People need to remember a lot of the pro-consumer things that Valve has ever done were things they were forced to by regulation.
Like being able to return games? That was to comply with an Australian law, and it was just easier to implement it for everyone than just do it for Australia specifically.
I like Valve more than most companies, but exactly, they are not Saints by any measure.
We’re just at the point where “basically fine” is hands down better than the majority. Even if they were forced by regulation, they followed the regulations instead of ignoring them and fighting an insane court battle to nit pick it for the next decade.
Like, valve doesn’t seem to be trying to undermine democracy or somehow bring about an actively worse world. They seem to mostly obey the law and keep orderly as regulations change.
If you said you wouldn’t mind living Gabes life, I wouldn’t think you’re a sociopath.
People saying that valve is great says a lot more about the rest of the companies than it does about valve, but it still leaves valve near the top of the pile.
In general, I think being decent to customers is a business strategy, because the barrier to entry for a Steam competitor is nearly non-existent, and there’s always piracy. Still, capitalism working the way it’s “supposed to” is still capitalism.
It’s quite true, for example, they were one of the first companies to make successful inroads in selling video games in Russia back in the day. Other companies avoided it due to rampant piracy of games in Russia, but Valve successfully (at the time) provided a service and price point that made it more attractive to many Russians than piracy. Being decent to customers is indeed a viable business strategy, and up until the 1970’s was sort of the norm for business (not entirely, but far more than now). It wasn’t until then that businesses became far more extractive from their customer base than trying to build better products for customers.
However, they were also pioneers in certain aspects of gaming that have become detrimental to consumers, such as loot boxes and digital marketplaces. They have done their best to manage and regulate those within their own walled garden, but they have taken a hands-off approach to gambling on Steam marketplace items that takes place on websites outside of Steam (which to an extent is fair since many of them exist in countries where Valve would have very little success in taking them down in any way).
It’s not network effects (but slightly related), it’s opportunity cost.
Getting your app into yet another app store isn’t hard, but takes time, so you need to make sure it doesn’t cost devs more to add support for you than it earns them. The slightest fuzz and they’ll drop you if you’re small.
But stores like Gog are able to exist just fine. They’re big enough that many devs think it’s worth it to support them. If you want more devs to do so, tell them that’s what you want and show it will be worth it. And if you want to open another store, copy Gog & co
I think we’re just at a point where a company not constantly trying to find ways to squirm out of every single thing is a breath of fresh air.
“Hi! We’re valve. We’re mostly following the law without fuss, mostly make money by getting people to buy things they want, and our excessively wealthy owner acts like a preposterously rich person, not a comic book villain: Fantasizing about living his life isn’t deeply concerning. The hardware we sell isn’t deliberately worse for consumers to no benefit to ourselves” – Hands down one of the best “big” companies out there.
Like being able to return games? That was to comply with an Australian law, and it was just easier to implement it for everyone than just do it for Australia specifically.
Well you say that but Sony also has an online game marketplace that operates in Australia.
I don’t know how it works in Australia, but in the U.S. their return policy is not nearly as generous as Steam’s. In fact it Sony’s return policy only really exists on paper. In reality they don’t really do returns at all.
While I won’t defend that he could be much more altruistic with his money, but complying with different refund laws at a digital level is super easy to do. Even more so for Australia, since it isn’t like anyone bouncing between country borders all the time there.
People need to remember a lot of the pro-consumer things that Valve has ever done were things they were forced to by regulation.
Like being able to return games? That was to comply with an Australian law, and it was just easier to implement it for everyone than just do it for Australia specifically.
I like Valve more than most companies, but exactly, they are not Saints by any measure.
We’re just at the point where “basically fine” is hands down better than the majority. Even if they were forced by regulation, they followed the regulations instead of ignoring them and fighting an insane court battle to nit pick it for the next decade.
Like, valve doesn’t seem to be trying to undermine democracy or somehow bring about an actively worse world. They seem to mostly obey the law and keep orderly as regulations change.
If you said you wouldn’t mind living Gabes life, I wouldn’t think you’re a sociopath.
People saying that valve is great says a lot more about the rest of the companies than it does about valve, but it still leaves valve near the top of the pile.
In general, I think being decent to customers is a business strategy, because the barrier to entry for a Steam competitor is nearly non-existent, and there’s always piracy. Still, capitalism working the way it’s “supposed to” is still capitalism.
It’s quite true, for example, they were one of the first companies to make successful inroads in selling video games in Russia back in the day. Other companies avoided it due to rampant piracy of games in Russia, but Valve successfully (at the time) provided a service and price point that made it more attractive to many Russians than piracy. Being decent to customers is indeed a viable business strategy, and up until the 1970’s was sort of the norm for business (not entirely, but far more than now). It wasn’t until then that businesses became far more extractive from their customer base than trying to build better products for customers.
However, they were also pioneers in certain aspects of gaming that have become detrimental to consumers, such as loot boxes and digital marketplaces. They have done their best to manage and regulate those within their own walled garden, but they have taken a hands-off approach to gambling on Steam marketplace items that takes place on websites outside of Steam (which to an extent is fair since many of them exist in countries where Valve would have very little success in taking them down in any way).
My brother in christ have you heard of network effects?
It’s not network effects (but slightly related), it’s opportunity cost.
Getting your app into yet another app store isn’t hard, but takes time, so you need to make sure it doesn’t cost devs more to add support for you than it earns them. The slightest fuzz and they’ll drop you if you’re small.
But stores like Gog are able to exist just fine. They’re big enough that many devs think it’s worth it to support them. If you want more devs to do so, tell them that’s what you want and show it will be worth it. And if you want to open another store, copy Gog & co
Network effects and chill?
I think we’re just at a point where a company not constantly trying to find ways to squirm out of every single thing is a breath of fresh air.
“Hi! We’re valve. We’re mostly following the law without fuss, mostly make money by getting people to buy things they want, and our excessively wealthy owner acts like a preposterously rich person, not a comic book villain: Fantasizing about living his life isn’t deeply concerning. The hardware we sell isn’t deliberately worse for consumers to no benefit to ourselves” – Hands down one of the best “big” companies out there.
Well you say that but Sony also has an online game marketplace that operates in Australia.
I don’t know how it works in Australia, but in the U.S. their return policy is not nearly as generous as Steam’s. In fact it Sony’s return policy only really exists on paper. In reality they don’t really do returns at all.
I agree, it’s easier to do it worldwide, but that doesn’t stop companies from writing extra code to comply with local restrictions only locally.
Look at all the US companies where their websites function differently if you are in california or not.
It was a law, but they were by no means forced to be good about it and let everyone in the world benefit.
While I won’t defend that he could be much more altruistic with his money, but complying with different refund laws at a digital level is super easy to do. Even more so for Australia, since it isn’t like anyone bouncing between country borders all the time there.