Makes sense they don’t want games supported by ad revenue on Steam.
Mobile games started off with that business model and the result is that users are very rarely open to purchasing mobile games, which is where Steam makes money.
I don’t even bother gaming on my phone anymore with everything filled with iaps and ads. Would rather just pay to have the license and play on the Steamdeck instead. Hell, with the sales I’m more likely to just get them even if I don’t get around to playing it.
Valve slamming the door on ad-rot mechanics? Finally a corp treating gamers like humans, not dopamine piggybanks. Mobile’s ad-infested hellscape stays where it belongs—in the pocket-sized Skinner boxes of despair. But let’s not kid ourselves: this isn’t altruism—it’s market hygiene. Steam’s dominance hinges on not becoming the digital equivalent of a bus station bathroom plastered in NFT billboards.
Meanwhile, Epic’s over there sharpening its shiv, ready to monetize your retinas if it means clawing back relevance. Capitalism’s funniest gag: competition via not being intolerable. Keep the ad-free oasis flowing, GabeN.
It’s not entirely altruistic.
Valve doesn’t get their 30% taste on ad revenue.
This will play into it. But Valve allows stuff that cuts into their immediate profits, like e.g. third party sales. I think ensuring market dominance by ensuring customer satisfaction is the more important part of the decision. Steam is imo meant to stay a quality product with a reliable turnover. They are not aiming to become a bookmaker, like the play store or apple store basically are nowadays.
valve is at this point basically just the good old “luigi wins by doing absolutely nothing”, they just avoid obviously being dickheads and try to be like 5% nicer than is strictly most profitable, and due to the state of the rest of the world this makes them one of the most saintlike companies most people know of.
Realistically they’re probably doing this mostly because they don’t get the 30% cut on ad revenue. They want to force publishers to actually charge money through Steam.
Even when this is true. Adding ads is in my opinion unethical. As you shove the user pictures that can trigger him. You dont know what the neurodivergent Gamer has. OCD? Or smth else?
Ads are made to catch an eye and clickbait. Flush some dopamine or other emotions. Just to break the wall and make the user buy something against his own real motivation.
At the end some ads are even scams and you dont even get what the manipulated motivation directed it towards to. Mostly the motivation is directed, because the user is being told it recieves something valuable for himself, but at the end doesnt even recieve that.
Ads are just scams and destroying the mentallness. I dont feel psychologically well for 3 days after seeing the wrong picture. Obssessive thoughts unrelated to your life but bothering you, while having your own issues is not nice.
Yeah, I agree with you. Banning ads is a good thing. I just wanted to point out that Valve isn’t doing this purely for our benefit. Valve also does some anti-competitive or anti-consumer stuff to keep their near-monopolistic status.
Hmm. Fair. Thats something we should keep in mind…
Anyways. Im happy to get a broken 140€ Valve index cable replaced for free. Its a Month outside the warranty
Everyone is acting like this is purely for good intentions, but I’ll point out they make most of their money from taking a cut of the sale price from games. Ad money probably would not go to them at all. This is almost certainly purely a business decision, not because they fundamentally don’t like the concept or want to protect you from it.
I honestly don’t really care about Valve’s motivations. It’s a good decision. This kind of trash can take over and ruin an entire marketplace if you let it.
Lets all pray they stay out of the stockmarket
the day gaben dies and the company falls into the grubby hands of investors, its over.
Valve is a private company, so depending on who owns a majority of the shares, not much might change after Gabens earthly demise.
Private investors are (usually, and theoretically) more “long-term” motivated than the public markets. Day traders and rotating board members love quarterly boosts even if it implodes the company, but with private equity, passing a bag of shit to someone else isn’t so easy, and desires aren’t so fickle.
Hence I suspect you’re right.
Can you give same examples of such privately owned companies which are long term focussed?
It’s wild to me how few people understand that private companies have shareholders too
I am not sure how to interpret your response. Do you mean I do not know that Valve as a private company does have shareholders?
What he means is, when gaben our lord an saviour dies, his majority shares ownership will be transferred to his inheritors.
The question “do they want to own and do they understand Valve or just see a big pile of cash?” will be answered then and there.
Which can very well result in an IPO.
