- cross-posted to:
- games@hexbear.net
- pcgaming@lemmy.ca
- technology@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- games@hexbear.net
- pcgaming@lemmy.ca
- technology@lemmit.online
Valve’s unique approach to corporate governance is probably the reason why it’s such an efficient company.
I mean, it doesn’t exactly take much to run Steam…
They make a few games, but it’s less making new games and supporting a handful that have been around decades by now.
The reason they have such market dominance, is Gabe isn’t insanely greedy. He has more than he’ll ever spend, and I’d love to see him do more with the massive wealth he has.
But it’s not like he’s fucking over users to squeeze what would be an unnoticeable amount more. So people hang around.!
I’d hate to guess the number of people who have dropped over a grand through Steam
They could definitely lower their 30% cut for indie devs. Even just making the first 50k free would be huge (epic takes no cut for the first million).
Going to take a metric fuckton of work to vet.
Better: Tiered system like unreal or whatever:
They’d have to start doing vetting for that…
All the slop games are “indie” or at least would start to be structured that way to lower their barrier of entry.
They don’t have to vet anything, just make the first 50k free.
I know I’m going to regret asking, but how exactly do you logic out that stopping low quality slop games?
It would literally do the opposite because the goal for each slop game would be $49,999.
Your idea would make everything worse, and I’m just curious why you don’t see that.
I’m not talking about slop games, I’m talking about giving single dev games a chance. Even successful single dev games make maybe 140000k which is 70k on your bank account. Having 18k more would make a massive difference for those games.
And I said to tell the difference between slop and human indie devs…
They’d have to start vetting games to tell.
You said they don’t have to do that, you just think there’s a magical way to tell?
What you’re saying just doesn’t make any sense. It’s like you didn’t even read the comment chain you replied to. I’m just reiterating what I’ve already said, and it’s probably going to help you understand just as much as the first time…
I’m confused why you’re confused? Their position is just don’t vet the games. That’s what they’re saying. It doesn’t presume some “magical way to tell the difference”. You just don’t check the games.
Now, this part is just my interpretation, but I believe they’re operating on a “caveat emptor” methodology. They shouldn’t let malware through obviously, but they might believe it’s on the purchaser to not buy games that look like slop.
Yea, ton of things marketed as indie don’t fit the bill.
Maybe having a minimum where the sales don’t take a cut? That way slop that doesn’t sale much doesn’t benefit, but when a good indie comes along that sales well it would make a difference.
Whatever limit you try to set, that’s what the AI slop will aim to meet.
It’s just something that can’t be automated, at the end of the day every online market needs a human to whitelist new products and review bait and switches, or the market will flood with junk.
But no one wants to pay for that human level review.
And I know, it may cause delays, but most Indie game do not only beta but alpha builds to fund development. I bought BG3 like 2 years before release because it made Act 1 immediately playable, it’s not even just an Indie dev thing.
So even if it takes a full year, real developers would just register early in the process. The slop tho won’t stay topical because they’re not being pumped out in an afternoon.