I definitely agree that Valve is responsible for the MTX hellscape in gaming because of TF2's hats. People thought Oblivion's Horse Armor for $5 was insane; but I would be shouted down bringing up the $25 for a single video game hat when TF2 started adding that shit. It was so much worse and that system was the one adopted by everyone and what evolved into the current "live service" systems damn near every new AAA game has now.
Unintentionally though? They were one of the loudest proponents of "games as a service" back in the day.
More problematically, TF2 popularized loot boxes in the form of Mann Co. supply crates, starting the trend of adding essentially gambling to online multiplayer games.
Actually EA popularised that with FIFA Ultimate Team and pack opening. TF2 is very very small in comparison. After FUTs success, the loot box trend really set off.
They were one of the loudest proponents of "games as a service" back in the day.
Among the old PS3 conferences there’s this one where Portal 2 is announced for PS3. While everybody else tried to make 3D TV gaming and motion controls the next big thing, Gabe just enters the stage and describes how they believe games as a service is the future.
They were so far ahead. Everybody struggled to figure out what the next big thing is going to be. Valve had already figured it out.
But the fact people spend $60 on a skin in a game, for just one character or weapon, is absolutely fucking insane. Not that I agree with any paid game selling cosmetics for any price.
But the fact people spend $60 on a skin in a game, for just one character or weapon, is absolutely fucking insane.
My nephew got very excited about the Transformers skins coming to Overwatch. I let him have his hype cycle (we are both Transformers fans), then asked him how much it cost. I told him he could buy an entire game for that much. Then, on his own, he started analyzing the pricing, and how buying 3 of the 4 on their own is more than buying the whole pack. Which segued nicely into how companies use price to steer people into buying specific things.
But he was still iffy until I told him that the same money could buy 2-3 HG Gundam kits. The next day he told me that he had bought an RG kit instead. Works for me.
It's absolutely absurd what people are willing to pay for cosmetics. I'm not about to tell anybody what they should do with their own money; do whatever makes you feel happy, even if that means buying a digital hat. But I've seen some wild shit.
I used to be one of the top-rated middlemen in the TF2 trading scene, and was a SteamRep admin for several years. This was back before Steam Marketplace existed and before there were reliable, bot-managed escrow services for these grey market sales. I oversaw some pretty big trades in that time. I remember one of the larger ones I oversaw was for a BFTC, and I think the buyer spent over $1000 on it.
And you can bet your ass I played a few games with it on while I waited for them to finalize the payment; I'm no better than a valet taking your car for a joyride while you eat dinner. :)
If you actually got one from a crate or very early on when they dropped super rarely by just playing, you can. If you buy them directly from the store (where the base price was $25; not sure what they are today if even still available) you cannot resell them on the market.
You're much more likely to spend well over that same $25 buying keys to unlock crates for the slim chance at getting one than just buying it straight up. Which is why they are super expensive on the market.
I think mobile monetization is what most people experienced first. Was the first ad driven games and mtx was something pretty much anyone that had a phone encountered with it not being platform specific. So I feel like mobile was the main driving force with the initial low cost and free apps and need to monetize then turning out to be an absolute hit.
I never experienced TF2 since I wasn't PC gaming back then. But the mainstream success of mobile and the low/free app costs made what would happen to "traditional " gaming inevitable.
Did you read the article? One of their really own says they are to blame for the hellscape!
Valve's implementation of its in-game stores and the Steam marketplace, Varoufakis says, emerged from a need to balance monetization with a fear that if the company didn't create its own systems for exchange between players, they would "take it outside"
They are a for profit company, they most likely support linux so that people don't "take it outside" their useless proprietary launcher.
"...their useless proprietary launcher." Steam is by far the least useless launcher out there. Steam has so many incredibly useful features such as remote play together, community controller layouts, the workshop, cloud saves, family library sharing, etc. Not to mention that they continue to keep adding new features that no other launcher is even close to having such as the new game recording feature that is currently in beta.
Sure, Valve charge a pretty decent amount to game developers for the sale of a game, but they provide a load of features in exchange.
they most likely support linux so that people don’t “take it outside”
I'm amazed you're attempting to make "company supports platform desired by customers" sound like a bad thing.
their useless proprietary launcher.
You should make it less obvious you have axe to grind, because this statement shows that your opinion isn't really valid about PC gaming. I'd love to see you find a launcher that offers everything that Valve's "useless" launcher.
It says "digital economic landscape", so not just games and microtransactions, but having a distribution platform vendor-lock you in, not actually owning pieces of media you purchased on that platform and in a broader sense even art as a commodity
More broadly about companies not producing things but extracting “rent” from others by controlling a marketplace all others have to go through. The former economist in residence is promoting a new book he wrote, which I suppose I would have to read to fully understand his argument. The little bit I read in the article has not exactly convinced me, but more from the part that other companies he mentions like Apple and Amazon also produce products.
I've read the book and I found it okay, but I read it not long after Shoshana Zuboff's Surveillance Capitalism, which I think tried to explain many of the same things that Technofeudalism does, but I feel Zuboff's take feels more fitting (though the two models aren't necessarily mutually exclusive)
I’m more inclined to blame Microsoft for innovating subscriptions for online multiplayer & MTXs on consoles. As well as advertising on dashboards and everywhere else.