• ampersandrew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    At this point, their cut is just about mathematically fair, given how little value customers get from buying games most other places and how much value they get from Steam. Then that money got funneled back into decoupling PC gaming from Microsoft and making probably the only mass produced handheld gaming system that’s open enough to let you opt out of their ecosystem. I’d be really curious as to how many games on Steam even have ARM builds, because I’ll bet it’s a very low number, and that would likely make the juice not worth the squeeze.

    • misk@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Their cut is mathematically fair but the inputs for this formula are mostly pain tolerance levels of consumers and producers. I meant fair for having a monopoly. Either you’re a utility or need to be broken up so that actual competition can take place.

      Steam Deck and Proton killed Linux gaming because nobody bothers to do native ports. While I don’t agree with that approach it kinda works but it’s not that Valve does this because they like Linux. They’re scared of losing their monopoly in case Windows changes too much.

      There are ARM native games on Mac (Disco Elysium for example) and Steam has no issues with them. Not having ARM client though means that you’re running a dynamically recompiling web browser through a translation layer resulting in terrible performance.

      • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Pain tolerance levels? The biggest pain points I have with Steam are that it’s not universally DRM-free (which is why I shop GOG first) and that their multiplayer servers go down for 15 minutes during maintenance windows once or twice per week. Native Linux ports were not going to become more common prior to Proton; they were on the fast track to becoming less common, especially given how many more games are now released every year, and Proton has the added benefit of adding Linux support to games where it was just never going to feasibly happen otherwise.

        While I don’t agree with that approach it kinda works but it’s not that Valve does this because they like Linux. They’re scared of losing their monopoly in case Windows changes too much.

        It’s both. That fear of losing their market position is exactly how a functioning market is supposed to work. Competition is supposed to come in and outdo Valve. EA looked like they were interested for a little while back when they launched Origin, but they changed their minds. Epic says they’re interested now, but they only want sellers and not customers. It’s not a monopoly, legally, when they attained their market position by just being better than everyone else.

        There are ARM native games on Mac (Disco Elysium for example) and Steam has no issues with them.

        And I wonder how many more there are out there. Because if that number is low enough, it may just not be worth it to bother. I’d imagine it’s a nightmare to have to support Apple through all of their standards that they dictate at their business partners. Valve went through the trouble of making a Vulkan->Metal translation layer, since Apple refused to support open standards, and then Apple retired x64 on their machines shortly afterward.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          The only reason you don’t see the price as a pain point is that you refuse to see that about 50% of that goes to companies that make billions in profit while people like you and me can’t afford rent.

          • Evening Newbs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            If this was true, games would cost 18% less on EGS because they only take 12%. Shockingly enough, they cost the same.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Because the same games sell for more elsewhere (also, funnily enough, we’re seeing tons of info on Valve because they’re getting sued for including a non compete clause in their contract to prevent games from being sold for less elsewhere), that’s an issue for the market as a whole and doesn’t apply to video games only. You’re paying too much for your food, for your gas, for your housing, for your clothes, for every fucking thing!

              Profit shares for distributors will need to be regulated and wealth tax will need to be applied.

              • PythagreousTitties@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Show us price comparisons between storefronts. Prove what you’re saying. Full retail price, not sales prices.

                • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  That’s my fucking point, the whole distribution chain needs to be regulated to stop distributors pocketing so much of our money when they’re accomplishing barely any of the actual work. It’s not a Valve problem, it’s a capitalism problem!

                  So you think grocery chains are making record profit every year without it impacting your wallet or something?