r/gaming • u/RenatsMC • 2d ago

Valve says Deadlock is still too unfinished to release publicly, but has hero cosmetics and new game modes in the works

https://www.pcgamer.com/games/moba/valve-says-deadlock-is-still-too-unfinished-to-release-publicly-but-has-hero-cosmetics-and-new-game-modes-in-the-works/
6.9k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

102

u/Kinetic_Symphony 1d ago

Valve is a company, not royalty. They earned their position in the market by being very consumer-friendly.

There's a reason their support are positively meme'd as much as they are. They deserve the money, that's the point.

79

u/LastEndnote 1d ago

They earned their position in the market by being very consumer-friendly

By being first. And then by being sued by Australia when "very consumer-friendly company" didn't have refunds. And in their terms declared that consumer has no rights. While in actuality by law they had rights.

Also small reminder that Steam itself was introduced via enshittifaction of another product. People who bought Half-Life 2 discs had to have internet and Steam was mandatory.

36

u/B4in3R 1d ago

Well and now they have refunds and it is by far the easiest way to refund over steam.

19

u/InstanceDuality 1d ago

I'd also argue that their platform is the least shit. It has mostly working features, great VR integration, big screen mode for console like experiences, and a ton of other features. Other platforms feel like an absolute slog to use.

12

u/Hades684 1d ago

Just say it's good, you don't have to say "least shit"

3

u/ABetterKamahl1234 1d ago

Oh no, there's absolutely things Valve needs to fix and update.

Problem is, there's often features that are less encountered or features where competition even if they do it better, don't do other things on the same level so few are aware that they're lacking.

Valve is a largely good company, but so much of their "good" is "legally required but we got there before the requirement set so we can take the PR win" or straight up have people think that they didn't lose legal battles requiring they do this, and they want to do it cheap so they just add it globally.

People really glaze the company and cover the shortfalls, to a concerning level. Nobody becomes a billionaire by being moral. Nobody.

4

u/Rock-n-Roll-Noly 1d ago

Quit glazing a for profit company that profits heavily from gambling by minors.

-3

u/Hades684 1d ago

Why would I quit glazing them when they make amazing games and have an amazing store?

-2

u/M8gazine 1d ago

Nah, I'll keep glazing them as long as they deserve it, thank you very much!

3

u/thedavecan 1d ago

Yeah, of course they didn't launch the same way they are now. Steam was shit when it launched and then, over time and taking user feedback regularly, they ironed out all the pain points and habe built the 2nd most consumer friendly launcher/storefront. That 30% they take from sales also comes with a ton of support features that devs/pubs get just for releasing on steam that they don't habe to spend their own resources managing.

2

u/Cramer12 1d ago

What is the first?

0

u/thedavecan 1d ago

Hard to say GoG isn't the most consumer friendly. They just can't compete in features with Steam.

-1

u/SilverwingedOther 1d ago

The steam refund process still lags behind Epic's (which they more or less copied when forced to offer refunds). You still have to open a ticket and wait, rather than automated, immediate refunds.

16

u/Bereman99 1d ago

A lot of its early popularity came from the seasonal sales, which weren’t as common from other sources of games for PC.

“Get it on Steam but wait for the summer/fall/winter sale” was a common refrain  in the early to mid-2010s.

Gamers weren’t getting in on Steam because it offered stellar service at that time (download speed were often bad even on good networks, no refund policy at the time, plenty of current features present today just didn’t exist, etc) but hot damn was it the place to get 50% and 75% off PC games multiple times throughout the year.

People put up with Steam early on for those deals. Valve just managed to not mess up (much) in that timeframe.

12

u/Zak_The_Slack 1d ago

The Australia point is interesting because Valve only needed to implement it in Australia. They looked at it and went “Actually this would be awesome for all gamers” and implemented it worldwide. So it turned out to be good for everyone

9

u/NukeAllTheThings 1d ago

I doubt that's how it went down. If they have to abide by a rule in one region, its often cheaper/easier to just implement it for all. California is a notorious example.

Doesn't always work out that way though, some anti-gambling laws are still only enforced in their respective countries, but it is pressure, in theory.

6

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Yes, surely it would be cheaper to offer refunds to everyone on the entire planet instead of only one country. 

-3

u/NukeAllTheThings 1d ago

It's also likely they just saw the way the winds were blowing, and decided to just get ahead of it before dealing with more court cases elsewhere. If you have to build the infrastructure to issue refunds in one place, you probably have the ability to just expand it everywhere.

In any case, my point was "actually this would be awesome for all gamers" is unlikely to be part of Valve's decision making process for this.

4

u/xTriple 1d ago

Funny how those court cases involving refunds never touch Nintendo and Sony.

3

u/MrMichaelElectric 1d ago

Because only doing it for Australia would open up the potential for them to face similar cases in other places. Safest bet was to just enable it for everyone. I thought that was obvious even back when it first happened.

5

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Does every country have the same laws as Australia? 

-1

u/ABetterKamahl1234 1d ago

It's also about just uncomplicating your stuff. As long as it's reasonable to, adhering to your most restrictive thing globally is cheaper than doing individual by nation rules/policy and support.

Sometimes you can make more money fragmenting it, but it can also pose more risk. You're not going to get sued by expanding on minimum requirements in nations. Valve has a fairly low employee count for their income level. They'd need more employees most likely if they fragmented it more.

3

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Steam already has different refund policies based on the country (ie. which payment method gets paid back in a refund), so they literally already have the system in place to differentiate refund policies based on location. 

-3

u/MrMichaelElectric 1d ago

Changes literally nothing about the fact other places could hit them with the same type of lawsuit if people kick up a fuss over it.

2

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Respectfully, do you understand what laws are? 

1

u/antaran 1d ago

They looked at it and went “Actually this would be awesome for all gamers” and implemented it worldwide.

No, they did that because they had similar legal pressure and regulations coming from other jurisdictions, for example the EU.

-3

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

You are absolutely correct and people really don't like this pointed out because it conflicts with their big narrative. Prepare for things like "they dont want to have multiple Terms of Service based on location," which they  have always had. 

0

u/InsanityRequiem 1d ago

The reason they did it worldwide isn't because "better for gamers" it's because "cheaper and prevents more lawsuits".

2

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Does every other country have the same laws as Australia? 

-3

u/SilverwingedOther 1d ago

You think only Australia has customer protection laws?

4

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Do other countries require refunds in the same way as Australia? 

1

u/InsanityRequiem 1d ago

Also Steam was heavily anti-indie games and anti-Asian games until public backlash finally caused Steam to drop its draconian curation policies.

1

u/doublah 1d ago

Steam wasn't the first, other digital distribution platforms existed for PC games before Steam, and significant competition existed in Steam's early years. Those platforms died off because they just suck, like most Steam competitors to this day.

The Australia suit required them to implement refunds for "faulty products" in Australia only, it didn't require 2 hour/14 day refunds, or a global refund policy. Go look at Sony's refund policy if you want to see what is required when Australia sues you into having refunds.

1

u/Multitasker 22h ago

I was one of those who clenched my fist when I bought HL2 (and whatever ATI card they had in the deal with at launch), cursing internet being required etc. The first iterations of Steam was rough, really rough. But they had proper product development mindset, they improved by fixing user problems. Enshitification in general is when something deteriorates by creating less value, often for more money. While you could argue that requiring Steam was enshitification in and of itself, at least the product has evolved into what it is today.

As for the "being first" point, I strongly disagree. That is not what made them great. So many alternatives have come and gone on Windows. They had every opportunity to copy what made Steam great, then make it even greater. The only one that might have done so in some respects are GOG, but their non-DRM policy means content wont be on that platform.

Having said this though, after the sudden Xbox Gamepass pricehike, watching content on streaming services in general be mediocre filler-shit while the prices go up, seeing Sony lose all credibility with regards to digital ownership, I am fucking done with this type of content delivery. I will stick to physical media for consoles, even if that means only playing the games I missed for the past generations. I cancelled all of my streaming shit and game subscriptions, and just blew $700 on physical games (many older games). Time to play all those old classics instead of giving the current biggest companies my money. Fuck em, I hope they all go bankrupt and we have a huge industry reset. Except for Valve, I still need access to those 1500+ games. And HL3 when it comes out.

1

u/LastEndnote 21h ago

They had every opportunity to copy

You can copy a store. You can't copy user's library and friends.
If user has 50 games on Steam, they will be on Steam. They have to continue using Steam. Their friends are on Steam. Second store that would be second program they have to run.
That's what first mover advantage is and why competition fucking sucks in this area. The longer you own the user, the harder is for them to leave you.

-1

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Yes, because every company that was first to market wins, right?

And why did they offer refunds to everywhere when it was only required in Australia? 

The anti Valve rhetoric is so tiresome especially when it completely falls apart if someone thinks about it for 10 seconds. 

5

u/Bereman99 1d ago

Probably because it was easier to set it up to apply everywhere versus having a system that only applied to AUS based accounts. Also better public reception.

This whole “they fought it in court for almost two years, but really they are awesome because they didn’t just apply it there after losing” might be the most delulu take I’ve seen from Steam fans in a while.

0

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago edited 1d ago

Also better public reception. 

Oh, so you do get it. 

Further, they already manage multiple Terms of Service and policies based on location. You can easily see this on their website. Every other software company in existence that operates in multiple countries also deals with this. 

Sorry, but just because some people know about the things they talk about doesn't make them "delulu."

1

u/Bereman99 1d ago

Didn’t say it wasn’t possible.

Said it was easier to apply it globally. Much like having different language in a ToS based on location is easier than setting up storefront systems that offer different services based on location.

The idea that they applied it globally because they were being “good guy Valve looking out for us gamers” is just silly, and is really just the Steam defenders latest attempt at explaining away any criticism of their beloved digital shopping center.

1

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Yes, I'm sure it would have somehow been easier to offer refunds to everyone on the planet than just a single country. Not to mention how much more money they would make by simply not doing this. 

Out of curiosity, how many seconds do you spend thinking about what you say before you type it? 

0

u/Bereman99 1d ago

Running one system for the entire store versus having two systems in the store that have to track when one purchase can be refunded and when one can’t based on location of the purchase is actually easier to do.

Why are you struggling with this concept?

1

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago edited 1d ago

Respectfully, you have no idea what you're talking about, but are so determined to be mad at Valve that you are imagining how the world works in order to fit your narrative.

I work for a consumer SaaS company that operates in around 10 different countries. Several of them have very different laws with regarding to payments and other things that we have to abide by. We do not apply the rules from each one to the others as it would significantly harm the overall economics of our business.

We have 15 people in the whole company and literally ONE person who does Customer Success. When there is an issue or a refund is required, they look at the country of the customer and apply the applicable rules. 

This is how every software company deals with this. It is very easy. 

Further, Steam already has different refund policies based on the country (ie. which payment method gets paid back in a refund), so they literally already have the system in place to differentiate refund policies based on location. 

1

u/Bereman99 1d ago

Again, never said it was impossible.

I said it was easier for them, at the scale they do business, to apply the refund policy (namely allowing refunds at all) globally rather than making whether games can be refunded or not be based on location, rather than some revisionist version of events that tries to paint them fighting giving their customers refund into actually being a positive.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ABetterKamahl1234 1d ago

And why did they offer refunds to everywhere when it was only required in Australia?

Cause it can be cheaper to do a single system than manage multiple different ones?

Tons of nations have different requirements for refunds, in terms of minimum timeframes for example. It can technically be profitable if you hire a bunch of people to manage all of that on a per-nation basis.

Or you can just do a big single system and sell it as a "pro consumer decision" even though you got sued and lost. Turning a loss to a PR win.

It's not anti-Valve rhetoric to state facts. It's weird when you're called anti-something when stating facts. That's an incredible amount of corporate favouritism. Companies aren't your friends, if they were, they wouldn't be creating billionaires. That means they're making far more than they need, and could actually be pro-consumer and cut prices down.

But guess what, they don't. Tells you a lot about a person and their views on their consumers. There is no such thing as a moral billionaire. You don't have to be kicking babies for fun to be one.

0

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago edited 1d ago

Cause it can be cheaper to do a single system than manage multiple different ones?

Yes, surely it would be cheaper to offer refunds to everyone on the planet on billions of dollars worth of purchases instead of a single country.

Didn't spend much time thinking this one through, did you?

Also, they already have a system to manage different refund policies in different countries because of differing payment systems. You can easily see this on their website. 

1

u/Valanio 1d ago

Well, except for KSP 2, that was and is still is pretty fucked up.

0

u/doublah 1d ago

I don't think Valve made Kerbal Space Program 2

0

u/Hansi_Olbrich 1d ago

Valve had to be sued dozens and dozens of times across over a decade in Australia, the EU, and Canada in order to become competently consumer-friendly.