I don’t think that taking a cut for the sheer exposure of the platform is the same as exploitation. Even small devs make more money by an order of magnitude through steam than they would if they did not.
Steam costs money to operate. I really don’t understand why people think steam should just be valorous and noble and not make any money. Labeling them the middleman implies they don’t do anything. They provide a service in the same way a grocery store is there to make sure you don’t have to drive to a different farm every time you want a different kind of vegetable.
That’s really the only problem I have with what you said. Of course people shouldn’t be loyal to companies, I’m just pointing out the flaw in your logic that people should be loyal to people instead. Any type of figure that you don’t personally know is primarily a concept.
But also, “Behaving like a responsible consumer” is an idealistic fantasy that mostly fails because of the prisoner dilemma. If not enough people do it, the only people who suffer are the ones doing it. That base mindset might be overcame on an individual basis, but it’s rarely popular enough to gain the traction required for actual change, and it becomes more and more difficult the more people are content with the service.
It doesn’t help that steam is essentially the only game launcher that isn’t tiny or garbage.
Steam costs money to operate. I really don’t understand why people think steam should just be valorous and noble and not make any money.
This is exactly the point I’m making. Or rather, I really don’t understand why people think steam IS valorous and noble and not just making money.
I’m just pointing out the flaw in your logic that people should be loyal to people instead. Any type of figure that you don’t personally know is primarily a concept.
Agreed. I don’t follow why that means you should have loyalty for them.
“Behaving like a responsible consumer” is an idealistic fantasy that mostly fails because of the prisoner dilemma.
Totally agree.
It doesn’t help that steam is essentially the only game launcher that isn’t tiny or garbage.
I agree with basically everything you said. I just think the rational implication is to be reservedly greatful for the parts that benefit you, and readily critical of the parts that don’t. And I don’t understand why people instead reach the conclusion that one or two random alignments in interests means they should swear their allegiance to a corporation that cannot possibly do the same for them.
I don’t think that taking a cut for the sheer exposure of the platform is the same as exploitation. Even small devs make more money by an order of magnitude through steam than they would if they did not.
Steam costs money to operate. I really don’t understand why people think steam should just be valorous and noble and not make any money. Labeling them the middleman implies they don’t do anything. They provide a service in the same way a grocery store is there to make sure you don’t have to drive to a different farm every time you want a different kind of vegetable.
That’s really the only problem I have with what you said. Of course people shouldn’t be loyal to companies, I’m just pointing out the flaw in your logic that people should be loyal to people instead. Any type of figure that you don’t personally know is primarily a concept.
But also, “Behaving like a responsible consumer” is an idealistic fantasy that mostly fails because of the prisoner dilemma. If not enough people do it, the only people who suffer are the ones doing it. That base mindset might be overcame on an individual basis, but it’s rarely popular enough to gain the traction required for actual change, and it becomes more and more difficult the more people are content with the service.
It doesn’t help that steam is essentially the only game launcher that isn’t tiny or garbage.
This is exactly the point I’m making. Or rather, I really don’t understand why people think steam IS valorous and noble and not just making money.
Agreed. I don’t follow why that means you should have loyalty for them.
Totally agree.
I agree with basically everything you said. I just think the rational implication is to be reservedly greatful for the parts that benefit you, and readily critical of the parts that don’t. And I don’t understand why people instead reach the conclusion that one or two random alignments in interests means they should swear their allegiance to a corporation that cannot possibly do the same for them.