• tekeous@usenet.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    283
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    28 days ago

    Are you joking? I’ve saved thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, by waiting for Steam Sales and buying games at a reasonable price for me(I’m poor) rather than paying $60 a game. Nobody else does this(When was the last time Nintendo put Mario Kart on sale?)

    The statement “Steam overcharges gamers” is self-defeating and hilarious.

    • Vaquedoso@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      79
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      28 days ago

      Totally agree, steam is one the big players that stills offers a quality service both for consumers and for developers

    • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      28 days ago

      Maybe this lawsuit is founded by this dodgy lawyer group on behalf of a competitor under the table, who is pissed at exactly the fact steam sales are too generous and others cannot compete

      • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        28 days ago

        Would said competitor be the one who successfully trained their users to only look at their store once a week for a free game or two then close the store again? 😉

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      28 days ago

      I recently got my first current-gen game console a couple of years ago (Nintendo switch) and was floored at how expensive all of the games are and how meager the sales are. PC gaming is shockingly cheap when you get down to it

      • BigFig@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        28 days ago

        FYI go walk your local target from time to time. They’ll sometimes have random sales on the big switch games with no online listing of the sale. I got the last pokemon game 6 months or so late for $20 off

        • stardust@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          28 days ago

          Nintendo doesn’t reward super patient gaming though like other consoles where I didnt pay more than over $20 for any PS4 first party exclusives. It is actually on the weird side where sometimes physical prices actually go up with Nintendo seeming to be more conservative about number of physical copies they make to keep prices high compared to Sony where brick and motor stores look to offload physical inventory. So leads to used market for Nintendo games going crazy compared to downward trend of other consoles.

        • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          27 days ago

          Oh that’s good to know! Too bad my nearest target is 20 miles away and a very annoying drive over a poorly designed arterial road

      • SeekPie@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        27 days ago

        I remember a couple of years ago when my little brother saved up for a switch for like a year, and then didn’t have any money left for games because of the prices.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        28 days ago

        Sales of physical copies of games is where consoles truly shine. It’s not as great as a few years ago (getting surplus steelbook games for like $10 sometimes), but you can still regularly pick up AAA games that are a handful of months old for $20 or sometimes less.

        Check sites like dekudeals and psprices (steamDB is great too for making sure you’re not being over charged on Steam).

        It’s just being a savvy consumer.

        But yeah, when it comes to Nintendo hardware, the only reason to have it imo is the first party games, and those will never go on sale so you might as well just pony up. You can do the voucher thing and save $10 on each if you get two games (dunno if that’s still a thing).

    • fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      28 days ago

      Right?! Having moved off of consoles entirely this generation, I’ve hoovered up amazing games during the countless Steam sales at prices CEX can’t even beat.

      I hope this gets thrown out as hogwash.

    • Omega@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      28 days ago

      Playstation and Xbox regularly put games on sale. And their base prices almost always go down over time. I assume Steam is more steep discounts. But you can absolutely get by without paying full price on consoles if you wait.

      • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        28 days ago

        You can usually snag items for 75% or more off about 1-2 years after launch on Steam (and by extension all other PC game sales platforms) and it’s consistent enough that you can count on it (and I do!). I’ve never seen discounts go that deep on consoles, at least not for games I actually play.

    • fluxion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      35
      ·
      28 days ago

      You’re poor but have possibly spent hundreds of thousands on games?

      • tekeous@usenet.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        28 days ago

        No, I’ve saved hundreds of thousands. Between Steam sales and Humble Bundle, always being a patient gamer, I’ve amassed over 300 games id like to play but haven’t spent more than $500 on Steam over my entire life. I’m poor but $500 over a couple years I can do.

        For comparison, at $60 a game, that would buy me 8 console or Nintendo games at full price plus a little DLC.

        It’s the best price, bar none.

        • Stovetop@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          27 days ago

          Is that in American dollars?

          If those 300 games were even US $70 each which is exceedingly generous, you’d only scratch $21,000 as the cost of everything. Unless Steam was literally giving you $180,000+ for using their store, you’ve not saved hundreds of thousands.

          Unless you’re referring to hundreds of thousands of pennies.

          • MufinMcFlufin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            27 days ago

            It’s possible they have more games in their library as they did say 300+ games they want to play, but yeah the numbers they gave don’t add up to hundreds of thousands. Unless they were taking phrases like “a $700 Demon Souls machine” very literally.

          • BigPotato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            28 days ago

            Different guy but I’ve got over 2,700 games on Steam thanks to sales… So I’ve probably saved at least one thousand… Maybe not two, unless we count not buying for Star Citizen as a savings!

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      41
      ·
      28 days ago

      They get a 30% cut and make enough money that Gaben is a billionaire so yeah, games prices could be much cheaper.

      • Zahille7@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        28 days ago

        I mean literally everything could be cheaper. Welcome to a capitalist society.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          40
          ·
          28 days ago

          Wow, you’re starting to get it, maybe we should start doing something about it instead of defending those who profit, right?

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              23
              ·
              28 days ago

              Or breaking them or nationalization so profit goes to everyone instead of a single guy.

              • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                26
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                28 days ago

                And you want to start with Valve, which is one of the smaller game companies and is one of the few players not guilty of buying up their competition, instead of Sony, Microsoft, other Big Tech players, media conglomerates like Disney, ISPs like Comcast or AT&T, or meat distributors who are price fixing algorithmicly?

              • stardust@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                28 days ago

                Why even buy games period? Why risk giving money to any of them since things that become popular risk making the people selling them to become wealthy? Not like indies are immune to it looking at Minecraft becoming too popular that too many people wanted to buy it making one person then a corporation wealthy, so why not just not buy period to prevent the issue from even becoming a possibility?

                The best solution is prevention. Don’t buy anything.

          • RandomException@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            28 days ago

            What would be the solution here that could drive the prices down? Limit profit levels per company?

            I feel like it’s not even capitalism itself being the problem alone, but also the entry cost for all these services. Building a competitor to Steam is pretty much equal to building a competitor to Youtube which means it’s almost impossible due to the running costs of the service AND you would have to be somehow wildly better as in not gather as much money from your customers. It would be lovely to see some resolution to these problems without going full communism first.

            • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              28 days ago

              Nothing really. Publishers already all want to go up to 70 base price, and most bigger games already effectively cost 100-200 between pre-orders, deluxe editions and mtx (I don’t know the designed price point, but years ago I was talking to the team of an in-dev game who planned for 110 being spent on average per buyer for their game).

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              18
              ·
              28 days ago

              Break it down, it clearly has too much power over the gaming sector. Impose a maximum share for distributors because clearly 30% is way more than they actually need.

              • RandomException@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                19
                ·
                28 days ago

                Okay, but who gets to decide what’s the maximum profit margin allowed? How would it be determined so that it wouldn’t also prevent new competition from growing up because that 30% is the only thing that allows the companies to make some money from their service and use that money to develop said service.

          • Katana314@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            28 days ago

            If there was no method by which people could ever profit from a system like Steam, why bother building it?

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              23
              ·
              28 days ago

              There’s a difference between making profit and becoming one of the richest person in the world, in the second case it means you clearly made too much profit by selling for a higher price than required.

              • RandomException@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                28 days ago

                Let’s play ball here too. So by definition there’s always going to be a richest person in the world - let it be with a difference of 100 dollars to the median or a billion dollars or 100 billion dollars. Who gets to decide who is the richest person and by what means? Clearly it shouldn’t be a business person so would it be a politician, a dictator, a president or who? And how should we restrict entrepreneurs getting there without destroying every company and therefore making everyone unemployed because there’s no incentive to run a business anymore? How would we balance risks with gains if we are not allowed to make a profit?

                • Donkter@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  28 days ago

                  You’re definitely right that you picked apart their argument because ackshually there will always be a richest person. But clearly the sentiment is that someone shouldn’t get excessive wealth past their threshold.

                  How do we define excessive wealth and how do we limit it? Well there are lots and lots of proposals I would suggest reading up on some (you can Google that question to get 10 op eds that suggest 20 different solutions). I wouldn’t mind defining it as a certain percentage higher than the median wealth of the country. It would be funny to give Gabe Newell a “you won capitalism” trophy and taking excess wealth he gains.

                  As for motivation. It’s a much murkier subject than you imply. In an economy where the state takes every penny of a successful business’s wealth, yeah it makes sense that there’s no motivation to make a successful business. But if one could still get rich off of running a business (just not god-tier level wealth) I’m sure there would be plenty of motivation. And hell, if we give them prestige like we do now there’s tons of people who do what they do just for the fame with no profit. There’s tons of evidence that people aren’t purely motivated by the infinite profit of business people all over the world work their asses off in jobs they enjoy or respect that will never pay them Gabe Newell bucks.

                • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  28 days ago

                  A richest person will always exist, there’s no reason why that richest person couldn’t have 500k in their bank account while the median is at 250k though.

      • RandomException@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        28 days ago

        They absolutely could. If only there was any serious competition and not just some quick cash grabbers like EA and others. As long as Steam is providing most value to users (=players) without even restricting competition like other tech companies do in other areas (cough Apple), they are able to take the 30% cut without a complaint.

        • Katana314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          28 days ago

          The only reason EA and others aren’t serious competition is because of their lack of effort.

          Every time the topic comes up, PC gamers don’t bother with their services because they’re shoddily written and slow. The complaint of “They don’t have millions of games on there to amass in one library” is a minority one.

          • RandomException@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            28 days ago

            Exactly. Why should they succeed if they don’t even try to win the competition?

            Streaming platforms for TV series and movies went into the direction of every large movie company running their own streaming platform and only limiting their own content to their own platform which lead into a bad customer experience when you just wanted to see the latest Disney or HBO or whatever thing. I think it’s a good thing EA and others didn’t succeed doing the same in gaming industry and only limiting their games to their own stores even though they did try really hard. That’s not even competition, it’s just being greedy.

            A true competitor to Steam would try to sell and serve games of their own and also made by others. I guess Epic tries to do that in a sense but they also lack the actual effort of making a good product and instead tries to win some market share by just throwing lots of money at it. I know it’s hard to build an actually good software product (because I work in the industry) but I also know it’s not impossible. Somehow the companies that have the means to compete just aren’t able to get their shit together and for some reason that’s the reason why we shouldn’t like Valve either?

          • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            28 days ago

            I mean, if Epic actually did what shills like @Kecessa@sh.itjust.works promote - that is, reflect lower cuts in a cheaper price to consumers, then we would all be flabbergasted how big their market percentage is.

            But they’re not doing that, that’s the thing. Because Tim Sweeney does not want storefronts to take a smaller cut. Quite the opposite. His problem is that the cut is only 30%, and worse, does not go into his pockets!

            • crossmr@kbin.run
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              27 days ago

              But there is always an excuse. Epic tried that. Companies complained.

              Their sales used to give you a reusable $10 off coupon. That didn’t change the amount the companies got when someone bought their game. It only changed how much they paid. When one of the Witcher games had that coupon applied to it, the developer got pissed off and changed the price of the game so that it was a cent or two below the threshold to activate the coupon, and then fans of the dev were excusing it claiming that they couldn’t let the price be lower because it would ‘devalue’ the game.

              if a game was $30 on Steam and $25 on Epic (as a regular price), or some other service, you’d undoubtedly hear the same rhetoric.

              Epic’s cut is 12% not 30%. They also waive the 5% royalty fee over $1 million for sales on the Epic Store if you use Unreal. Epic doesn’t control the prices. Devs set the prices. They leave the price the same on Epic so that they can actually get a little more for each sale.

              What the should do on a $60 game though is to set the price at like $56 on Epic, it would encourage people to save a couple bucks there, while still getting them more than steam after the cuts.