• creamfresh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    20 years ago, the exact opposite was said about Steam and they didn’t change much. People just got used to it.

    • NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      No.

      As a person who resisted hard 20 years ago, they earned it. I didn’t get used to it, I found value. In cloud saves, in steam sales, in no pushy advertising, and so on.

      As a Linux user over 20 years they also did what nobody else really tried. That matters a lot.

      • dreamkeeper@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Yeah the steam “sales” that cost more than used physical games because valve killed them. How generous of Gabe.

        The steam cult among PC gamers is fucking absurd. Valve did more damage to PC gaming than any other company on the planet.

        If it weren’t for national and local governments repeatedly suing them we wouldn’t even have their meager 2 hour refund policy.

      • RebekahWSD@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        My husband remembers buying The Ship in a store, and when he went to install it out said he had to install something called Steam for the multiplayer. He was baffled and annoyed.

        Now all the games we have save a few from GOG are steam.

      • BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        They failed at first attempt with steamOS, but they learned the lesson, and came back swinging with years of preparation.

    • bountygiver [any]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Sure they didn’t change much if you ignored all the improvements they made to the platform.

      If they didn’t the other competitors wouldn’t be irrelevant today.

      • dreamkeeper@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        They literally cornered the digital sales market from the very beginning with HL2. It has nothing to do with “improvements to the platform”. By the time other companies had the infrastructure to try to catch up it was far too late. If you wanted to sell a PC game digitally, you had to do it on steam.

        So much ridiculous counterfactual revisionist history in this thread.

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 day ago

      They haven’t changed much? They have like literally a million more games available on their store now.

      • creamfresh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        The basic principle is the same: a DRM-enabled online store, and more often than not the only source for certain games, a monopoly.

        • locahosr443@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          And with those resources they decided to make a huge long term investment in making PC gaming on windows optional, then even the worse experience. Don’t see that loser Tim sweeny doing anything of that value… It’s not exactly a monopoly either… You can install any other available store on your pc, unlike consoles. More competition would be great but steams market share was earned in an environment that wasn’t a walled garden.