For so many of us, Steam made switching to Linux frictionless and they'd have to do something pretty fucked up to loose my appreciation.
this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2026
98 points (87.7% liked)
memes
21803 readers
3278 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
*lose
Honestly that was a bro move from steam. Wanting to play games was a huge restrictor for the group most likely to switch to linux.
I like steam. They are a good pro customer company.
As a developer steam isn't as nice. They use their dominant market share which is close to a monopoly to take large cuts from developers. Even smaller ones.
They also disallow selling the game lower elsewhere.
But among large gaming companies they are still easily one of the best.
What they did for Linux is huge.
I hope when gave leaves we won't all be fucked royally and be reminded why a monopoly is bad.
So overall positive but conflicted.
They also disallow selling the game lower elsewhere.
if you use steam's infrastructure (keys etc).
if you distribute it yourself or via epic or whatever else, you can price it however you want afaik
To my understanding you, as a game dev, cannot resale Steam CD keys cheaper on third party websites. However, if you sell your game on ex. Epic for 15% less, then it's fine
As I saw in a youtube video (that I won't be able to find again), no.
If you sell your game through Steam, you cannot have it cheaper anywhere else. Even DRM free version on your website. Even temporary sales.
I suppose there are some sort of exception for bundles since you technically do not sell the same psckage when bundled with someone else.
Otherwise games would be cheaper on GOG, Itch, ... that take a smaller cut.
If you sell your game through Steam, you cannot have it cheaper anywhere else. Even DRM free version on your website. Even temporary sales.
I don't see anything about this in their docs. The closest is "You should use Steam Keys to sell your game on other stores in a similar way to how you sell your game on Steam. It is important that you don’t give Steam customers a worse deal than Steam Key purchasers."
That seems reasonable. If you're selling DRM-free, you don't generate steam keys, and valve has no stake in it.
We always get reminded why monopolies are bad. Enjoy it while they are good, that never lasts.
That said, the only monopoly abuse thing I know of is they disallowing lower prices elsewhere. That should be stopped, but it's pretty mild nowadays.
You can sell your game for lower prices at other stores, but you can't sell steam keys of your game on other stores for a lower price.
This is probably dumb to ask, but how does this relate to something like Humble Bundle? I know for things like Patreon for example, devs I supported needed to require a minimum total supported before giving keys.
I'm not entirely sure, but it does seem that steam gives exceptions for limited time sales off steam. From a quick search it also seems like humble bundle is an authorized seller of steam keys so they likely have some sort of agreement.
MCDM gave Me a coupon for half off the Draw Steel Codex. I used the coupon on their website and got a steam key.
Nintendo's doing ok, financially (whatever you think of their decisions)
The original version of this meme had Nintendo also with a concerned face standing next to Steam.
I love steam, but i wont refuse it is a monopoly.
Epic, GoG, indiegala, etc
Yeah, I mean... Steam holds the vast majority of the market share, but they got there by... having a good storefront that people actually want to buy from. Any of the others could compete on this metric, too, but they choose not to. It's like a store surrounded by barbed wire and landmines and caltrops complaining that another store gets more business.
they got there by having the only storefront. by the time alternatives showed up, Steam already had millions of users just from being the only choice for years.
Ah yes Blizzard didn't have battle.net, Microsoft didn't have windows live for games, stardock central didn't exist,
Battle.net didn't have a storefront until 2013, two years after Skyrim became the first AAA game to launch exclusively on Steam. Steam launched in 2003 and by 2005 was selling games from other developers. Games for Windows didn't launch until 2007. Stardock only ever sold software published by one corporation.
so yeah, those options didn't exist for years after Steam, like I said. I appreciate you providing good examples to prove my point tho.
First aaa game to launch exclusively on steam.... And you think that was Skyrim?
Gordan is so disappointed in you.
HL2 actually had an edition that came on disks that didn't require Steam.
Wild when I bought what I thought was a disc copy I came home opened the case and found a game code and a link to steam.
Most were, but there was one version that didn't use Steam. It's probably worth a lot of money, if you could find one that was unopened.
And here's why that didn't matter. 
9 years before skyrim. Steam had it's launch title secured.
Require is a strong word. The box set with five CDs needed it to install, but it could be uninstalled afterwards according to the Greybeards from that time.
Yeah, sure. But I still have not heard about doubious methods to keep it that way. Like Lego suing other brick brands over copyright while stealing designs or using customs services to crackdown on shops criticizing their methods.
the question wasn't whether or not they engaged in dubious practices though. you can be a paragon of righteousness and still have a monopoly over something.
No. It's also about accusability. Steam did not work to become a monopoly by shady practice, it became a quasi monopoly by offering a good product and no competitor giving Steam's customers a reason to switch.
Doesn't change shit. Epic is literally pumping out free games and what does it give it? Nothing. Because it's store is straight up vile to use - no human feedback anywhere, the whole shit is suited for publishers to orchestrate however they see fit. Same shit applies to most online game stores. They are aimed at publishers, not gamers, and thus ignored by the latter.
But hey, let's look at two shops that are, slowly but surely, carving their part of the cake. GOG and Itch.io. What differentiates them? Both are trying to play with users. GOG with rescuing old games, dropping DRM as much as possible and working with other launchers and Itch by creating probably the biggest Indie publishing site ever. But Itch.io is niche and GOG is still lagging behind.
Yes, and that also means that the stores like Epic and EA are only fighting to be at Steam's place in the monopoly. They all want to be the one store/launcher everyone uses. They're not doing anything particularly different, so no one would even bother trying.
I guess the difference is that the monopoly is the result of having good products and not anti-customer tactics. Glares at Microsoft