
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      That would be very distressing, but the important things (eg. Proton, Gamescope, OpenXR) they built would live on in their legacy. Plus, the PC games industry can survive just fine without Valve - but Valve can't survive without the support of PC gamers. Anyone succeeding Gabe would have to accept that, or squander what little value their shares possess. Products like the Steam Deck or Steam Controller don't need any Valve software to play games. Valve knows a post-Steam world will exist one day, and they're fine with that. From a consumer standpoint, I respect that.

squigz 1y ago

> I'm not sure why Steam always seems to be exempt from the "perils of digital ownership" arguments They're not, really, but they've given us little reason to distrust them. I'm also fairly confident there would be some fun legal stuff going on if Steam tried that. People have thousands - tens of thousands - of dollars worth of stuff on Steam. That isn't really the same as, say, having to watch ads even after paying for a subscription.

vintermann 1y ago
Also, let's say we decided to not trust Steam because all corporations cash in on their goodwill eventually. What would be the alternative?

xandrius 1y ago

At that point I'd feel entitled to keep the games I bought by pirating them.

martin-t 1y ago
This is the right approach. I only buy games if the money goes to the original creators, not some parasitic company who bought the "IP".
kaashif 1y ago
It doesn't matter how entitled we think we are, pirating won't give us access to e.g. online play or Steam Workshop, which are critical to many games.
- xandrius 1y ago
  Many but far from most. And part of the services provided by Steam is the multiplayer experience, so you definitely cannot expect to keep that without paying Steam, unless the developers want that too.

brainzap 1y ago

the same as always happens :)

jader201 1y ago

I’ve already received 95% of the value from the game library I have on Steam. Worst case, if I lose access to all of them, whether by choice or by force (they go under), there are other options of obtaining (most of) the same games, and that’s even if I’m interested in playing them again. Most of the games I really care about, I probably already have on other platforms anyway, in addition to or instead of Steam.

vikingerik 1y ago

It's not exempt. I don't trust Steam long term and so don't spend any significant money on it. I only ever buy cheap games for like $8 or less, where I know I'll get that much worth of gameplay in a short time frame and it won't bother me if the platform ever later enshittifies. Gabe says that the platform will fail-open if ever necessary, that it would revert to offline DRMless functionality. I believe that he has that intention, but the realities of operating from receivership or assimilation by Microsoft would likely be very different.

raron 1y ago

People would go back to piracy. Exactly as that famous quote says, currently Steam is the better product, but if Valve would go rogue, that could change easily. > If Steam decided to charge $10/mo If you think about games already purchased I suspect that would be illegal in many parts of the world.

paulryanrogers 1y ago
Considering how quickly new games become unplayable on PC, it amazes that current circumstances pass as legal. StopKillingGames.com