• veee@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    145
    ·
    7 months ago

    as reported in Vietnam.net, it’s possible Steam has been taken down in Vietnam after local game developers complained about the scope and size of Steam’s vast portfolio of games, claiming Vietnamese devs cannot compete with Steam’s releases given they are subject to government approval and thousands of international games on Steam are not.

    Citing it as “an injustice to domestic publishers”, Vietnamese studios reportedly say that local game development “will die” if Steam is able to keep releasing games without the same government scrutiny as domestic games.

      • UsernameIsTooLon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        54
        ·
        7 months ago

        As a vietnamese American, my mom always told me stories about the shitty government. Most citizens in Vietnam know the laws are dumb too but can’t protest because the government is too strong now. Just know that EVERYTHING is regulated over there.

          • Rakonat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            7 months ago

            America literally fought a war to try and prevent that. The majority of the population of Vietnam fought to have this instead.

            • niktemadur@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              7 months ago

              One has to wonder what they would have had if it had gone the other way… would they look more like the Philippines, perhaps, or Indonesia? A “strong man” in Saigon with CIA backing on steroids. Because a whole other kind of just as shitty is still just as shitty.

              • Rakonat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                I think you’re misunderstanding what I said, US fought a war to stop it the spread of Lenin/Stalin styled authoritarian communism and failed. There never really was a chance for a proper democracy to rise up in such an improverished nation when both sides were going to exploit the hell out of poor workers without adding any significant value to the country or help prop up self sufficient industries.

            • UsernameIsTooLon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              That’s what Americans claim to save face. I’m a Vietnamese American and Asian history tends to suck in other nations. America used that narrative to justify invading another country and then dipping out when it was too hard.

              I’m still going to overgeneralize, but here’s the actual history they don’t teach you. (History is much more interesting outside of school).

              From the Vietnamese perspective, they initially didn’t want/need American help, but about HALF of Vietnam didn’t want communism. Similar to Korea, it was kinda like North vs South. America knew that Vietnam has potential to be another booming nation so they saw an opportunity to “help” Vietnam for profit and claim they’re fighting communism in the process. America doesn’t just “help” for the sake of good, we’re a nation of profit and greed.

              During this war, South Korea’s involvement and then eventual American alliance actually helped South Korea flourish from all this new money they were getting. When Nixon saw that Vietnam was a losing war, he pussied out and ended up moving on to help Korea since that was the next “profitable” nation; even helping in “fighting communism” during the Korean War. Vietnam took a huge L after Nixon pumped and pulled resources so he partially caused the loss, too. Looking back now, America made the “right” call on South Korea as it’s now both rich AND has good US relations.

              Most of the Vietnamese population today prefers a less communistic government but not much can be done. Government is just stupid powerful BECAUSE of communism in the first place. Like some long domino effect.

              TL:Dr America is a sneaky country and does things that only benefit them. They couldn’t benefit from Vietnam so they moved onto Korea in “I’m done playing with you” style.

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                7 months ago

                If the majority of Vietnamese didn’t want communism, why didn’t the anti-communists win even without the US’s help? Your narrative is nonsense.

              • Rakonat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Geographically it was half the country, but population wise it was closer to 2/3rd pro communist vs 1/3rd anti communist. US involvement wasn’t really justified to start and mostly sunk cost fallacy with how they tried to support the French rule before France pulled out and US was holding the bag and a doctrinal choice of stopping the spread of communism even when there was little to nothing to gain and only save face. Vietnam was going to have a civil war no matter what but US definitely made it worse and drew out the conflict and ramped up the death toll with nothing to show for it. If the US had any intentions of taking advantage of Vietnam modernising and industrializing they’d have setup southern cities that were more friendly to US investments with trafe and infrastructure. But just like in Korea that wouldn’t happen for decades later, US presence there was entirely military and some very bare bones humanitarian aid.

    • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      7 months ago

      Ooof. What a stupid take.

      There are indie studios whose lives have been changed because they focus on the international market.

      This small brain thinking will ensure they die.

      • Rakonat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        7 months ago

        The local devs were not trying to get steam banned. Hell they wanted steam but wanted to play by the same rules and pointed out how strict their own laws and requirements were.

        Vietnam govt said you’re right, it’s not fair and banned steam to make sure everyone plays by their rules rather than admit the rules were stupid and draconic.

      • jsomae@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s not immediately obvious to me that indie developers in Vietnam won’t be able to find an international publisher. While I don’t approve of the law, it does strike me as potentially having a positive effect on Vietnamese studios.

        • shikitohno@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          Given how it can be circumvented by fiddling with DNS according to the article, I doubt it’ll really do anything besides stoke negative sentiment towards Vietnamese studios. Besides, you can buy plenty of the games elsewhere, so even if it worked, all you’re accomplishing is making it slightly more annoying for gamers to buy what they want, rather than having it in one place.

  • CaptainBasculin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    124
    ·
    7 months ago

    Governmental approval on games is an unbelievably dumb idea. Banning online game markets is not a solution; changing the laws is.

        • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Capitalist states are also authoritarian. In fact all states are.

          Frederick Engels, 1872, On Authority

          Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

          The Vietnamese state itself will tell you that it has not yet reached its end-goal of communism: the absence of social classes and withering away of the state.

          • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            There’s nothing sadder than a self-proclaimed Marxist who is unable to understand how to apply Marxist thought to the leninist state.

                • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  More vagueposting. You assume a lot. Are you a mind reader? No, you’re a shit-talking dumbass on the internet.

                • Chozo@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  “You would understand it if you understood it.”

                  Yeah, somehow I don’t think that wasn’t as clever as you probably thought it was.

          • Zorque@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            And of course, we should trust in the judgment of autocratic dictators on matters of ideology.

    • scratchandgame@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      Tiếng Việt
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Why would we allow an unregistered company to provide their service and affect registered companies.

  • Anamana@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    F to all vietnamese brothers & sisters. I wonder if they also banned Epic and the others

  • rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Lemmy: “We hate capitalism! Companies aren’t your friends! Down with corporrations! Down with billionaires!”

    Also Lemmy: “Except Steam! We love vidyagames! Valve is friend! Gaben is bae! No, we don’t understand irony.”

    • yokonzo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      7 months ago

      I mean, gabe has yet to do anything to piss me off yet. At this point I’m looking directly at the head of whatever organization.

      Also this is a dumb take, if everyone had the same ideals on Lemmy then you would be part of this, you’re seeing different posts by different people and conflating the two

      • rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        Valve has faced criticisms from former employees in the past for its toxic work culture. And Gabe Newell, being the CEO, has a lot of power over that.

        Just because the places you frequent on the internet don’t shove criticism of Valve down your throat the same way it would do so for, say, Epic Games, doesn’t mean there’s nothing wrong with Valve as a company. All the pro-Valve/Steam information you get and the general sentiment towards Gabe Newell from people on Lemmy and Reddit are pure, undiluted corporate propaganda. That it comes from Steam users rather than being something Steam directs and pays for doesn’t change what it is.

        you’re seeing different posts by different people and conflating the two

        This ignores the reality that Lemmy is, at least in the part of it consisting of lemmy.ml, lemmy.world, and others, overwhelmingly leftist. This comment also attempts to dismiss the underlying criticism that Lemmy as a whole has a culture that, much like reddit, seeks to pick and choose its targets under capitalism and actively engages in corporate apologia, like in this post, while collectively professing a broad ethos that is outright hypocritical when viewed in the light of that other behavior. And if you think Lemmy is amenable to a diverse array of economic opinions, then maybe you should try posting a “Capitalism Appreciation Thread” on a major lemmy instance and see how that goes over.

        • yokonzo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          7 months ago

          If you’re admitting that part of or the majority of Lemmy is leftist. (Which, who cares) Then say that. don’t post Lemmy: also lemmy:, (meaning everyone) and try to backtrack after the fact.

          Say what you mean. Mean what you say.

        • redisdead@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Everyone has accused every workplace of toxic culture. At this point I’m pretty sure going to someone and asking them to do their fucking job is toxicity.

          • rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Everyone has accused every workplace of toxic culture. At this point I’m pretty sure going to someone and asking them to do their fucking job is toxicity.

            We have reached levels of bootlicking with this comment that shouldn’t be physically possible.

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 months ago

      Ah Of course. It is impossible to criticize any actions taking place by any entity against a capitalist entity without defending capitalism yourself. Cehckmate liberals.

      • rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        It is impossible to criticize any actions taking place by any entity against a capitalist entity without defending capitalism yourself.

        It depends on the purpose and shape of that criticism. If you criticize a communist nation banning a particular corporation’s marketplace from their country on the basis that doing so is a part of a grift that seeks to engineer a national-level monopoly over a particular corporate sector by banning external competition, then, sure, that’s a valid criticism because the intent is innately unethical. But if the Vietnamese video game industry is actively harmed by Steam, an American company, using its vast resources to outcompete Vietnamese publishers, then what is your opposition to this that doesn’t encompass a de facto defense of free market capitalism?

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I don’t think steam is doing that the government of vietnam isn’t claiming they are banning steam for that reason. What is happening is that the government of vietnam is actively hurting their domestic video game developers because they have instituted onerous “government scrutiny” whereas if you want to publish on Steam it costs like $150 and an email address.

          The problem solely lies with the Vietnamese government, as a self-inflicted problem, no where else.

        • Muehe@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          But if the Vietnamese video game industry is actively harmed by Steam, an American company, using its vast resources to outcompete Vietnamese publishers, then what is your opposition to this that doesn’t encompass a de facto defense of free market capitalism?

          Not GP but the article didn’t say that Steam outcompeted local developers by “using its vast resources”. On the contrary, it alleged that local developers cannot compete on Steam with international developers, because those do not have to apply the local regulations:

          Citing it as “an injustice to domestic publishers”, Vietnamese studios reportedly say that local game development “will die” if Steam is able to keep releasing games without the same government scrutiny as domestic games.

          A somewhat shaky argument considering that the same is true for many other countries applying their own local regulations, which Vietnamese developers do not have to follow.

          But anyway, what is my opposition that doesn’t encompass a de facto defence of free market capitalism? The damage to the users. What about all the Vietnamese people losing access to Steam’s online features, which are arguably necessary nowadays for many games, especially multiplayer ones. And for what? To benefit Vietnamese businesses? Not very socialist of you comrade Vietnam. *smh*

          In any case, this is all pure speculation at this point, since both parties have yet to make a statement about the situation:

          At the time of writing, there’s been no formal word from Vietnamese authorities or Steam about the “ban”, […]

          That said, my current head cannon goes something like this:

          Vietnamese devs: Dude, these regulations on games are killing us. We can’t compete on Steam with games like these.
          The Party: Okay we hear you. *bans Steam*
          Vietnamese devs: Wait, what? (← we are here)

          Edit: formatting

          • rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            it alleged that local developers cannot compete on Steam with international developers, because those do not have to apply the local regulations:

            That’s not really contrary to the point, but orthogonal to it. Steam is outcompeting on the basis that it receives special privileges on the basis of its international status. It’s still outcompeting because of a resource advantage. But that advantage exists because domestic developers are disadvantaged by virtue of national regulations over domestic developers.

            what is my opposition that doesn’t encompass a de facto defence of free market capitalism? The damage to the users. What about all the Vietnamese people losing access to Steam’s online features, which are arguably necessary nowadays for many games, especially multiplayer ones.

            Your argument is the same kind of “consumer rights” argument that I’ve seen everywhere on the internet, because you are implying that there is material harm to the people of Vietnam caused by Steam’s banning. Which is a fairly specious argument. It’s the loss of a luxury item. No one is materially harmed by it. It’s not like Vietnam banned insulin. And while you may not use the same language, you are effectively saying that every consumer on the planet should have free access to the best products available for whatever “thing” they want. In this case, video games. It’s a de facto argument for free market economic policies.

            • Muehe@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              That’s not really contrary to the point, but orthogonal to it.

              What? According to the article based on which we are discussing this news that is the point (allegedly). And it is unrelated to your point yes. I’m not entirely sure where you even came up with your point to be honest.

              Your argument is the same kind of “consumer rights” argument that I’ve seen everywhere on the internet, because you are implying that there is material harm to the people of Vietnam caused by Steam’s banning. Which is a fairly specious argument. It’s the loss of a luxury item. No one is materially harmed by it.

              I guess the consumers, i.e. the people of Vietnam in possession of this luxury item, would disagree with that assessment. Especially if they have sunk significant finances and/or time into their Steam account.

              It’s not like Vietnam banned insulin.

              Nobody said it is?

              And while you may not use the same language, you are effectively saying that every consumer on the planet should have free access to the best products available for whatever “thing” they want. In this case, video games.

              Again, what? I’m saying people will want to keep access to something they already paid for, their games on Steam and the according metadata like savegames, multiplayer access, and such. Not sure how you managed to pull this interpretation out of what I said, but be assured it’s incorrect.

              It’s a de facto argument for free market economic policies.

              Since the whole logic chain that led you to this conclusion was already riddled with errors from the very beginning this is simply a non sequitur.

    • UckyBon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      They’re blinded by love. And they love to hate.

      Wait till they find out about Linus Torvalds’ net worth 😅

      • erwan@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        7 months ago

        Linus Torvalds net worth could be way higher if he took jobs a big tech companies (that were easily available to him) instead of choosing a career path that ensure Linux’ independence.

        • randomaside@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          150 million is nothing for what Linus has control over. That’s like the combined net worth of 100 of the top paid strippers in Vegas. (I’m going by vice documentary numbers)

        • UckyBon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Exactly. Fuck the rich unless I use what they made for me, then give 'm billions because millions ain’t hardly enough for them.

          • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            What’s your point? Socialism doesn’t mean be you have to be poor, socialism is about getting the full value of your work. If your work is so valuable it makes you a multi-millionaire then from a socialist perspective that’s completely fine. Your point makes sense only if you have no fucking clue what socialism is.

            • UckyBon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              It sounds like you’re arguing with yourself as I have never mentioned any of those words.

              • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                If it’s not that then sorry for giving your insane rambling a modicum of rational context.

    • Vivendi@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Point taken, but come the fuck on, there isn’t any other store coming remotely close to it

      No ethical consumption and all that, just enjoy your life a little

    • jsomae@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      Based.

      I hated steam when it started. I’ve grown to realize it’s much better than any alternative. But I still miss the pre-steam days.

      • Rakonat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I was furious that I had to download steam and install steam to play new vegas on pc at launch (as well as the box I bought from gamestop not having a the game inside but rather just a pamphlet with a cd key) I was later infuriated by New Vegas at launch and the utterly broken state of the game with each week a new but preventing progress or outright crashing game.

        But now days I’m reasonable happy with (Steam) it, it’s not a perfect a solution but at least tries to uphold the gamer/consumer experience, unlike shotboxes like origin or epic games which were nonstop ads and snooping through your files outside the directory.

  • ☭ Parabola ☭ @lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    7 months ago

    Damn commies, refusing to allow people to install DRM-ridden proprietary spyware from in the US. They just hate our fr$$dom! 👺

  • ErinCrush@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    It’s hardly banned. Vietnamese people are still playing steam. It’s really easy to get around and it’s not a crime to use steam in the country.

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    its good that they can, but what? this sounds like old people decisions, where they don’t quite get it and do something like this.

    games don’t need that much scrutiny if you can enforce age restrictions in the first place.