76
votes
Valve doesn't sell ad space on Steam so it can make room for surprise hits: 'We don't think Steam should be pay-to-win'
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Authors
- Dave Jones
- Published
- Oct 17 2023
- Word count
- 500 words
Anecdotally, I've found a lot of games using the Interactive Recommender.
It allows me to look for games by choosing specific genres and tags, as well as by excluding others. I can also narrow by the age of the game and other useful factors.
Another good option is SteamDB.
From a future indie Dev perspective, I think proper tagging is would be very important for discoverability. Especially for all the "because you played..." sections throughout the Steam store.
Steam 250 can be helpful.
I've found random hidden gems using this tool.
https://steam250.com/
Anyone else refuse to buy a game you’re unfamiliar with unless it’s rated “overwhelmingly positive” by the Steam reviews? I don’t need video games enough in my life to spend money and time on something less than excellent. Half Life: Alyx and Baldur’s Gate 3 are my most recent purchases.
Not that I won’t play any games that aren’t popular. My favorite on Steam is DayZ. But I’ve been playing that for over 10 years at this point.
As I've gotten older, I tend to purchase games a year or two after release. I get the patches, DLC, and mods with none of the day one bugs. Saves time and gives a better experience. Sometimes a price drops too!
One habit I have from being poor is that I have a pretty low and hard price celiling when it comes to games. It doesn't matter if it's mind-blowing, if it's much more than $20 I probably won't buy it. It doesn't mean that there are games I won't play, but that I'll play them much later with all the improvements you mentioned, and on hardware better than it was originally built to play on (at least when it comes to PC games). It's nice because it essentially means that I'm always getting a "definitive edition".
On the other hand, there are some games that never seem to go down on price (I'm looking at you Nintendo and Tecmo Koei). I'll eventually bite the bullet and buy it if it's truely fantastic, but it still takes years. Though in many cases my husband ends up buying them pretty close to launch.
I go more off of the concept. I do take reviews into account, but I generally ignore the "rating" and tend to read the actual reviews instead. Too many reviews, positive and negative are either, "Game gud" or "Game sux", so I generally try to look for people that mention the nuance of the game instead.
There are many games out there that are "Overwhelmingly Positive" that I know I would 100% be bored with after 5-10 hours, Dredge and Dave the Diver being two relatively recent examples. But I'll buy something with middling reviews if the price is right, the concept looks interesting and if it tends to be a Love it or Hate it type thing based on the reviews.
Same. I particularly look for recent reviews that go against the grain. People can get very detailed on why they rated games badly such as technical issues, wonky controls, etc. On the other hand sometimes a game with mixed or negative reviews have most bad ratings come from early access days, while more recent reviews state it's great.
And sometimes, the negative reviews are why I might end up buying a game. The reason someone else doesn't like it might be the same reason I would.
Overall though? Number-based ratings don't actually tell much about a video game compared to films or books. Video games are pretty unique experiences for every person who plays them, and they vary so wildly in terms of play style and mechanics. So a number alone doesn't really tell you anything about the game, let alone whether you'd like it or not.
Nah. I went the opposite route. I have a very specific taste so I don't really jump on a game unless it feels like it's ticking those boxes. I don't particularly pay much attention to user reviews for that reason, not past "how long is the game?" and "is the game buggy?"
I also just don't really care much about sales/discounts/bundles. Those kinds of games aren't AAA and rarely go on sale and I buy maybe 10 games on a good year.
I think limiting yourself only to "overwhelmingly positive" might be a bit too much, but I do generally read reviews and assess what people are saying before buying. For some genres I do limit myself to overwhelmingly positive, but there are some genres and gameplay elements that I know I'll adore even if other parts of the game aren't implemented as well as they could be, so it's very case-by-case for me.
This is the mindset you can only get from a privately owned company.
This is literal pedantry, please forgive me.
I think you mean privately held. Vanishingly few corporations are "publicly owned", as that phrase usually refers to crown companies or public land. Things held by a democratic state for public use and benefit. Conversely, nearly every company, Steam's parent included, is owned, privately, by individuals, even publicly listed and traded corporations. Public companies are collectively privately owned, and private companies are privately privately owned. Valve is not unique in its ownership, many game companies are private, but it's definitely unique in its corporate structure, and that's only possible thanks to that ownership.
This is pretty immaterial in this context, but I feel like I've seen a half dozen miscommunications stemming from this imprecision here in the past few months. Apologies if this comes across as hostile, it is not intended.
Edit to be as clear as possible: "Publicly owned corporations" are usually owned by the state or are cooperatives. "Public corporations" or companies, in the US financial domain at least, usually refers to corporations whose ownership shares are available to the general public without a specific purchase agreement with the company, and for the privilege of such public trust, they are beholden to further regulations, especially with regard to financial reporting. "Private companies", in the same context, refer to the typical idea of a small business, where there may be more than a single owner, and they may even be structured as corporations, complete with C-suites, but each of those shareholders was brought in, whether via investment or bestowal, with full knowledge and consent of the entire previous set of owners. These terms are not hard-and-fast, but these are the conventional uses in reporting, and it's best to stick within them or to be explicit about one's precise meaning.
I think you misunderstood. My understanding of wervenyt's comment is that state-owned things are "publicly owned" and literally everything else is "privately owned." The difference is that "public" companies are "privately owned" collectively, by anyone who can afford to pay for stock, while "private" companies are "privately owned" by specific individual people and partial ownership can't be bought and sold.
That's exactly what I meant to say, I'll think about rephrasing. One footnote: private corporations can sell their stock to whoever they want, but it's a matter of contracts and literally private negotiations, whereas public corporations' shares can be made available on an open market listing. It's like the difference between joining a street brawl and joining a militia. The latter may well let whoever in, and in most cases both will do similar things, but they could also be as discerning as a military.
Original source is a SteamWorks video for game developers at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkmAqBvUBOw
A PDF version with the important bits: https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/steamcommunity/public/images/steamworks_docs/english/SteamVisibility102023.pdf
Additional discussion and Valve-loving on Lemmy at https://sh.itjust.works/post/7376401
I'm surprised to hear that "what's new" pop-up isn't for sale. It's definitely a series of ads, but I guess they curate it?
Yes, Steam has its own algorithms that provide information based on what they think will give the best user experience not what will make the most money.
This is how everything should be. Capitalism fucking sucks
And they’re making a ton of money. Capitalism might even suck at maximizing income.
Yes. But so are all other businesses, who mostly turn to mediocre attempts at profit maximization. The key is long term thinking and high standards.
This is the point I was trying to make, I don't think I was clear enough, thanks for putting that more concisely!
They're making a ton of money because they are providing the best service, the best customer experience. If they weren't, steam wouldn't be nearly as massive and practically the industry standard that it is.
That kind of success only comes from providing that fantastic service.
given every other sector of tech and its actions, I don't think it's because "they are the best". Valve had its early aggressive practices as well and has its share of rules that make it hard for a storefront to compete (e.g. you must have price parity with Steam, so you can't charge less on a different platform if they offer a lower cut).
I believe it comes down to being an early adopter and keeping costs down on stuff that other companies pay billions for. I'm not really as much a diehard Valve fan, but one underrated aspect of their company is their advertisement. They don't advertise like a billion dollar corporation does, nor do they rely on heavy B2B integrations either (e.g. ad integrations, paid API middleware, various tooling, not even a real support line). they arguably pioneered the act of reaching directly to its audience on the internet and just talking about their tech and games in a frank fashion.
I'm not quite sure if another competitor could ever do the same. Nowadays all companies have their obligatory "organic social media account" that tries to act like a user.
good for users. If that user has bought $5000+ worth of games, they aren't going to fight too much on the returning a $5 game 2 minutes over the refund window. Or heck, returning it months later if it's a one off. they don't need to penny pinch because that user will buy 5 more bundles in 2 months and more than make up for that loss.
It can be rough for devs who may need clarifications, though. They are almost as bad as Nintendo in that regard if you have any suspisions in your game. Definitely one aspect that reminds you that you're still dealing with a billion dollar corporation.