• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Polygon: Valve is not your friend, and Steam is not healthy for gaming

I just don't get this. I had been a happy PC gamer even before Steam. It neither reduced piracy nor was PC gaming really dead. I don't even know where that notion comes from since there was never a shortage of big games on the platform. It's ridiculous.

I was somebody who gamed on PC in the 90s before moving to consoles. I moved over to console cause even thought PC wasn't short on major titles, it still lacked a lot of them, especially when it came to Japanese titles. These days I'm back fully on board with PC gaming thanks to variety of titles from indies to major Japanese games hitting PC and honestly I don't know if we would have seen a lot of that happened were it not for Steam.
 

patapuf

Member
whynotboth.gif

My main "complaint" is people SO hardcore on steam that they will bypass games they otherwise would have high interest in strictly because they're not available on steam. That's bonkers, and is a bad thing for PC gaming if enough people have such a mentality.

Aside from a few dumb message board posts i don't think this is actually a real danger though.

There's a pretty wide range of options available and none seem to be dying anytime soon. From small time stuff like itch.io or GOG to pretty much all of the really big PC games like LOL, Blizzard, Minecraft ect.
 

Armaros

Member
Aside from a few dumb message board posts i don't think this is actually a real danger though.

There's a pretty wide range of options available and none seem to be dying anytime soon.

Also the biggest games on PC not being on steam and flourishing.
 

Boss Doggie

all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Hell, as stated before, you see even in SteamGAF suggestions to Origin, GOG, desura, etc.

At the very least boycotting Valve over what the poster was talking about means also boycotting all consoles manufacturers.

It would be the height of hypocrisy to switch to plateforms that do the same exact things being boycotted within the same exact industry.

Yeah it feels like a biased attempt at going for a moral higher ground but ends up looking hypocritical in the process.
 

Pachael

Member
I agree with some points in the article particularly on some of the skirty things they've done e.g. with refunds (I followed the Australia court case and they didn't really cover themselves in glory). One way to curb such behavior is through court and legislation, as the last article on 'digital rentiers' talks about.

That said, the author's conclusion doesn't sit right with me - I think he's oversold the word 'monopoly' when using the quality of the platform and the Steam client with some of Valve's behavior.

Fortunately, the PC remains an open platform and gamers can and will gravitate to the company, client or game that they like to play most.
 
Stream provides me with a good service at a good price. It's not perfect but I like it more than any of their competitors. There are cheaper options but I like the ancillary services Steam provides.

I think the platform fanboys are kinda crazy considering what Steam is (even construction guys don't get like home depot tattoos are argue fanatically about Lowe's vs HD) but eh, fanboys gonna fanboy.
 
I know they're not my friend, but frankly to me steam is better and more convenient than origin, uplay, battle.net, or the MS store (or to be perfectly honest PSN/XBL). All of which I'm forced to use by their respective owners to play a very small number of games. A lot of hyperbole about how evil valve must be is not going to change that. Every other option is even further from being my friend. What do they think is "healthier"?
 
I've read the article and I have to say I'm not at all sure who it's really for. If it's for the fanatic volvo apologists, then it's a lost cause. They're not listening, but they're a minority.

I guess it could be for those who are already against valve, and if so, good job echo chamber.

But it's certainly not for the level-headed average consumer who already knows that no corporation ever has been or will be their friend, nor do any exist with spotless records. Instead we as consumers seek out the best service for our needs, and to that end Valve provides one that is among the best, if not the best. There's no pro/con game out there you'll play with services like this (or really any other) where you'll not have some damning things on the con-side. But, just like every consumer, it's up to you to decide if that's worth it for you or not, and clearly many people (both consumers and developers) have decided that Steam is very much worth it.

No, I don't know how Valve is run, but I also don't know how my sausage is made. And unless we're prepared to pull back the curtain and unleash the outrage on every service guilty of some form of transgression (all of them) then, again, I'm not sure who this article is really for.
 

TheEndOfItAll

Neo Member
Has anyone started calling it the "sweatshop" yet? This is kind of the issue. They can get away with this kind of crap because the content creators are not employees and many could write off the work as hobbies, but a 95% take is pretty crappy.

That can and should be negotiable for the content creators. That's the difference between Steam and a sweatshop. The content creators can go create content for someone else if they have value to offer.
 
I've read the article and I have to say I'm not at all sure who it's really for. If it's for the fanatic volvo apologists, then it's a lost cause. They're not listening, but they're a minority.

I guess it could be for those who are already against valve, and if so, good job echo chamber.

But it's certainly not for the level-headed average consumer who already knows that no corporation ever has been or will be their friend, nor do any exist with spotless records. Instead we as consumers seek out the best service for our needs, and to that end Valve provides one that is among the best, if not the best. There's no pro/con game out there you'll play with services like this (or really any other) where you'll not have some damning things on the con-side. But, just like every consumer, it's up to you to decide if that's worth it for you or not, and clearly many people (both consumers and developers) have decided that Steam is very much worth it.

No, I don't know how Valve is run, but I also don't know how my sausage is made. And unless we're prepared to pull back the curtain and unleash the outrage on every service guilty of some form of transgression (all of them) then, again, I'm not sure who this article is really for.

In all fairness just because you don't or can't bring the curtain back on all industries doesn't mean you shouldn't have a discussion about it. There's nothing wrong with Polygon talking about this. I disagree with the sentiment that it's the best of what's available so we should cut them some slack. If there are issues they need to be discussed. I don't agree with the righteous indignation some take with stuff like this but it's still worth discussing. Again even if you can't do shit about it in the end you control your ability to impact your life so make whatever decisions you feel are warranted.
 
Is Polygon a site where anyone can make an article, or is this guy new? Looking at his profile it says he joined "Apr 24, 2017"...and has made 1 post; this article.

So unless i've missed something, he's not even been there a month and his first thing on the site is one hating on Steam and trying to make Valve look bad with a poorly researched article that looks for any reason it can to hate on them, where he seemingly hasn't even read the sources he uses to support his claims (despite them saying the opposite of what he thinks they say) before making such a significant claim as Valve doing something "Wildly illegal" and "Breaking the law".
 
Humble skims the same 30% off of each sale. Both it and itch.io likely would not be able to exist as they do without Steam letting devs generate keys.
This is a good point of where Valve lets other services cooperate with them. It's also been a recent development in the last few years when those services have risen in recognition and developer trust.
 
Is Polygon a site where anyone can make an article, or is this guy new? Looking at his profile it says he joined "Apr 24, 2017"...and has made 1 post; this article.

So unless i've missed something, he's not even been there a month and his first thing on the site is one hating on Steam and trying to make Valve look bad with a poorly researched article that looks for any reason it can to hate on them, where he seemingly hasn't even read the sources he uses to support his claims (despite them saying the opposite of what he thinks they say) before making such a significant claim as Valve doing something "Wildly illegal" and "Breaking the law".

So are you going to discuss the article in question or just look for reasons to justify your assumptions and personal bias? I mean what are you trying to argue?
 

Dabanton

Member
whynotboth.gif

My main "complaint" is people SO hardcore on steam that they will bypass games they otherwise would have high interest in strictly because they're not available on steam. That's bonkers, and is a bad thing for PC gaming if enough people have such a mentality.

I'm legit disturbed when I see people who say they do that.

Bu I think it's mostly online posturing as you would have to be an absolutely massive dork to practice that in real life.
 
So are you going to discuss the article in question or just look for reasons to justify your assumptions and personal bias? I mean what are you trying to argue?

What "assumptions" and what "personal bias"? I've already explained how his claims of Valve doing something Illegal regarding the lack of refunds and their EULA was outright wrong and how what he uses to support that claim (or more, just links to saying they support it) says the exact opposite of that.

I'm merely saying that if this is his first article on the site, things don't seem to be off to a good start considering that. I consider making a claim that a company is doing something highly illegal in a published journalistic article on a high-profile gaming site with the evidence included goes against those claims (and a proper reading of it would reveal that) an absurd thing to do. Most of the other parts of the article are just an opinion, which is fine even if i don't personally agree, but that aspect of it seems much worse because of what it's claiming. It's misleading, at the very least.
 
I do try my best to buy games from developers at places that give them the biggest cut, like Humble or Itch.io. Valve being vigorously against competition is a bad thing enough that they don't want to disclose their finances, and they deserve criticism for it.

What exactly is your point about Valve/Gabe not releasing their financials? Why do you care? They are a private company and they have in no way any obligation to release their financial records. Why don't you release your financial records if you care so much about Valve, a corporation that is for profit and not charity.
 
In all fairness just because you don't or can't bring the curtain back on all industries doesn't mean you shouldn't have a discussion about it. There's nothing wrong with Polygon talking about this. I disagree with the sentiment that it's the best of what's available so we should cut them some slack. If there are issues they need to be discussed. I don't agree with the righteous indignation some take with stuff like this but it's still worth discussing. Again even if you can't do shit about it in the end you control your ability to impact your life so make whatever decisions you feel are warranted.

That's fair, and I don't disagree. Though I didn't mean to suggest that because they're good at what they do they should be cut some slack. I was saying that, in spite of what they do, the market has placed them in that position. I guess what I was trying to get at (and could have done a better job highlighting) is that me not knowing who this article is for robs the it of any direction for me. For me it feels like discussion for the sake of it without any real substance. A narrow look at a specific example without appropriately acknowledging or examining the greater context it exists in. Because of that (again, to me), it comes off more like "hey look at this" as opposed to "this is something I feel is representative of a greater problem and this is what I propose we do about it."
 

LeleSocho

Banned
My main "complaint" is people SO hardcore on steam that they will bypass games they otherwise would have high interest in strictly because they're not available on steam. That's bonkers, and is a bad thing for PC gaming if enough people have such a mentality.

My main complaint is that some people are so weak willed that they would rather install drms that doesn't even let you breath air, sign up to stupid as fuck services and whatever the hell publishers impose in order to not skip the latest installment of "Generic Yearly Shooter Rpg Strategic Openworld: Electric Boogaloo".

The people who stick to their guns and not buy anything that isn't on Steam or GOG (which are either DRM free or DRM proof) are the real mvp that sacrifices for all the others here not the contrary.

Jesus i can't even believe a post like yours even exists.
 

Tagyhag

Member
I play all kinds of games, from Spelunky to Resident Evil. I don't know what the working conditions at Capcom are. I make decisions based on the information available. Did any of you actually read the article? Valve is a company that did everything legally possible to argue that they shouldn't have to adhere to EU law that refunds are mandatory. I mean c'mon lads there are degrees of bad practice.

Hmm, well I hope you're only playing those on a Microsoft console, because as the only other system that offers universal refunds, you have nowhere else to go.

Unless you want to dig more into Microsoft, which I suggest you don't if you want to play any video game while still feeling morally fine. :p

(What I'm getting to here is that we can find shit on any company that hosts video games for you to play, so eventually, you'll either have to call yourself a hypocrite or not play a video game)
 
For some reason Origin is always cited as a good alternative around here. I have Origin installed. I've bought a few games on it but it probably comes out to less than 1 game a year since I've installed it since it fails the very minimum requirement of if I search a game, I will most likely find it and be able to buy it. Look at the top 100 games on Steam of current players. Pick a dozen of them and search them in Origin. You will most likely not find any of them. Origin in its current state is not a good alternative to Steam. Ubisoft games are on Origin but Rainbow Six Seige isn't. GOG, a DRM free store has more games than it.

As a client it doesn't handle multiple installation directories. It doesn't have community sections for games like Steam and GOG. I don't see any counterpart to Steam groups or anything like friend activity page. It doesn't have anything like Steam Workshop. It doesn't have any support for Linux; GOG Galaxy doesn't but it's planned so people have to download the games without a client on Linux currently. As a store it doesn't support or show any user reviews. If a game is buggy on Steam, it's really easy to find out. Discover-ability of games is a wash because there's little to discover. So few games, recommendation algorithms can't show whether they're any good. Origin library doesn't let you categorize games. Origin functions well solely as video game store and it doesn't even have many games. The last month 2 games have released on Origin, Syberia 3 and The Surge. Quality varies wildly on Steam but it gets almost everything.

Origin is not a good alternative. It is a basic alternative. This store is touted on this site often but rarely anywhere else because the reality is that Origin is not a good alternative. It's more comparable to Steam of 2007 but with a modern interface design.
 

prag16

Banned
I'm legit disturbed when I see people who say they do that.

Bu I think it's mostly online posturing as you would have to be an absolutely massive dork to practice that in real life.

I would sincerely hope so. Because it's an outrageous stance, even more ridiculous than the console warrior stuff we see on the console side of things (can better understand people feeling invested when they need to buy separate hardware if they were to venture into another ecosystem).

My main complaint is that some people are so weak willed that they would rather install drms that doesn't even let you breath air, sign up to stupid as fuck services and whatever the hell publishers impose in order to not skip the latest installment of "Generic Yearly Shooter Rpg Strategic Openworld: Electric Boogaloo".

The people who stick to their guns and not buy anything that isn't on Steam or GOG (which are either DRM free or DRM proof) are the real mvp that sacrifices for all the others here not the contrary.

Jesus i can't even believe a post like yours even exists.

There's a lot of bs to unpack in this relatively short post. But it's all pretty much been covered over the past 14 pages.

You can stake out some kind of misguided moral high ground. Go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. Meanwhile the rest of us rational people will use not only steam, but also Origin, battle.net, and the like when it suits us. Your loss.
 

Nzyme32

Member
This thread is an amazing goldmine for future use at identifying those that actually have paid attention / create interesting discussion, and those platform warring, drive-by shit-posting and alike, with next to know knowledge of the current state of Steam or even PC gaming in the slightest
 

Yeezus

Member
Interesting read, glad I parsed through it.

Sidenote: I've wanted to make a discussion topic addressing Valve's interesting 2FA rhetoric for quite some time now but am still unable to make topics, alas.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
We made memes about Mitt Romney saying corporations are also people, but we gamers fully think of Valve as a person. Not just that, we deify the CEO.

013.gif

Who is "we"?
 
I'm legit disturbed when I see people who say they do that.

Bu I think it's mostly online posturing as you would have to be an absolutely massive dork to practice that in real life.

Why? I have so many games on Steam since 2004 (and none have been removed from my account), a backlog, so why should I buy e.g. Mass Effect, even though it might interest me just to prove a point?

EA closes servers for 2-3 year old games. I dont really trust them to not close Origin one time. Also it still has less features that I can use than on Steam. If ME would be on Steam I can family-share it with my wife, I can look up guides in BPM directly from the couch etc.

Now I also bought Secret World when it released, digitally, without Steam. In Steam I could easily type the name in and redownload it. Now, if it wouldnt be F2P, I would first check where I can download it again. Log into Funcom website, look for a downloadlink, maybe their own interface has to patch it etc.
 

Aroll

Member
I do apologize for not being as educated as I thought about the invitationals.

I think a huge part of my salt is that I don't think anyone should have to pay for skins and it's such a huge market for valve that I I tend I disregard getting them. It's not something I should do because I absolutely should not dictate what people find value in. Obviously, mlllions have no issue paying for skins. What my stance is does not equal the whole and I respect that.

Sorry if I came off a bit too harsh or silly in some recent remarks. I just have had some bad experiences with steam over the years, but I still use it and I feel like it's just because I don't have a choice. Many of my favorite games makes me install it and some games aren't available anywhere else. Plus the library. I'm kind of just... stuck. (Beyond the battle.net and origin/gog games I own).

I don't think steam is overall the worst thing out there. I just think it can be better but has no incentive to be.
 
I don't think steam is overall the worst thing out there. I just think it can be better but has no incentive to be.

Of course it can be better, but mostly not because "damn memes", "Origin is almost exactly like Steam", "Valve holds a monopoly" which isnt true and thats what most of the article is about.

I wrote it in that thread earlier. If you let jshackles write an article or even some knowledgable people from SteamGAF, you would get a far better article than the Polygon one.

Me, e.g. would criticise the old ass bugs in the client, the promised features for trading cards, Steam Music, that took ages to update to support normal losless files, features that people wanted since years and arent there etc.
 

LeleSocho

Banned
There's a lot of bs to unpack in this relatively short post. But it's all pretty much been covered over the past 14 pages.

You can stake out some kind of misguided moral high ground. Go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. Meanwhile the rest of us rational people will use not only steam, but also Origin, battle.net, and the like when it suits us. Your loss.

There is no moral high ground in what i say, the pc gaming situation and community could be so much better if some people could show a femtometer of restrain but no... it's better to have a single client for every game out there, way simpler to use, more accessible, faster and more importantly more secure; So as you can see i have no interest in looking superior because i do the "right thing" i'm just really mad that your "fuck you got mine" line of thought makes stuff worse for me and everyone else... you included ironically but you are so blind that you actually enjoy seeing this happen and feel superior to others in doing so.
 

prag16

Banned
There is no moral high ground in what i say, the pc gaming situation and community could be so much better if some people could show a femtometer of restrain but no... it's better to have a single client for every game out there, way simpler to use, more accessible, faster and more importantly more secure; So as you can see i have no interest in looking superior because i do the "right thing" i'm just really mad that your "fuck you got mine" line of thought makes stuff worse for me and everyone else... you included ironically but you are so blind that you actually enjoy seeing this happen and feel superior to others in doing so.

I'm going to assume this is a joke post. Because if it's not, it's one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever read.
 
I do apologize for not being as educated as I thought about the invitationals.

I think a huge part of my salt is that I don't think anyone should have to pay for skins and it's such a huge market for valve that I I tend I disregard getting them. It's not something I should do because I absolutely should not dictate what people find value in. Obviously, mlllions have no issue paying for skins. What my stance is does not equal the whole and I respect that.

Sorry if I came off a bit too harsh or silly in some recent remarks. I just have had some bad experiences with steam over the years, but I still use it and I feel like it's just because I don't have a choice. Many of my favorite games makes me install it and some games aren't available anywhere else. Plus the library. I'm kind of just... stuck. (Beyond the battle.net and origin/gog games I own).

I don't think steam is overall the worst thing out there. I just think it can be better but has no incentive to be.

DotA2 has the best business model of all those games, they're the only ones doing it right. The true dick move is LoL and HotS charging for characters, where the match-up between characters/teams is the whole game. I spent thousands of hours and bought zero costumes. For what are purely competitive multiplayer games, skins, couriers, sound packs & other things that don't affect game play should be the only things you sell.
 
I do apologize for not being as educated as I thought about the invitationals.

I think a huge part of my salt is that I don't think anyone should have to pay for skins and it's such a huge market for valve that I I tend I disregard getting them. It's not something I should do because I absolutely should not dictate what people find value in. Obviously, mlllions have no issue paying for skins. What my stance is does not equal the whole and I respect that.

Sorry if I came off a bit too harsh or silly in some recent remarks. I just have had some bad experiences with steam over the years, but I still use it and I feel like it's just because I don't have a choice. Many of my favorite games makes me install it and some games aren't available anywhere else. Plus the library. I'm kind of just... stuck. (Beyond the battle.net and origin/gog games I own).

I don't think steam is overall the worst thing out there. I just think it can be better but has no incentive to be.

No problem. Off-topic, but for a F2P game do you think there's a better way for it to be profitable than selling purely cosmetic stuff? I mean, if DOTA 2 didn't sell skins and such I can't think of any other way for them to generate money that's not going to affect the gameplay. Unless, of course, the game turns P2P, which would make way more people angry, and still have the same profitability problems in the end.
 

theecakee

Member
I agree with the message, but that article is just dragged out really long and trying to be funny when it's not. Plus typos/unclear at points to follow...

Players began noting that was Valve was doing was wildly illegal...
 

prag16

Banned
I'm bored so I'll bite.

Explain to me how you got "Fuck you got mine" from my post?

Also, where did you get the idea that I think I'm superior to anybody? Actually on second thought I understand that one. I DO in a way kind of feel superior to the PC equivalent of console warriors in this topic carrying Valve's water and seemingly advocating for a total Valve monopoly on PC game distribution.
 

Dmented

Banned
I think a lot of this is because people are just sad Valve isn't making the games they want and are not as "community friendly" anymore. For a time it felt like Valve were apart of the community and would do things for their fans/customers that others really didn't (such as deep discount sales, the cool ARGs, etc) which is why people gave them the name "Good Guy Valve". I don't think they exactly deserve that title anymore but it's sure as hell not their fault that people got attached to them like they were their own personal friend.

They're a business. It's as simple as that. Valve is in the unique position to make profit by basically doing nothing. I think they have just decided to leave it as such and call it a day.

I hope to see more from them, especially games that aren't 100% multiplayer with crates and keys, but for the time being I just see Valve as Steam. And atm, that's fine for me.
 

Durante

Member
For some reason Origin is always cited as a good alternative around here. I have Origin installed. I've bought a few games on it but it probably comes out to less than 1 game a year since I've installed it since it fails the very minimum requirement of if I search a game, I will most likely find it and be able to buy it. Look at the top 100 games on Steam of current players. Pick a dozen of them and search them in Origin. You will most likely not find any of them. Origin in its current state is not a good alternative to Steam. Ubisoft games are on Origin but Rainbow Six Seige isn't. GOG, a DRM free store has more games than it.

As a client it doesn't handle multiple installation directories. It doesn't have community sections for games like Steam and GOG. I don't see any counterpart to Steam groups or anything like friend activity page. It doesn't have anything like Steam Workshop. It doesn't have any support for Linux; GOG Galaxy doesn't but it's planned so people have to download the games without a client on Linux currently. As a store it doesn't support or show any user reviews. If a game is buggy on Steam, it's really easy to find out. Discover-ability of games is a wash because there's little to discover. So few games, recommendation algorithms can't show whether they're any good. Origin library doesn't let you categorize games. Origin functions well solely as video game store and it doesn't even have many games. The last month 2 games have released on Origin, Syberia 3 and The Surge. Quality varies wildly on Steam but it gets almost everything.

Origin is not a good alternative. It is a basic alternative. This store is touted on this site often but rarely anywhere else because the reality is that Origin is not a good alternative. It's more comparable to Steam of 2007 but with a modern interface design.
Agreed, though I'd add that a "modern" interface is not always better.

Here's a truth nugget for those following this thread who don't really pay too much attention to the PC space: none of the "alternatives" touted for Steam provide a comparable feature set.

Even GoG, which I personally am hugely in favor of philosophically, fails to match Steam in terms of features, and it's quite the gap too.
 

Soul_Pie

Member

How so? Is this how far political discourse has fallen that anyone with views outside of the mainstream is considered unstable?

The thought that great ideas and creations wouldn't exist without capitalism is ludicrous and shows a fundamental ignorance of societies outside of capitalist ones. People do this stuff for the love of it, arguably we would see greater artistic accomplishments and endeavours without capitalism considering that the profit motive is taken out of the equation. I for one welcome a time when people are free to make things without having to worry about whether they'll have a roof over their heads depending on whether or not their vidyagame is a success or not. If that means the end of the industry as we know it, then so be it.
 
The black and white in this thread is frankly worrying.
"Either some corporations deeply love you, or they are all the same vile scum of the earth."
"Either throw away every material wealth you possess and wander the earth as a pilgrim, or don't bother avoiding any corporation for any reason whatsoever."

Yes, corporations are motivated by profit. No, not all corporations are the same; there are degrees of scumminess, whether from a more principled leadership (shockingly, it turns out they are human beings too) or simply because they believe that motivated employees and public goodwill are more profitable than shitty practices.

Yes, in developed modern societies it's nearly, if not literally, impossible to avoid every corporation that engages in shitty practices or is otherwise . No, that does not make it worthless, not makes you a hypocrite, to avoid specific ones and be vocal about them in hopes that enough people follow suit and force them to change their policies.

In short, yes, there are people that are too idealistic. No, that does not mean you're not a lazy amoral cynicist when you call every single person that tries to make a difference an idealist. Do fucking nothing if you want, but don't belittle others to feel better about it.

And for the record, I consider Polygon's article in general to be utter shit and Valve to be pretty OK. But if anyone disagrees and wants to boycott them for what they consider to be shitty practices, more power to them.
 

Boss Doggie

all my loli wolf companions are so moe
The black and white in this thread is frankly worrying.
"Either some corporations deeply love you, or they are all the same vile scum of the earth."
"Either throw away every material wealth you possess and wander the earth as a pilgrim, or don't bother avoiding any corporation for any reason whatsoever."

Yes, corporations are motivated by profit. No, not all corporations are the same; there are degrees of scumminess, whether from a more principled leadership (shockingly, it turns out they are human beings too) or simply because they believe that motivated employees and public goodwill are more profitable than shitty practices.

Yes, in developed modern societies it's nearly, if not literally, impossible to avoid every corporation that engages in shitty practices or is otherwise . No, that does not make it worthless, not makes you a hypocrite, to avoid specific ones and be vocal about them in hopes that enough people follow suit and force them to change their policies.

In short, yes, there are people that are too idealistic. No, that does not mean you're not a lazy amoral cynicist when you call every single person that tries to make a difference an idealist. Do fucking nothing if you want, but don't belittle others to feel better about it.

And for the record, I consider Polygon's article in general to be utter shit and Valve to be pretty OK. But if anyone disagrees and wants to boycott them for what they consider to be shitty practices, more power to them.

It's more on eating the cake you bought. If you plan on boycotting a company for x actions which other companies do anyway, you should boycott them all. Basically proving your moral high ground being an actual high ground.

I think the sensible posters here know the nuances and grey area.
 
The black and white in this thread is frankly worrying.
"Either some corporations deeply love you, or they are all the same vile scum of the earth."
"Either throw away every material wealth you possess and wander the earth as a pilgrim, or don't bother avoiding any corporation for any reason whatsoever."

Yes, corporations are motivated by profit. No, not all corporations are the same; there are degrees of scumminess, whether from a more principled leadership (shockingly, it turns out they are human beings too) or simply because they believe that motivated employees and public goodwill are more profitable than shitty practices.

Yes, in developed modern societies it's nearly, if not literally, impossible to avoid every corporation that engages in shitty practices or is otherwise . No, that does not make it worthless, not makes you a hypocrite, to avoid specific ones and be vocal about them in hopes that enough people follow suit and force them to change their policies.

In short, yes, there are people that are too idealistic. No, that does not mean you're not a lazy amoral cynicist when you call every single person that tries to make a difference an idealist. Do fucking nothing if you want, but don't belittle others to feel better about it.

And for the record, I consider Polygon's article in general to be utter shit and Valve to be pretty OK. But if anyone disagrees and wants to boycott them for what they consider to be shitty practices, more power to them.

Boycotting Valve because they didn't want to offer refunds (for example), but still investing in platforms that don't offer refunds such as the PS4 is indeed hypocritical.

How so? Is this how far political discourse has fallen that anyone with views outside of the mainstream is considered unstable?

The thought that great ideas and creations wouldn't exist without capitalism is ludicrous and shows a fundamental ignorance of societies outside of capitalist ones. People do this stuff for the love of it, arguably we would see greater artistic accomplishments and endeavours without capitalism considering that the profit motive is taken out of the equation. I for one welcome a time when people are free to make things without having to worry about whether they'll have a roof over their heads depending on whether or not their vidyagame is a success or not. If that means the end of the industry as we know it, then so be it.

As communism emerges from capitalism, counter-revolution is still a threat and needs to be repressed. Proletarian hegemony is a necessary requisite to classless society, and like everything else in ideology, art is an important tool in establishing this. Which is why every communist state censored counter-revolutionary art and only gave a platform to (state-sanctioned) proletarian art. Dissent cannot be permissible in such a society.

Unless you're speaking of some super idealistic rainbow communist land that springs up out of nowhere.
 

Majukun

Member
no shit. no corporation is your friend..their job is to screw us as much as possible without doing it too much that we don't wanna use their services anymore.
 

prag16

Banned
As communism emerges from capitalism, counter-revolution is still a threat and needs to be repressed. Proletarian hegemony is a necessary requisite to classless society, and like everything else in ideology, art is an important tool in establishing this. Which is why every communist state censored counter-revolutionary art and only gave a platform to (state-sanctioned) proletarian art. Dissent cannot be permissible in such a society.

Unless you're speaking of some super idealistic rainbow communist land that springs up out of nowhere.

Yep. But they'll always just say "well all those other communists/socialists were just doing it wrong... this time it'll be utopia" .

People never seem to grasp the ramifications of completely removing the profit motive.
 

watership

Member
I think the main point is that Valve has established an emotional connection because they were the only game in town for the longest time, That is dangerous, as it clouds judgement. Any sort of competition seems to be treated with hostility, good or not.
 

patapuf

Member
I think the main point is that Valve has established an emotional connection because they were the only game in town for the longest time, That is dangerous, as it clouds judgement. Any sort of competition seems to be treated with hostility, good or not.

That's just not true.

You get some dumb messageboard posts but people use all the services, numbers go up everywhere and plenty of games thrive outside of steam.


And when the service/client is good - like GOG - people praise it


Sure, some stick to steam. But there's really nothing worrying in the fact that some consumers will stick to one platform. Happens in all industries for all products (hell look at consoles, the PS2 was just as dominant, nobody saw the end of console gaming because some stuck with Playstation only).
 
Top Bottom