Let me buy the same game 5 times, damnit!
“I’ll stop making them when you stop buying them.”
You joke, but Japanese Twitter is full of corpo simps.
I may be ignorant af here but…I think culturally, they aren’t nearly as cynical as we are about the corporate hellscape, at least not publicly.
The attitude seems to be that companies, especially Nintendo, are a home-country brand, seen as successful and good at business, and therefore should be respected for it.
This is the likely the same attitude that leads to their abysmal work culture that prizes literally working yourself to death, or at least as close to it as you can.
I think the death grip is loosening though, primarily driven by younger generations seeing through the bullshit.
Is that other joycon up it’s butt?
Yes, they have HD vibrations you know
I’m assuming Steam’s shotgun is the Steam Machine price? Not shotgun-worthy at all. They’ll make money regardless of how it does.
The Steam Machine is actually a better choice in a digital-only console landscape. Only a PC is better than it
At this rate, the PS6 would be a streaming device (like the Playstation Portal) and the PS7 would be an online virtual machine.
It IS a PC
Ps6 will be able to run steamlite® but you will have to purchase each title on the PlayStation store and steam to be able to play it and will cost 900 dollars
They were very obviously “shot” by AI and memory manufacturers.
OP is not a very good detective. They’d walk up on a scene and determine that five shots to the back of the head must have been suicide.
My guess would be Steam removing physical gift cards?
Eh wait for the steam frame for the second shot
The damn thing sold out immediately.
No surprise there, there are plenty of people with expendable income that will want Valve’s newest thing. But even their biggest success, the Steam Deck, only managed around 5 million sales at a reasonable price. The Steam Machine is doubly niche at that price.
While I agree there with the Machine being more niche and would probably not sell as much as a Deck, the deck also has availability issues. Can’t sell more than exist 🤷♂️ (or well, I guess you could, but then you’d be an asshole lol).
The Deck was available and at a decent price for years. But you’re right, every one they made did get eventually get sold until the new and “improved price” versions came out.
Why do you think it’s more niche? It’s a pc, priced reasonably for a pc this size at this time, while the deck is a handheld. Are you saying that PCs are more niche than handhelds nowadays?
Eh, I’d argue the steam machine isn’t a PC to most people that don’t already own a PC. Most adverts I’ve seen of the steam machine promote it very console-like, just with steam and more games. Everyone who reads enough into it, and knows enough about PCs to feel comfortable with Linux, most likely already has a comparable or better PC at home.
It’s meant to be an entry-level PC to help console gamers migrate into a PC environment with minimal overhead.
It’s not meant to be a 4k at 240fps future proofed build.
Because a PC enthusiast is more likely to build their own and it’s too expensive for a non-enthusiast. The Steam Deck was as popular as it was because of the price.
Why do you think it’s too expensive for non-enthusiasts? I mean it is expensive, just as other PCs became expensive. But if you are not saying that PC sales will stop altogether, then I don’t see how SM is niche given that it’s priced comparatively to other PCs.
I mean it’s closer to a pellet gun because afaik the Steam machine isn’t subsidized by game sales unlike some consoles, still engineering and setting up manufacturing still probably cost a lot so it’s probably still a gun just not a shotgun.
I look at the Steam Machine being a proof of concept device leading to third party development.
There is now a lot of interest in computer markers to make their own machine and Valve is more than happy if they do it at no cost to Valve.
Yeah valve wins regardless of who builds the machines, arguably they win more if someone else builds the machine but regardless they win.
Nintendo is going to make money no matter what
Yup, especially once they start putting out their heavy hitter franchises.
And so will all the others, maybe except Ubisoft.
I think this is about losing fans/customers, not necessarily losing money. Which is still a stretch with Steam. The Machine isn’t the best product, but it’s not harming anyone.
To me, its the price fixing allegations (e.g. dictating the prices of other stores).
What did valve do?
Valve started it. Valve invented the “we can violate copyright laws because it’s on a computer”. Your purchased games will be digital downloads where you have no actual ownership rights.
It is illegal to stop you from reselling copyrighted work you bought at whatever price you can get. Book publishers tried that over 100 years ago and were smacked down by the Supreme Court and followed up with laws passed by Congress.
What copyright law did valve violate?
I can only assume that you think that copyright law are laws granting rights to copy holders, rather than laws granting the rights to the creator to control who can make copies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
That a new law was created to say “if it’s on a computer you don’t have rights” doesn’t mean the public should meekly accept being screwed over. It’s the same as the current anti repair laws.
What law?
The law you linked is 100 years old, and was superseded 50 years ago. The doctrine you linked explains exactly how it does not apply well to digital works, because you’re making a copy (which first sale doctrine does not allow you to do) when you sell it, and also because you weren’t sold the work in the first place, you were licensed it’s use, and you can’t sell or transfer licenses under first sale doctrine.I agree this is counter to the spirit of the first sale doctrine, but that means laws need to be updated, not that a new law was created to deny you rights.
The law you linked is 100 years old
Laws don’t expire unless specifically written to expire. Do you not believe in the right to free speech because that law is 250 years old?
Nor was it superceded 50 years ago. The case was in 2012 and wasn’t ruled until 2018.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi_Inc.
because you’re making a copy (which first sale doctrine does not allow you to do)
You aren’t necessarily making a copy. You are transferring a license to use. Steam restricts duplicate license usage.
The law was about digital copies of music without DRM. Given that Steam restricts duplicate licenses, that court ruling doesn’t necessarily apply. And a court ruling isn’t a law. That’s why I claim Steam is breaking the law. But they get away with it because they have the billions to sue anyone who fights for the legal rights. So no one has tried.
Literally in the first paragraph of the link you sent me about the 100 year old law, it said that it was repealed and superseded in the 70s. I don’t think you’re even reading the sources you send me. Are you just generating responses with ai?
Again, what law is being broken by steam?
First sale doctrine does not apply to licenses, it applies to products, and furthermore you cannot transfer a digital product without copying it.We can’t just say that they’re breaking the law as were wish it existed rather than how it actually is, but I agree with your goal, that software should be resellable.
, it said that it was repealed and superseded in the 70s.
It absolutely did not say that.
17 U.S.C. § 109(a) from 1976 clarified the earlier laws without changing them at all. It even specifically mentions video games. That is if you buy a video game you have the right to resell it (dispose).
Courts have since ruled that the law and 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) don’t apply because you bought a “license”.
But that doesn’t change the law or 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) which was even clearer that someone who purchases music or a video game has the right to resell it.
Court rulings aren’t law.
They did not invent that lol. Music companies did.
Music companies weren’t selling games.
What a blind distinction
In a legal sense, media is media. The laws were established for music before digital games were mainstream, and were then applied to games.
The iTunes Store is older than the Steam Store.
Itunes didn’t sell games.
The argument is about digital goods not just video games, but for the record they absolutely did.
You didn’t read your own link. From your own Wikipedia link: First game released in 2006. 2 years after Steam.
“the argument isn’t about games”? Then where is the non gaming publisher in the OP gif above?
They most definitely did. Maybe you should learn about the stuff you’re talking about before posting things that are completely wrong.
Maybe you should look up history before downvoting:
https://www.macworld.com/article/181577/ipodgames-2.html
First game on itunes was 2006- 3 years after Steam.
I do not see what your link has to do with your comment. iTunes did sell games, your comment was factually incorrect.
Books aren’t games, either, but you brought them up. Why are different forms of media valid when they support your argument but not when they don’t?
Your purchased games will be digital downloads where you have no actual ownership rights.
show me evidence that they took games away from users after they were purchased and didn’t give refunds back to.
If I don’t let you resell something you bought that’s ownership. I’m not talking about illegal copies. I’m talking about transferring the license to play the content you purchased.
If I take something back that you bought, even if I give you a refund, that’s not ownership.
How about you buy a house, then when you go to sell it, the builder says you can’t. Or you are living in a house that you bought and 5 years later the builder says, we are taking your house back, here is what you paid for it.
That’s not ownership.
If I don’t let you resell something you bought that’s ownership.
TIL people with organ transplants don’t own the organs they bought.
TIL people with pacemakers don’t own their hearts.
If I take something back that you bought, even if I give you a refund, that’s not ownership.
so has steam ever taken games from users? I mean, I have games no longer offered through the store. hell, I bought game keys from Amazon for games that aren’t sold in store anymore and added them to my steam library. so please tell me how I don’t own my games by your definitions.
your only proof is from a decade ago and you clearly didn’t read it. because if you had read it, you would have seen this little tidbit.
people with organ transplants don’t own the organs they bought.
You didn’t buy the organ you got transplanted because federal law prohibits all organ sales.
TIL people with pacemakers don’t own their hearts.
??? A pacemaker is device implanted to maintain regular rhythm. If you purchased one from the manufacturer, you could sell it to someone else.
“Only multi player content”
So content was removed.
You didn’t buy the organ you got transplanted because federal law prohibits all organ sales.
so you don’t own your organs, and thus have no rights.
content that was removed by the original developer, not steam.
Ownership of your person which includes your organs is covered under constitutional rights, not property rights.
Any time someone gets an account ban. Now sometimes those are for a good reason, but it still removes access to purchased content, as steam is the gatekeeper to access them.
don’t be a scrote then?
It’s about reselling them. You cannot sell your game on steam. EU made a law that requires is and then Steam converted everyone’s purchases into licenses.
I’ve never resold games. I still have Kings Quest 3 in the original box, disks, and paperwork.
why would I sell games?
You might not sell games, but other people do especially if they don’t like a game.
Now the game just sits in a virtual library unplayed. If there was a way to sell, or loan, a game license to a friend or something, that’d be cool.
So this doesn’t feel like an issue to me because its a digital download.
This means we know an infinite number of these games could be made. There is no scarcity issue at hand. So my digital copy sitting unplayed doesn’t remove from someone else’s ability to play. Therefore I don’t really care that I don’t play those games.
Also, invite your friends over for a lan party
guess I just don’t care about the cost. I don’t buy launch titles. if I don’t like a game I just give it away to someone and chalk the cost up to learning to never buy from that developer again.
And how do you give away a digital game?
Looking at your comments intellectual quality you also never sold a house. That doesn’t mean it would be ok to convert everyone’s property into leasing.
I’m genuinely sad for you.
not only did you waste your time reading through my comment history, you also thought that your weak attempt at wit would somehow inflame or irritate.
it’s clear you didn’t learn anything about me because if you had, you would have known that I need to care about your opinion for it to matter to me.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I didn’t.
I prefer the version that has OpenAI and Anthropic shooting Valve.
What did Steam do?
Alright, fuckit, I’ll be Devils Advocate.
Bellular News reported on some emails that came up in Discovery from a recent lawsuit. Many people have heard the story “They just don’t want devs to sell Steam keys below their price.” This was not that. There is E-mail evidence of Valve preventing Ubisoft from selling a version of Siege for $10 on their store, while the Steam price was $15; and there may be similar examples coming up.
This is more important for indies than a shitty AAA store, but basically a dev should be allowed to run their own store and skip Valve’s fees if they are committed. Minecraft did it, for instance. Part of the issue is, while I’m pretty sure people can come up with counterexamples, Valve doesn’t seem perfectly consistent with any one policy.
I still love Steam and I consider most “monopoly” claims to be Epic-paid astroturf. But I won’t default to defending them on all fronts when they also tacitly allow child gambling.
Probably mad about GabeCube price.
I can’t really blame em for that. I blame Sam Altman and the army of Clankers that spawned from it
Sam Altman’s AI Slop did it, not the godly Gabe.
