He's right. It's despicable. Trading card games, too. The thing with Valve is that, outside of this monetization of online games, they've unquestionably had an enormous positive impact on all sorts of things in this medium just by way of sheer market forces. They've done a lot of great open source work, and they've helped create a viable exit ramp from Windows. Despite claims of monopoly on PC, they've created more market competition than we could have ever hoped to see otherwise. A lot of what they do is informed by what they would want to pay for if they were the customers. That stuff can be true, and at the same time, they have directed their online games in a data-driven way toward whatever creates the best results, and that result is legalized (mostly, for now) gambling for children and other addiction-driven spending behavior via battle passes. The worst part is that if they ever arrived here by accident, they're not remorseful enough to stop, since it makes so much money.

Rejecting monetization strategies that look, function, and feel a lot like gambling doesn't mean players will always appreciate their alternatives, however. Hall said that even he is frustrated by the "Paradox model" of paid expansion and DLC packs his studio RocketWerkz chose for its survival game Icarus after moving away from a free-to-play scheme.

It's been years, and I still scoff at the criticism. The Paradox model is to ask a price for a good that they produced. If you don't feel it's worth it, you don't buy it. They don't obfuscate the details of what's in the expansion; they don't make things available for a limited time only; they ask what they feel is a fair price for a product. It's the only method of monetizing a video game that doesn't feel scummy to me. If Hall doesn't like monetizing Icarus that way, he needs to scope his projects down so they can put a bow on the last one and move on to the next one more quickly.

The only time I ever tried loot boxes was with TF2 and Dota2 back in the early to mid 2010s.

I very quickly realized that this wasn't what I was looking for in gaming. These days I mostly play indie games where monetisation is not issue. Even gave up on Paradox because I am not okay with their DLC approach. I don't mind paying for DLC, but one has to look at their release of Cities: Skylines 2 to see that they've really become the "EA of Europe".

Anytime I've ever complained about lootboxes/gacha/gambling mechanics, I've not been excluding valve. That said, there is a contingent of people that likes to chime in to conversations about steam to say people shouldn't use steam because valve does lootboxes, and I don't think it's terribly relevant in those conversations.

I'll be the first to say I don't like Linux gaming's dependence on valve. I wish steam wasn't the best experience, and I applaud all the effort that the FOSS community puts in to keep them honest.

But for the "gambling" monetization in particular, this is really a "don't hate the player, hate the game" situation. It's on people/govts to regulate this. If Valve said tomorrow, "you're right, we're not going to monetize gambling anymore because we think it is unethical", they would just lose to a competitor who is less ethical.

It's the same as saying, "if you're rich and are pro higher taxes, why don't you just choose to pay more? Nothing is stopping you." Because that's not going to fix anything, it's just a losing strategy. What you need is a system where everyone is required by law to behave in a way that benefits the society.

To that end, Valve's most ethical move would be to lobby the govt to ban unethical monetization. I know they're making bank, but whether they're making enough to out-lobby all the others who are also doing this, I don't know...also we all know the US is not exactly positioned for effective FTC policies right now...

If you take a look at all the loot box mechanics out there honestly theirs is the least bad. STILL BAD and shouldn't be a thing, but they're way less in-your-face and also you can sell the boxes that you get for free just by playing and use that to buy games.

He's not wrong.

We are basically getting a casino shoved in our faces most online games we play now. Not sure why this isn't outlawed, it is absolutely having an effect on the population, not the mention the growing population specifically (growing as in kids being shoved this in their face while they grow up).

I often see gambling ads on my local TV channels that are from the government basically saying if you're going to gamble at least gamble on stuff we profit from instead of giving your money to an out of country company. Is it fair to say it's the same for valve doing good work with bad money that people would have spent gambling anyways? Idk i'm connecting the two but they might just both be bad XD

I stopped playing TF2 when I kept getting popups about having too many unopened loot crates or some shit.

He is right. And remember you pay for a subscription you don't own the game or dlc :

"As a Subscriber you may obtain access to certain services, software and content available to Subscribers or purchase certain Hardware (as defined below) on Steam. The Steam client software and any other software, content, and updates you download or access via Steam, including but not limited to Valve or third-party video games and in-game content, software associated with Hardware and any virtual items you may acquire in a Subscription Marketplace are referred to in this Agreement as "Content and Services;" the rights to access and/or use any Content and Services accessible through Steam are referred to in this Agreement as "Subscriptions.""

That's a midwit take.

Valve's real problem is their DRM.

Valve has one for the few lootbox systems that you can actually get value back out of outside the game. While they deserve all the same criticism of every lootbox game, they probably also deserve some praise for that.