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
[–] 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
    •