Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Valve releases Steam Controller CAD files under Creative Commons license

digitalfoundry.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 632 posts

Re: Valve releases Steam Controller CAD files under Creative Commons license

#551

Post by zhoykn »

wtetzner wrote: post #474
pjmlp wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The work they've put on Proton/Linux gaming easily wins my support. Lets not be naive here, this is the money they are saving in Windows licenses for the Steam Deck, and having their own store instead of Windows Store/XBox PC App. Yet they are doing zero to foster native Linux games.

There isn't much they can do to foster native Linux support beyond trying to increase the number of people gaming on Linux. It's a chicken-and-egg problem, and you need to make the platform desirable to developers before they will start developing for it.

[flagged]

Re: Valve releases Steam Controller CAD files under Creative Commons license

#552

Post by throw10920 »

testdelacc1 wrote: post #432
throw10920 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could say the same thing about AT&T, Bell Labs, etc. No, you cannot. AT&T/Bell Labs was a monopoly - they physically controlled distribution networks that made it so you had to use them. Valve does not . There is nothing that prevents you from simply selling your game without Steam . And even if there wasn't , claims that Valve is a monopoly are factually false - there are many other storefronts that exist, and man…

I think you’re confusing 1. Being a monopoly 2. Abusing monopoly status. Steam does control the vast share of desktop gaming. But has no influence on console (Xbox, playstation, switch) or mobile (android, ios). They are a monopoly. But they don’t abuse their monopoly so they haven’t broken any laws.

Your partitioning between those two things is good, but I still don't think that either label applies to them:

> Steam does control the vast share of desktop gaming.

Between the Epic Games Store, GOG, Humble Bundle, Xbox, Origin, Itch, and a few others, I don't believe their control is anywhere close to the fraction needed for Steam to be a "monopoly", either legally or in casual speak.

> Steam does control

...and, what's more, they don't "control" anything - what prevents you from either using multiple clients (on the player side) or selling on multiple storefronts (on the developer side)?

A monopoly has to monopolize some limited resource or market - you can't really have a monopoly if there's no limiting or exclusivity. That's like saying that Fortnite is "monopolizing" the battle royale genre because it's the most popular - it is the most popular, but there's no exclusivity because you can always play another battle royale in addition to Fortnite.

Monopolies need pie charts (limited resources that are taken by a single actor), but Steam is a bar in a bar chart.

Re: Valve releases Steam Controller CAD files under Creative Commons license

#553

Post by throw10920 »

account42 wrote: post #463
throw10920 wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it aggressively rent seeks I don't know about the rest of your claims ("shareware was the best way to discover software" is really a personal opinion), but this is just factually false. Unlike iOS, where you cannot publish an app unless you pay the 30% cut, there is nothing that prevents you from developing and a Windows/MacOS/Linux game yourself. You can simply choose to not use Steam - but the benefits of develop…

The real value Steam "provides" are the network effects. That's rent seeking.

> The real value Steam "provides" are the network effects.

Actual people who play video games disagree with you. Don't speak about things you're ignorant of.

> That's rent seeking.

Factually incorrect. Steam provides services and convenience that developers and players find incredibly useful.

Re: Valve releases Steam Controller CAD files under Creative Commons license

#554

Post by throw10920 »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #440
throw10920 wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it aggressively rent seeks I don't know about the rest of your claims ("shareware was the best way to discover software" is really a personal opinion), but this is just factually false. Unlike iOS, where you cannot publish an app unless you pay the 30% cut, there is nothing that prevents you from developing and a Windows/MacOS/Linux game yourself. You can simply choose to not use Steam - but the benefits of develop…

> you are not forced to use them, which makes them non-rent-seeking by definition. That's not how it works. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Plenty of businesses engage in rent seeking without having a captive (by most definitions) audience. All that's required is a very modest barrier (ex network effect, non-zero switching cost, etc) and a sufficiently large audience. Rent seeking isn't even mutually excl…

So first off, you start out by lying about my words, so we immediately know you're not operating in good faith.

What I said:

> Steam is not rent-seeking - the value that they provide is tremendous, and you are not forced to use them, which makes them non-rent-seeking by definition.

That's a compound statement that you cut off to change the substance of. What you quoted:

> you are not forced to use them, which makes them non-rent-seeking by definition.

And now that we've called out your lie, we can move on to the substance, which is also incorrect.

The definition of rent-seeking disagrees with everything that you've said:

"The attempt to profit by manipulating the economic or political environment, especially by the use of subsidies."

https://www.wordnik.com/words/rent%20seeking

Steam is doing none of that.

> Rent seeking isn't even mutually exclusive with adding value.

This is factually incorrect - both according to the dictionary definition of the phrase, and according to the way that it's used casually, which is extraction of value without creation of it.

I'm glad that this is happening in the open - when people have to actively lie to try to push a narrative about Steam, it really shows that they have no legitimate points - every thread where these lies are exposed just (justly) boosts Valve's reputation.

Re: Valve releases Steam Controller CAD files under Creative Commons license

#555

Post by wyager »

saghm wrote: post #516
fxwin wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It sold out in less than an hour. Scalpers are at it again. "Underpriced good at it again" would be more accurate.

God forbid a company want to sell something for a smaller profit than they can make by selling it only to the people with that most money

Is it more moral to allocate goods to the people who are willing to pay the most for them, or to the people who have good scalping bots/happen to get lucky

Re: Valve releases Steam Controller CAD files under Creative Commons license

#556

Post by weezing »

roer wrote: post #4

I love the readme on the gitlab page [1]. It feels so.. friendly :) > This repository contains CAD files for the external shell (surface topology) of Steam Controller and the Steam Controller Puck, under a Creative Commons license. This includes an STP model of each, an STL model of each, and an engineering drawing with critical features/keep outs for each. Feel free to use these to make your own Puck holders, Contro…

Valve just can't stop winning.

Re: Valve releases Steam Controller CAD files under Creative Commons license

#557

Post by kaueg »

roer wrote: post #4

I love the readme on the gitlab page [1]. It feels so.. friendly :) > This repository contains CAD files for the external shell (surface topology) of Steam Controller and the Steam Controller Puck, under a Creative Commons license. This includes an STP model of each, an STL model of each, and an engineering drawing with critical features/keep outs for each. Feel free to use these to make your own Puck holders, Contro…

[random reflection] saying on their gitlab page instead of git page, is comparable to saying on their AWS website instead of Web page? :P

Re: Valve releases Steam Controller CAD files under Creative Commons license

#558

Post by embedding-shape »

bbddg wrote: post #541
embedding-shape wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I agree with all of those things, but the fact still stands, Steam is actively lying to customers as the store pages say "Buy" and "Purchase", not "Rent" or "Lease", which are more accurate. You don't actually own the product. Don't get me wrong, as mentioned, I use Steam and like Steam/Valve, but that move is a bit shitty regardless.

I think it would be extremely confusing for customers if the steam “Buy” button was renamed to “Rent” or “Lease”.

How could it be confusing when that's actually what happens? Imagine HN showed "Delete comment" instead of "Reply" under the comment input, don't you agree that be misleading?

Re: Valve releases Steam Controller CAD files under Creative Commons license

#559

Post by iugtmkbdfil834 »

luqtas wrote: post #212
iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #176

Just in case anyone from valve is reading: Dont care about controller, memory card or deck charger or whatever other irrelevant addition to existing products you have. I just want an update on the Frame. And yesterday too. Thank you for very much for your time and attention. Until our eyes meet again.

what a bad boy we got over here

Apologies for not responding sooner. I did not want you to feel neglected. You know that Valve does not care much about what some rando online wrote in HN post right? Well, have you considered the possibility that they care even less about you defending it:D? Just a thought for these trying times.

Re: Valve releases Steam Controller CAD files under Creative Commons license

#560

Post by seanjaii »

wyager wrote: post #555
saghm wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God forbid a company want to sell something for a smaller profit than they can make by selling it only to the people with that most money

Is it more moral to allocate goods to the people who are willing to pay the most for them, or to the people who have good scalping bots/happen to get lucky

Is this question not ridiculous?

A company can make something without the need to be greedy. If you allow backordering like OP mentioned, it goes a good way to resolving the issue.

Post reply on HN