this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
689 points (98.9% liked)

Linux Gaming

15274 readers
146 users here now

Discussions and news about gaming on the GNU/Linux family of operating systems (including the Steam Deck). Potentially a $HOME away from home for disgruntled /r/linux_gaming denizens of the redditarian demesne.

This page can be subscribed to via RSS.

Original /r/linux_gaming pengwing by uoou.

Resources

WWW:

Discord:

IRC:

Matrix:

Telegram:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nieceandtows@programming.dev 130 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This is why I gave up buying on GOG and buy my games exclusively on Steam. Valve has made linux a viable gaming platform through seamless proton integration and steam deck. GOG on the other hand hasn't even built a linux client after all these years.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] whitecapstromgard@sh.itjust.works 120 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Valve almost makes me believe in capitalism.

[–] M500@lemmy.ml 122 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Just run the company in a way where you don’t really care about maximizing profit. As long as you’re not at a loss and are liked, you will be successful.

Valve could probably be much more profitable at the expense of being a bigger dick, but Gabe is chill.

[–] senoro@lemmy.ml 120 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Also because valve is private, they don’t have any legal obligations to return maximise profit. They can purposefully lose money if they want and it’s not illegal. (At least to my knowledge)

[–] Justas@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It would be illegal if they did it to price out the competition, which I don't think is something they do.

[–] sadreality@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ton of public companies lose money...

As long as execs get paid, it is all good.

[–] altima_neo@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 year ago

Yeah, that's it right there. Not being public means they don't have to appease shareholders who want maximum growth and returns.

[–] M500@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m guessing this is a big part of it. A private company can do just about whatever they want as there are not shareholders that you are working for.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yup. And the moment he steps down (or gets hit by the greed) everything will go to shit. As is tradition.

[–] M500@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

Since it’s a private company he can just appoint anyone he wants to be the ceo. Maybe his son will take it or maybe he will maintain ownership of it until I’m too old to care.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 49 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Valve is far from a typical company. While technically not, they operate pretty much like a worker owned cooperative. Have a look at their employee handbook: https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/publications

(and Igalia, the company presenting in OP is really a worker owned cooperative).

[–] MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

holy crap I want to work there. I never had any idea they had such a radical structure (or lack thereof)

[–] angrymouse@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago (6 children)

If you remove stock market as a whole, maybe capitalism can work a little in a soc democracy, with stock market is impossible

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 year ago

Stock markets are socially acceptable ponzi schemes

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Valve is the prime example of rent seeking behavior. It's a private company that collects economic rents on a market thanks to that market being the biggest. They're a private company and their only goal is to preserve those rents. They do that by fostering goodwill. They're everything I hate about capitalism, but I don't hate them for doing it.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

They are also a good example of positive middleman behaviour. While they take their cut, the value they provide to both sides is huge.

They are also in a position where they are still easily replaceable. Their dominance is from doing it well, not because they have an absolute lock in.

Part of why this works is because they don't have to prioritise short term profit over long term. Most companies like this get brought up and pumped dry. Valve seems to be the exception.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't think Steam is rent-seeking because:

  • no cost to maintaining an account
  • no cost for keys if you sell stuff outside the Steam store
  • no cost for downloads
  • no cost for improvements to games

Valve's customers are publishers and devs, and they're charging a finder's fee for connecting customers to the games. To me, that's not rent seeking, that's a direct exchange of money for a service. If you don't think the service is valuable or think you can do better, then generate keys and sell them elsewhere and you won't need to pay Valve a cut.

Valve is capitalism done right imo. You only pay when you receive a service, and only when you profit from the service. Steam also has a fantastic refund policy as well, which is surprisingly rare in the digital goods market.

[–] teolan@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Unlike every other company in their position they're not complete assholes to consumers :

  • steam deck not locked down at all and reparable
  • steam and valve games support Linux very well
  • they don't sign exclusivity deals for games to only be on steam

Most companies in their position would lock their users in, they don't. That doesn't mean they can't be abusive though. 30% of game revenue is huge!

[–] Tau@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

At least gamedevs can generate keys and sell them on other sites to get a bigger cut

I don't think you can do that on EGS or GOG. So they ask 30%, but only if they actually helped make the sale. If you drove the revenue yourself, they're happy to distribute the game for free on their platform.

That's about the least scumbag model I can think of.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] patatahooligan@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Well, Valve is privately-owned company and it's investing a lot of money into the free software ecosystem right now. Yes it's capitalism but very different in principles to the rest of the market.

[–] swnt@feddit.de 95 points 1 year ago (3 children)

One of the few companies I've purchased digital good from - and they haven't enshittified themselves yet

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 61 points 1 year ago (5 children)

If anything ever happens to Gabe such that he can't run the company, that's the day I'm immediately downloading and backing up my entire steam library to a hard drive.

[–] Unwind2046@iusearchlinux.fyi 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Wouldn't those games be locked up through steams DRM?

[–] Qvest@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Some games from Steam can still be used without Steam's DRM. It's a little difficult to pull it off, but it can be done

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

A lot of games don't require Steam's DRM, you quit Steam and launch through the Steam directory and it still works. I haven't tried it, but I'm pretty sure I can copy that game to a computer with no internet access and no Steam client and it'll work. I haven't done that though, I've only done it when I forgot my kids were playing on my account on another computer and wanted to play a game.

A lot of games don't work this way, but a lot do. Try it for yourself.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Octorine@midwest.social 9 points 1 year ago

Drm on Steam is optional. It's up to the dev whether to include any or not.

However, if the game uses any steam features, like achievements, voice chat, leaderboards, etc., then those won't work without steam.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] min_fapper@iusearchlinux.fyi 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

It's because they're a privately owned company.

The pressure for enshitification mostly comes from shareholders. Without them, the company can actually think about their long term future and decide exactly when and when not to increase profit.

I tend to avoid proprietary things whenever possible these days, but I found most things by small, privately owned companies are pretty good towards their users.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] simple@lemm.ee 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Well they did try to sell paid mods and push pay-to-play in the steam marketplace with Artifact, but luckily they ran it back. Steam is super good now but don't get too comfortable.

[–] DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I've been burnt before and know it's only a matter of time. Enjoying it while I can.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I mean, I don't have a problem with mod authors earning money for what they do instead of having to offer it for free. Especially the mods that bring the base game to a whole new level.

What's the argument that paid mods shouldn't be a thing?

[–] simple@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

It was pretty disastrous. As soon as money was at play tons of people re-uploaded other's free mods and tried to sell them. They even tried copying their steam profiles to seem legit. There was another can of worms where paid mods would use assets from other games or made by other people. Aside from all the attempted theft, there was also tons of spam and fake/unconfirmed mods lying about what they are or trying to upload the same thing multiple times under different names to appear more in search... Etc...

Moderation didn't keep up and the whole thing collapsed on itself. Mods shouldn't be paid IMO, it just encourages terrible things rather than people making content for fun.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] art@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

I don't game regularly, and Steamdeck is probably not something I'm going to be purchasing anytime soon. However, I was hopeful that Valve's investment into Linux would be beneficial and to the larger Linux landscape.

I'm hopeful that more companies will look at Valve's success and start building more on Linux in a way that will benefit the upstream community.

[–] emax_gomax@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To a certain degree sure, I'm still miffed at what they did for the steamdeck. Having custom drivers and configurations they never open sourced and have not declared any intention to open source. See https://gitlab.com/open-sd/acp5x-ucm-files#notice .

Valve is still a good advocate for open source, the support they've given to dxvk alone is worth praise. But they ain't no angels.

[–] spookedbyroaches@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Is what they're doing causing issues to users of their devices? If not, then no one should care. It's the same for nvidia, if no one is affected, then whatever. But nvidia does cause measurable harm to the FOSS ecosystem and makes adoption worse, so they deservingly get shit from the FOSS community. But don't just criticize companies purely for closing their sources.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 8 points 1 year ago

I bet Linus still thinks their code is shit tho

load more comments
view more: next ›