287
That lawsuit against Steam’s 30% cut of game sales is now a class action, meaning many other developers could benefit (www.rockpapershotgun.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
300 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -31 points 2 years ago (18 children)

That's like saying "the landlord fixing my plumbing, so I'm thankful he's charging me so much in rent." Fuck no. I like Steam and what they've done, but I'd rather more money go to the people actually creating the content. Steam is useful, but they aren't doing 30% of the work of game development, so they shouldn't get 30% of the cut.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 44 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    They're doing 100% of the distribution though. And some of the marketing, when they promote a trending game or feature one in a collection.

    I don't know if a 30% cut is fair, but from my perspective, it seems to be working.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [+] -11 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    Sure, it seems to be working. That doesn't mean developers should be complacent. You shouldn't settle with an owner doing something that's in their best interest but charging more for it. Stopping piracy and promoting games gets Valve more money. They aren't doing it out of kindness. Just as they're doing what's in their best interest, devs should be too. They should be trying to get that 30% knocked down.

    Valve is doing a lot of good stuff right now, but accepting them as some kind of hero is how you get fucked over. Don't be complacent. They're a capitalist company trying to make as much money as they can. As long as their goals align with the consumer it feels great, but don't think it always will.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 32 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    They’re a capitalist company trying to make as much money as they can.

    Unlike publicly traded companies, Valve is not beholden to shareholders, so they, unlike most others, are in a unique position to not JUST maximize profits. I think it's okay to point at Valve as an example for other companies to be more like, because most are still worse. But obviously we can always strive for better, as well.

    (Also, out of curiosity: Under a capitalist system, can you have anything BUT a capitalist company?)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    This is, at least in part, the topic of the book Capitalist Realism -- basically the Reagan-Thatcherite thinking that no other system could exist https://archive.org/details/capitalist-realism-is-there-no-alternative 10 min vid using fallout to explain that

    Now, Valve could today make the company entirely a worker-owned cooperative, with sociocratic decision making. They could even extend these to consumers, a gaming collective. That'd still participate in capitalism, but it would do a lot of good systemically, compared to other options.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago* (5 children)

    Yes, they're privately traded, so all the profit goes to the owners. I don't know why that matters. They're still trying to maximize profit, which is at the expense of the consumer.

    (Also, out of curiosity: Under a capitalist system, can you have anything BUT a capitalist company?)

    You could have a worker owned collective or many other things. They'd still be capitalist under capitalism, yeah. It wouldn't be beholden to the ideals of capitalist individualism though.

    Regardless, the point was that they aren't special. You shouldn't hold them above other companies. They're going to exploit you and developers. They aren't working for you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    It matters because they are not forced by law to maximize profit. They can and do make decisions that are good for the future health of the company, such as making sure developers and customers are happy, and unlike other companies they put that 30% cut toward at least some things.

    Regarding worker coöps, I wanted to respond to the other commenter and didn't know how to phrase it. I'm currently leaning towards describing myself as an anarcho-communist, though I'm not well-read at all. However I question a coöp could grow to a size comparable to Valve. From some things I've read about the company, their internal structure might not even be THAT far off from that, allowing employees to choose what to work on and such, even if it's far from ideal.

    Finally, Valve has done much more than any other company considering they push gaming on Linux. Also their handheld is dope.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (3 children)

    It's a myth that publicly traded companies must maximize profits.

    For now, you (and I) like the product, but it won't last forever. The developers should fight as much as possible to do what's best for them to allow them to invest in themselves just as you praise Valve for doing. They are providing more than 70% of the labor. If Valve wasn't making money off their labor they wouldn't even have a product to sell.

    I'd also consider myself somewhere in the anarchist side.

    Publix is a worker-owned company. They operate nationally and are doing very well for themselves. It can be done just fine.

    I have said multiple times in this thread that I appreciate what Valve has created. I don't deny that. However, just as my landlord fixing my plumbing, I recognize that they aren't doing it out of a desire to help me. They're doing it to help themselves. They've made a very good product, so good that people rush to defend them from developers who want to be exploited less. This is to dominate the market and increase sales though, which they get 30% of. They done a lot for Linux, but they did so to make a product using Linux that they sell, and also allows them to sell more games to Linux users. It's all self-serving. They aren't doing it out of a desire to help us.

    I find it frustrating people can't separate themselves from liking a product and criticizing the company that makes it. You don't have to defend them just because they make something you enjoy. In fact I'd say it's important not to. If they know their users are going to fight any criticism, they know they can exploit you more and you'll get a worse product that asks even more from you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    I don't think I disagree with you, I just think Valve should be the last company that should be under fire for the 30% cut. As in, it should come after plenty of other companies, because they actually do offer many valuable services in return. I'm all for lowering the cut Valve takes, just make sure every other storefront that does objectively less is required to do the same.

    It also feels like complaining about the food from one store being expensive, while you get larger potion sizes than other places for the same price. Yes, food should be affordable. Shouldn't the complaint be made towards the industry as a whole rather than the store that is (for now) objectively better than the alternatives?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 42 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Then stop complaining and go buy the game directly off the developer's website. Many large publishers have their own storefront. Or you can tell your favourite Indie dev that they can set up a virtual storefront (with diacoverability so users find their game), distribution service with CDNs, support forums, online user reviews, customer support, and who knows what else for their own game. If this sounds like a lot of work, that's because it is. Alternatively, they are allowed to pay someone in the form of profit sharing for all of this if they want to. But no one is forcing you to use Steam.

    It just seams the majority of pc gamers find the service useful, so they tend to buy the games there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -13 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    "There's a systemic issue harming developers."

    "Stop complaining, just don't engage."

    How does that help with the systemic issue? Imagine saying "just down own slaves if you don't like slavery." Bad argument, right?

    It just seams the majority of pc gamers find the service useful, so they tend to buy the games there.

    And they still would if the cut was 20%. I'm not sure what your argument is except that developers aren't allowed to fight to benefit themselves and we should all bow down to Valve because they're making a good product (for now). Microsoft once made a good product. They used their market dominance to shove Internet Explorer onto all devices. They also still are the only option provided if buying a computer. Market dominance is always a bad thing. It's only a matter of when.

    I like the Steam platform. I have no issues with it. As a Linux user, I really respect what Valve has done for Linux compatibility. (Although, again, they did this for their own benefit, not out of good will.) I choose to use it because I like what it provides. This doesn't mean I think we shouldn't point out flaws or fight for better outcomes for those on the platform, like you seem to. I want it to continue to be a better platform, not to line the pockets of people at Valve.

    It's really dumb. So much in this site is anti-corporation or anti-owner-class, but if you dare to even say developers should fight for better compensation of Steam you get downvoted. It's the most bootlicker mentality. Steam isn't trying to help you. They're trying to make as much money as possible. That is all. They make stupid amounts of profit. They don't need (or deserve based on percentage of labor done) 30%.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    What systemic issue? If you as a player don't like steam, you can just not use it. It's not like apple where the hardware is locked to a single storefront. Even the steam deck is open for people to get games from anywhere.

    Developers are allowed to do whatever they like too, including not putting their games on steam as a form of protest. No one will stop you. They can even sell their games on multiple platforms and reduce the price where the storefront cut is smaller. The only thing they are not allowed to do is sell steam keys on their own store below the price on steam, which is completely understandable. The fact that they are allowed to sell keys directly (AFAIK for no cost) is already a huge boon.

    The one's actually behaving in anticompetetive behaviour is Epic with paying devs for exclusivity to their store. This is forcing you to use the platform to play certain games without having any other options. Of course the devs taking the deal are also complicit but that is somewhat more understandable, being a gamedev is difficult these days.

    The difference is obvious, you don't have to be a genius to see it. Epic is the plague of modern capitalism and greed, where the product is kept afloat by an unsustainable inflow of investor money. The service is ready to enshittify the second the amount of users crosses a certain threshold. Then they will continue to fight with dirty tactics to keep users locked in for as long as they can. How long do you think giving away free games weekly to anyone can last. (Aswer: as long as the fortnite money is coming in)

    Steam is an old type of corporation (for now anyway). They focus on making a good product for a "fair" price. Fair as in this is what makes the platform sustainable. If they were to charge exorbitant prices, there would be a huge developer exodus. But there isn't. Most devs seem to have come to a conclusion that paying this optional fee is worth it for that value that steam provides. This money allows them to reinvest in the platform to make upgrades, and yes, make profit too. What other reason would they go through all this trouble for?
    Steam is also a privately held company, meaning they are not beholden to the short term vision of investors' pump and dump schemes. But to reiterate, literally no one is forcing you to use steam.

    These days you have to capture a large user base with unsustainable prices/practices and then extract every cent for infinite growth. This is not just bad for users in the long term but also means setting up a "normal" company offering a good product at a "fair" price is impossible because everyone is buying the cheap unsustainable products essentially below cost.

    I miss the times when a company would make a good product at a fair price and that would be enough.

    Edit: that was unnecessarily harsh. I can see you want positive change but unless someone opens a FOSS storefront and pays for the work/distribution, steam is the best we have for now (as gamers). And reducing costs by ~10-20% is not going to make it better for us long term.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I’d rather more money go to the people actually creating the content

    This was the argument when EGS came, and it's been known for a long time that for the most part devs don't see a cent from that extra cut, the publishers keep it. Unless they self-publish, of course.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    That would depend on the contract they signed with their publisher. Sure, some contracts may be like you said, but that can be taken up with them. That argument (which you provided without context) is just you trying to provide cover for marketplaces taking a larger cut and it's bullshit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •