• MudMan@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    This.

    Valve doesn’t release games, it releases ads for Steam.

    Which is fine. It’s great. Makes for great, cheap products and long-term strategies that aren’t trying to shake all the money off of you.

    But that’s the end goal, still.

    As a friendly reminder, Valve also universalized DRM, invented multiple new types of microtransactions and actually kinda invented NFTs for a little bit.

    • GreenMario@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Invented the loot box y’all love so much. Tried to invent paid mods. Valve is still a Corpo and corpos gonna corpos

      • Moneo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Honestly I’ll defend TF2 loot boxes til I die. There are valid complaints as far as casual gamers go but as someone who played the game for thousands of hours the cosmetic system added a lot of longevity to the game. It was a fun ecosystem to engage with and compared to modern games where you spend $15-20 on a single cosmetic item it was an absolute bargain. If you got tired of an item you could trade it for something else too.

        Idk maybe I just got indoctrinated but I have so many positive memories of that game and interacting with the cosmetic system. These days every game you play is shoving their store front in your face. Every cosmetic is $20 and if you don’t buy it now it’s lost forever. Don’t want to spend money? Ok here’s an “event” where you need to play the game 2 hours a day for a week to unlock some meh items and if you don’t then fuck you those items are gone forever.

        Sorry I’m ranting.

        • RobotsLeftHand@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Agreed. It sounds weird saying, but I feel that Valve did these things right or at least fixed them quickly thereafter. I’ve never felt any sense of pay-to-win or being left out playing TF2. Quite the opposite. I’d get the new items quick enough, and if there was anything in there articular I’d want then there was a robust market willing to make it happen for cheaper than I thought. And “cheaper” referring to in-game items.

        • MudMan@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          I actually agree that loot boxes aren’t intrinsically bad.

          I mean, I was buying Magic the Gathering cards before anybody got mad at making blind purchases. The entire field is called Gacha because it’s modelled on analogue equivalents people don’t mind at all.

          But that’s not what the community will tell you. Loot boxes are THE problem, if you ask this in a different context. Fundamentally predatory.

          Unless you bring it up in this, and only this context. When Valve does it it’s fine. Never mind that they had and actual gambling problem around their retradeable cosmetic loot box drops. Or that their implementation is indistinguishable from others. Or that they have a pattern of innovating in the monetization space not just with loot boxes but with battlepasses, cosmetics and other stuff people claim to not like when other people do it.

          The shocker isn’t the actual business practices, it’s the realization that you can get so good at PR that you can’t just get away with it, but have the exact same people that are out there asking for the government to intervene to stop those actively defend you against the mere suggestion that your business model is your actual business model.

          Look, I was out there during the big loot box controversies that there were babies going out with thtat bathwater. I like me some Hearthstone and CCGs and other games that do those things. I like a bunch of free to play things. Got a TON of crap every time I even dared to float that online. UNLESS it comes up in a conversation about Valve. Then I get crap flung in the opposite direction.

          I’m not saying you shouldn’t like them, I’m saying that brief “maybe I’m indoctrinated” moment of realization should make you take a minute and reassess your relationships with brands and corporations. We are all subject to PR influence.

          • DroneRights [it/its]@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            Your argument rests on the claim that Valve’s implementation of these practices is indistinguishable from hated industry standards, but I disagree.

            • MudMan@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              The “hated industry standards” are in many cases directly copied from the Valve implementations that predate them, so… yeah.

              I mean, I haven’t played CS2 yet, and definitely haven’t played CS:GO in a while, but I may need you to point me at the timecode in this video where the superior free-range loot boxes are way better than in, say, Call of Duty, because I’m not sure I caught it the first time.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJGY6RGPCnY

              And again, I’m not against these on principle. I think unboxing videos are a bit weird and I don’t see the appeal of opening tons of boxes in one sitting in real life, either… but this is the exact same implementation being criticized elsewhere.

      • MudMan@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        That was slightly facetious. I just spent the entirety of the NFT bubble reminding people that tradeable tokens attached to JPGs is something that Valve invented to do with their dumb trading cards when they introduced those and we all saw in real time that all of them trend to zero value immediately.

        I kept asking cryptobros to explain why their new tokenized JPGs were gonna behave any differently and it turns out there really wasn’t a particularly good answer to that one.

        For the record, those get updated and get total overhauls because they are driven by cosmetics MTX and/or battlepasses, both of which Valve straight-up invented in their modern form.

        So I guess yeah, they either make cutting edge innovations in monetization design for games-as-service things or they put out ads for Steam. I think the larger point holds.

        • AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I don’t understand your point. It’s bad that they give out free games and constantly update them because they make money on cosmetics? That’s somehow worse or as bad as companies that make the same game every year, charge an arm and a leg for it and then have micro transactions on top of it? Or they’re bad because they innovate and then other companies take their ideas and make them shittier? What’s your point, exactly?

          • MudMan@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            No, they don’t make them shittier. My point is that they’re in it for the money, the money just flows in different ways. Their battlepasses weren’t any better or worse than anybody else’s, and neither are their cosmetics.

            They just get a pass because their brand is rock solid and they run very quiet and very cheap with a very long term view enabled by being a private company. That’s not good or bad, it’s a corporation out to make corporation things and doing them very well.

            • AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Their cosmetics are miles better because you can resell them on a market that they maintain. You really don’t know what you’re talking about.

              • yuri@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                No dog, you just really like the thing they’re talking about and it’s coloring your reaction. The points they’re making are actually very reasonable, but your responses read like they’re just criticizing Valve as a matter of opinion rather than practice.

                • MudMan@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  To be clear, it’s not even criticism. I don’t mind Valve making money or being great at PR and branding or using MTX. I am way more chill with those things than the average gamer.

                  If there’s anything here that rubs me the wrong way is objectively identical practices being assessed in entirely opposite ways by the community based on who is doing them. And it doesn’t even bother me because I think the practices are bad or because I don’t recognize that Valve absolutely worked on positioning that exact way.

                  Mostly it just gives me a bit of anxiety to realize that you can get away with that and somehow nobody else seems able to do it.

                  Honestly, if I had to guess why I’d say it’s down to Valve being a private company. They genuinely can just never tell anybody what they’re doing or what their plans and make long term investments. But man, the outcome is kinda scary.