this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2025
240 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

4163 readers
113 users here now

The Lemmy.zip Gaming Community

For news, discussions and memes!


Community Rules

This community follows the Lemmy.zip Instance rules, with the inclusion of the following rule:

You can see Lemmy.zip's rules by going to our Code of Conduct.

What to Expect in Our Code of Conduct:


If you enjoy reading legal stuff, you can check it all out at legal.lemmy.zip.


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DudeImMacGyver@kbin.earth 38 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This sort of shit is why I don't mind spending tons of money with Valve.

[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 22 points 10 months ago

That's awesome! Good that they keep a bar of minimum quality.

[–] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 19 points 10 months ago (3 children)

How would Steam get paid for their services if all your income was from ads?

[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 18 points 10 months ago

Well, they could just require publishers to share the ad revenue.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 8 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Damn, I was coming here to say this is a meaningful curation step and I couldn't give Steam my usual cynical reality check, but you found the angle and now I can't unsee it.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 26 points 10 months ago

It can be both. Steam wants their cut, but they also don’t want consumers seeing a free game on Steam, downloading it, and then complaining to Steam because it’s not actually free, it’s just riddled with ads.

[–] turmacar@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

It can be both.

[–] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I don't think it's cynical. Their review model would make it very hard to make payment fair (we can always argue about whether Steam overcharges for its services) since it would be a pain in the butt to track income from advertisement.

But the advertisement business model makes for worse games. I think it makes great sense for Steam to ban them. And if games on Steam are better then that's good for game developers that use their platform.

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They could have made their own advertising network and force it to be used instead.

[–] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

They could. That takes a lot more employees than they have and would mean that they were the place with all the shitty free games.

[–] hubobes@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Valve is such a weird company, on one hand they do things like this, on the other hand there is CS gambling.

[–] bollybing@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 10 months ago

They were also one of the first companies to put ads in video games with CS1.6.

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I just don't see how they are responsible for CS gambling.

They created an open market, where people can trade and sell their items. Just like people want, instead of being locked down in the game you play at the time.

Of course people are going to gamble with the items, just like they do with anything else you can trade. but how is that not a regulatory issue and instead paved on valve?

[–] derek@infosec.pub 2 points 10 months ago

Lootboxes.

Players have a random chance of getting crate while playing the game. Each crate is a pool of item cosmetics with various levels of rarity. To acquire one of them the player must purchase a one-use key with real money. Expending the key on a crate initiates a die roll that determines which cosmetic is unlocked.

That's the gambling they're responsible for. What gambling players may of afterward is not the same conversation.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Burnout Paradise woulda been banned from Steam.

[–] nieminen@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I don't remember ads in that game when I played it on the PS3