Steam isn't perfect, that's for sure and one particular issue that constantly comes up is how some developers have been abusing the release date display.
Previously, it seems developers were able to change their upcoming release date whenever they wanted to. Some took advantage of this, to constantly ensure their game showed up on the first two pages of the Coming Soon section on Steam. The issue is that it constantly pushed games with legitimate release dates back, sometimes multiple pages of searching. I saw it all the time and it was a massive nuisance, when clearly a lot of these games had no intention to release then.
Going by this Reddit post, which included the image below, it seems like Valve are finally starting to do something about this:
Going by that, it seems Valve will now be requiring at least some developers to contact them if they want to delay their release date. While a lot of people do value a more open store, there has to be limits somewhere.
Hat tip to Mr. Doomguy in Discord.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Quoting: PatolaCosting more to you /= greed. To the contrary, as you point out they simply lose you and a huge category like you as a customer for lack of that kind of infrastructure. itch.io as I understand it have a "pay what you want" cut from developers; I don't see how it's possible to define such an arrangement as greed.Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe only people in the whole biz who seem pretty clearly not driven by greed is itch.io. They're weird, I like them.And then again, Itch does not have regional prices, and to people in the third world like me, their prices are simply excessive, I have never spent 1 "real" (brazilian currency) there. Sometimes Steam is like 4 times cheaper than in there. So in my viewpoint, they are the greedy ones.
They lack infrastructure and that's bad for many potential customers. They lack infrastructure because they don't have money, they don't have money because they're not greedy; they are in effect trying to buck the existing system without the help of having any other system in place that could enable their lack of greed. It's a hard thing to do.
But their platform is open source. In theory it would be perfectly possible for international customers and/or game developers to write an international pricing extension for it and ask them if they wanted to use it.
Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 7 August 2019 at 6:47 pm UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: kuhpunktI can see it's a disturbing thought. And I'm willing to believe you are, say, less greedy than many or most other people. But you are constrained to be motivated by money; it's the game in town. Do you prefer buying things on sale or full price? If you have retirement savings, do you want them to make a high rate of return? Would you like a raise? Would you like to win the lottery? Do you worry about either the poor, or the rich, taking all the money (via social programs or immigration for the former or tax breaks/evasion and subsidies for the latter) and leaving none for your kind of people?Quoting: Purple Library GuyQuoting: kuhpunktWell, let me give a contrast. Imagine there was a system where everyone got a certain amount of credit every year that they could dedicate to paying creative people via sort of patreon/kickstarteresque portals (and that's all--it's not money, it's just a sort of vote to award someone money). Musicians, writers, game developers and so on. They'd all get paid from that. The amount any given creator could get per year would have a sort of soft cap, with rapidly diminishing returns past a certain point--but that point would involve a pretty solid living. But then the stuff they created would be free to all, available on public websites, steam-like portals or what have you built with open source code.Quoting: tuubiQuoting: kuhpunktIt's also quite an accurate summary of capitalism. You can call it the pursuit of personal gain instead of greed if you prefer. But in the end, we have to be greedy if we want to be (financially) successful in a capitalist system. That's something we should all be able to agree on, no matter our political leanings.Quoting: Purple Library GuyQuoting: orochi_kyoWell, of course they're greedy. It's capitalism, everyone in the game is greedy. That's the point. Developers are greedy, portal owners are greedy whether Valve or EGS or even GoG, and we consumers all want cheaper games, we're greedy too. Everyone is, in effect, forced to be greedy.Quoting: HoriHowever I wonder when will the big elephant be addressed - namely the house's cut on each sale. That thing should definetely be more open (read: reduced), as it actually does affect the consumers. Devs aren't happy with it, at all (and for good reason) and decide to sell elsewhere, which is not ideal at all for the users.
How does affect consumers? Because Greedy devs wants a bigger cut
That seems like an overly negative attitude
But calling _everybody_ greedy... that's kinda insulting. Even the less offensive "pursuit of personal gain" is hard to swollow. Is everything you do just for your personal gain? Don't you share things? Don't you gift other people presents? Don't you think others should be treated and compensated fairly?
If you think that's how all people are... that would be just sad.
Of course this would all involve a fair amount of tax money. And might be inefficient, and so on, so it might not turn out to be a desirable setup, that's not my point.
But it would not push anyone to be greedy. The game designers could make a decent living without coming up with all kinds of tricks to boost revenue; they could just get on with making cool stuff. The "Steam" things would be public, not for profit. The public would get all the games, music, books or whatever they wanted, for free. Incentives would be very different. Our current system, for better or for worse, is based on greed, on harnessing the power of greed to (in theory) motivate productive effort. It is possible to imagine other systems based on other things, on harnessing different aspects of human motivation, but those would be different systems. Could be worse; the feudal system was largely based on pride and bloodthirstiness.
Even if that is/would be true... what makes you say that everybody is greedy? I'm not. Many others aren't.
0 Likes
Quoting: Purple Library GuyQuoting: kuhpunktI can see it's a disturbing thought. And I'm willing to believe you are, say, less greedy than many or most other people. But you are constrained to be motivated by money; it's the game in town. Do you prefer buying things on sale or full price? If you have retirement savings, do you want them to make a high rate of return? Would you like a raise? Would you like to win the lottery? Do you worry about either the poor, or the rich, taking all the money (via social programs or immigration for the former or tax breaks/evasion and subsidies for the latter) and leaving none for your kind of people?Quoting: Purple Library GuyQuoting: kuhpunktWell, let me give a contrast. Imagine there was a system where everyone got a certain amount of credit every year that they could dedicate to paying creative people via sort of patreon/kickstarteresque portals (and that's all--it's not money, it's just a sort of vote to award someone money). Musicians, writers, game developers and so on. They'd all get paid from that. The amount any given creator could get per year would have a sort of soft cap, with rapidly diminishing returns past a certain point--but that point would involve a pretty solid living. But then the stuff they created would be free to all, available on public websites, steam-like portals or what have you built with open source code.Quoting: tuubiQuoting: kuhpunktIt's also quite an accurate summary of capitalism. You can call it the pursuit of personal gain instead of greed if you prefer. But in the end, we have to be greedy if we want to be (financially) successful in a capitalist system. That's something we should all be able to agree on, no matter our political leanings.Quoting: Purple Library GuyQuoting: orochi_kyoWell, of course they're greedy. It's capitalism, everyone in the game is greedy. That's the point. Developers are greedy, portal owners are greedy whether Valve or EGS or even GoG, and we consumers all want cheaper games, we're greedy too. Everyone is, in effect, forced to be greedy.Quoting: HoriHowever I wonder when will the big elephant be addressed - namely the house's cut on each sale. That thing should definetely be more open (read: reduced), as it actually does affect the consumers. Devs aren't happy with it, at all (and for good reason) and decide to sell elsewhere, which is not ideal at all for the users.
How does affect consumers? Because Greedy devs wants a bigger cut
That seems like an overly negative attitude
But calling _everybody_ greedy... that's kinda insulting. Even the less offensive "pursuit of personal gain" is hard to swollow. Is everything you do just for your personal gain? Don't you share things? Don't you gift other people presents? Don't you think others should be treated and compensated fairly?
If you think that's how all people are... that would be just sad.
Of course this would all involve a fair amount of tax money. And might be inefficient, and so on, so it might not turn out to be a desirable setup, that's not my point.
But it would not push anyone to be greedy. The game designers could make a decent living without coming up with all kinds of tricks to boost revenue; they could just get on with making cool stuff. The "Steam" things would be public, not for profit. The public would get all the games, music, books or whatever they wanted, for free. Incentives would be very different. Our current system, for better or for worse, is based on greed, on harnessing the power of greed to (in theory) motivate productive effort. It is possible to imagine other systems based on other things, on harnessing different aspects of human motivation, but those would be different systems. Could be worse; the feudal system was largely based on pride and bloodthirstiness.
Even if that is/would be true... what makes you say that everybody is greedy? I'm not. Many others aren't.
Buying games on sale for example makes me responsible, not greedy.
0 Likes
Quoting: doomiebabyWhy so insistent on sanitizing language? I can see where it bothers you to think that the way of life you're embedded in is based on "greed" as opposed to some less-ignoble-sounding version of the same thing. But let's be clear, the system isn't based on working for food, it's based on maximizing income, on the idea of everyone trying for an infinite amount of money. "Greed" seems a succinct summation of that. Now a lot of people don't, for practical purposes, really do that--most don't really have the opportunity anyway. But anyone who's a player in the game, anyone who could be considered an entrepreneur or engaged in any for-profit endeavour, is greedy, grabbing what the traffic will bear, or they're losing. And even those of us who aren't, are constrained to operate and even think that way to some extent. It's not like it's our fault. It's how things are rigged.Quoting: tuubiQuoting: kuhpunktIt's also quite an accurate summary of capitalism. You can call it the pursuit of personal gain instead of greed if you prefer. But in the end, we have to be greedy if we want to be (financially) successful in a capitalist system. That's something we should all be able to agree on, no matter our political leanings.Quoting: Purple Library GuyQuoting: orochi_kyoWell, of course they're greedy. It's capitalism, everyone in the game is greedy. That's the point. Developers are greedy, portal owners are greedy whether Valve or EGS or even GoG, and we consumers all want cheaper games, we're greedy too. Everyone is, in effect, forced to be greedy.Quoting: HoriHowever I wonder when will the big elephant be addressed - namely the house's cut on each sale. That thing should definetely be more open (read: reduced), as it actually does affect the consumers. Devs aren't happy with it, at all (and for good reason) and decide to sell elsewhere, which is not ideal at all for the users.
How does affect consumers? Because Greedy devs wants a bigger cut
That seems like an overly negative attitude
"Should" all be able to agree on?? how's about we can all at least agree on definitions for words like 'greed'? that is if we're going to use them and bother trying to communicate at all. personal gain != greed. if i work for food, i want personal gain. that is not the same as greed.
" You can call it" .. tell ya what, i'll call it what's most accurate and not accusatory. sounds like a serious case of characterization. is it really honest to start making assumptions about people's motives?
So any time someone calls out Valve, or developers, or whoever, for greed . . . depending how you look at it, it's either irrelevant or it's someone's personal instincts rebelling against the existing economic system without realizing it. But it's not really a valid personal criticism of the people involved; they're just doing what they're supposed to.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: Purple Library GuyQuoting: doomiebabyWhy so insistent on sanitizing language? I can see where it bothers you to think that the way of life you're embedded in is based on "greed" as opposed to some less-ignoble-sounding version of the same thing. But let's be clear, the system isn't based on working for food, it's based on maximizing income, on the idea of everyone trying for an infinite amount of money. "Greed" seems a succinct summation of that. Now a lot of people don't, for practical purposes, really do that--most don't really have the opportunity anyway. But anyone who's a player in the game, anyone who could be considered an entrepreneur or engaged in any for-profit endeavour, is greedy, grabbing what the traffic will bear, or they're losing. And even those of us who aren't, are constrained to operate and even think that way to some extent. It's not like it's our fault. It's how things are rigged.Quoting: tuubiQuoting: kuhpunktIt's also quite an accurate summary of capitalism. You can call it the pursuit of personal gain instead of greed if you prefer. But in the end, we have to be greedy if we want to be (financially) successful in a capitalist system. That's something we should all be able to agree on, no matter our political leanings.Quoting: Purple Library GuyQuoting: orochi_kyoWell, of course they're greedy. It's capitalism, everyone in the game is greedy. That's the point. Developers are greedy, portal owners are greedy whether Valve or EGS or even GoG, and we consumers all want cheaper games, we're greedy too. Everyone is, in effect, forced to be greedy.Quoting: HoriHowever I wonder when will the big elephant be addressed - namely the house's cut on each sale. That thing should definetely be more open (read: reduced), as it actually does affect the consumers. Devs aren't happy with it, at all (and for good reason) and decide to sell elsewhere, which is not ideal at all for the users.
How does affect consumers? Because Greedy devs wants a bigger cut
That seems like an overly negative attitude
"Should" all be able to agree on?? how's about we can all at least agree on definitions for words like 'greed'? that is if we're going to use them and bother trying to communicate at all. personal gain != greed. if i work for food, i want personal gain. that is not the same as greed.
" You can call it" .. tell ya what, i'll call it what's most accurate and not accusatory. sounds like a serious case of characterization. is it really honest to start making assumptions about people's motives?
So any time someone calls out Valve, or developers, or whoever, for greed . . . depending how you look at it, it's either irrelevant or it's someone's personal instincts rebelling against the existing economic system without realizing it. But it's not really a valid personal criticism of the people involved; they're just doing what they're supposed to.
It's not what you're supposed to be/do. It's not about sanitizing language. It's not about maximizing income. Not everybody who is for-profit is greedy. It's a really really sad world view.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: Purple Library GuyI can see it's a disturbing thought. And I'm willing to believe you are, say, less greedy than many or most other people. But you are constrained to be motivated by money; it's the game in town. Do you prefer buying things on sale or full price? If you have retirement savings, do you want them to make a high rate of return? Would you like a raise? Would you like to win the lottery? Do you worry about either the poor, or the rich, taking all the money (via social programs or immigration for the former or tax breaks/evasion and subsidies for the latter) and leaving none for your kind of people?
I feel you're hurting your point by using the wrong term. Greed is not the same as seeking your own advantage. Yes, most of us are often driven by monetary advantages (which is probably good enough to prove your original point). Greed is the exzessive, antisocial variant, which I don't think most people adhere to.
Last edited by Eike on 8 August 2019 at 6:35 am UTC
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: EikeI can't speak for him, but I feel that trying to find a less negative term would hurt my arguments. I do consider the system inherently antisocial, and very much based on unhealthy competition and manufactured scarcity, ultimately leading to unnecessary unhappiness for all parties involved and outright suffering for some. "Greed" might not be the best term, and clearly carries different connotations in different cultures, but until someone suggests a less "accusatory" word (and I'm accusing the system, not individuals here) that is still explicitly negative, that's what I'm sticking with.Quoting: Purple Library GuyI can see it's a disturbing thought. And I'm willing to believe you are, say, less greedy than many or most other people. But you are constrained to be motivated by money; it's the game in town. Do you prefer buying things on sale or full price? If you have retirement savings, do you want them to make a high rate of return? Would you like a raise? Would you like to win the lottery? Do you worry about either the poor, or the rich, taking all the money (via social programs or immigration for the former or tax breaks/evasion and subsidies for the latter) and leaving none for your kind of people?
I feel you're hurting your point by using the wrong term. Greed is not the same as seeking your own advantage. Yes, most of us are often driven by monetary advantages (which is probably good enough to prove your original point). Greed is the exzessive, antisocial variant, which I don't think most people adhere to.
Oh and if you're wondering, I'm not advocating pure socialism or any sort of hippie utopia here. There must be something better that what we've got, but I'm not smart enough to come up with a proper plan. It's much easier to recognize faults than it is to fix them. Also, political discussion is all fine and dandy, but we've completely derailed the thread again. :D
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: tuubi"Greed" might not be the best term, and clearly carries different connotations in different cultures, but until someone suggests a less "accusatory" word (and I'm accusing the system, not individuals here) that is still explicitly negative, that's what I'm sticking with.
I think what's in the brackets is the point:
Our economic system is anti-social, without most of the people being anti-social.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: EikeQuoting: tuubi"Greed" might not be the best term, and clearly carries different connotations in different cultures, but until someone suggests a less "accusatory" word (and I'm accusing the system, not individuals here) that is still explicitly negative, that's what I'm sticking with.
I think what's in the brackets is the point:
Our economic system is anti-social, without most of the people being anti-social.
And that's a HUGE difference.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: EikeI feel you're hurting your point by using the wrong term.I feel I'm not. We're really at a place in the discussion where there's not much point going further. I get that some people are upset by my use of the term and think it's out of place. I disagree. (shrug)
Quoting: EikeGreed is not the same as seeking your own advantage. Yes, most of us are often driven by monetary advantages (which is probably good enough to prove your original point). Greed is the exzessive, antisocial variant, which I don't think most people adhere to.Clearly we could have a very subtle semantic argument about this. The distinction I'm seeing is not really in meaning, just that one part of our socialization says "greed is bad" and another part says "seeking your own advantage, entrepreneurialism etc. is good" and so we figure they can't be the same thing, because one is bad and the other is good. But if you just read the sentence "Greed is not the same as seeking your own advantage"--well, what is it then?
Perhaps we could come up with a decent, reasonably well defined distinction between bad greed and good not-exactly-greed, but I would suggest that it's subtle enough to make use of the term pretty defensible . . . especially since nobody seems to quite agree what they want to call it instead.
In any case, I couldn't really have used a different term. The point I was making was in reply to someone accusing game developers of greed--not accusing them of enlightened self-interest. And I was saying "Yeah, so?" Trying to mess around with other words would have destroyed the whole point.
Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 8 August 2019 at 7:54 am UTC
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me