321

Steam is now banned in Vietnam (www.eurogamer.net)

submitted 6 months ago by pro_grammer@programming.dev to c/steam@lemmy.ml

90 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 24 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Lemmy: "We hate capitalism! Companies aren't your friends! Down with corporrations! Down with billionaires!"

Also Lemmy: "Except Steam! We love vidyagames! Valve is friend! Gaben is bae! No, we don't understand irony."

[-] yokonzo@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago

I mean, gabe has yet to do anything to piss me off yet. At this point I'm looking directly at the head of whatever organization.

Also this is a dumb take, if everyone had the same ideals on Lemmy then you would be part of this, you're seeing different posts by different people and conflating the two

[-] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 months ago

Valve has faced criticisms from former employees in the past for its toxic work culture. And Gabe Newell, being the CEO, has a lot of power over that.

Just because the places you frequent on the internet don't shove criticism of Valve down your throat the same way it would do so for, say, Epic Games, doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with Valve as a company. All the pro-Valve/Steam information you get and the general sentiment towards Gabe Newell from people on Lemmy and Reddit are pure, undiluted corporate propaganda. That it comes from Steam users rather than being something Steam directs and pays for doesn't change what it is.

you’re seeing different posts by different people and conflating the two

This ignores the reality that Lemmy is, at least in the part of it consisting of lemmy.ml, lemmy.world, and others, overwhelmingly leftist. This comment also attempts to dismiss the underlying criticism that Lemmy as a whole has a culture that, much like reddit, seeks to pick and choose its targets under capitalism and actively engages in corporate apologia, like in this post, while collectively professing a broad ethos that is outright hypocritical when viewed in the light of that other behavior. And if you think Lemmy is amenable to a diverse array of economic opinions, then maybe you should try posting a "Capitalism Appreciation Thread" on a major lemmy instance and see how that goes over.

[-] yokonzo@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

If you're admitting that part of or the majority of Lemmy is leftist. (Which, who cares) Then say that. don't post Lemmy: also lemmy:, (meaning everyone) and try to backtrack after the fact.

Say what you mean. Mean what you say.

[-] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 months ago

lemmy.ml, lemmy.world, and others, overwhelmingly leftist.

That’s some of the funniest shit I’ve read today.

[-] redisdead@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Everyone has accused every workplace of toxic culture. At this point I'm pretty sure going to someone and asking them to do their fucking job is toxicity.

[-] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago

Everyone has accused every workplace of toxic culture. At this point I’m pretty sure going to someone and asking them to do their fucking job is toxicity.

We have reached levels of bootlicking with this comment that shouldn't be physically possible.

[-] redisdead@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

How many breakdowns per day do you have at work?

[-] OsaErisXero@kbin.run 3 points 5 months ago

Stop making me agree with the .ml user, this shit is cringe.

[-] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 16 points 5 months ago

if you love capitalism so much, how many means of production do you own?

[-] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago

I hate capitalism. And Valve. Because it's a capitalist institution and I'm at least consistent.

[-] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago

you know commerce and trade, including money, exists under other forms of monetary governance?

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 months ago

Ah Of course. It is impossible to criticize any actions taking place by any entity against a capitalist entity without defending capitalism yourself. Cehckmate liberals.

[-] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago

It is impossible to criticize any actions taking place by any entity against a capitalist entity without defending capitalism yourself.

It depends on the purpose and shape of that criticism. If you criticize a communist nation banning a particular corporation's marketplace from their country on the basis that doing so is a part of a grift that seeks to engineer a national-level monopoly over a particular corporate sector by banning external competition, then, sure, that's a valid criticism because the intent is innately unethical. But if the Vietnamese video game industry is actively harmed by Steam, an American company, using its vast resources to outcompete Vietnamese publishers, then what is your opposition to this that doesn't encompass a de facto defense of free market capitalism?

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I don't think steam is doing that the government of vietnam isn't claiming they are banning steam for that reason. What is happening is that the government of vietnam is actively hurting their domestic video game developers because they have instituted onerous "government scrutiny" whereas if you want to publish on Steam it costs like $150 and an email address.

The problem solely lies with the Vietnamese government, as a self-inflicted problem, no where else.

[-] Muehe@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

But if the Vietnamese video game industry is actively harmed by Steam, an American company, using its vast resources to outcompete Vietnamese publishers, then what is your opposition to this that doesn’t encompass a de facto defense of free market capitalism?

Not GP but the article didn't say that Steam outcompeted local developers by "using its vast resources". On the contrary, it alleged that local developers cannot compete on Steam with international developers, because those do not have to apply the local regulations:

Citing it as "an injustice to domestic publishers", Vietnamese studios reportedly say that local game development "will die" if Steam is able to keep releasing games without the same government scrutiny as domestic games.

A somewhat shaky argument considering that the same is true for many other countries applying their own local regulations, which Vietnamese developers do not have to follow.

But anyway, what is my opposition that doesn't encompass a de facto defence of free market capitalism? The damage to the users. What about all the Vietnamese people losing access to Steam's online features, which are arguably necessary nowadays for many games, especially multiplayer ones. And for what? To benefit Vietnamese businesses? Not very socialist of you comrade Vietnam. *smh*

In any case, this is all pure speculation at this point, since both parties have yet to make a statement about the situation:

At the time of writing, there's been no formal word from Vietnamese authorities or Steam about the "ban", [...]

That said, my current head cannon goes something like this:

Vietnamese devs: Dude, these regulations on games are killing us. We can't compete on Steam with games like these.
The Party: Okay we hear you. *bans Steam*
Vietnamese devs: Wait, what? (← we are here)

Edit: formatting

[-] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago

it alleged that local developers cannot compete on Steam with international developers, because those do not have to apply the local regulations:

That's not really contrary to the point, but orthogonal to it. Steam is outcompeting on the basis that it receives special privileges on the basis of its international status. It's still outcompeting because of a resource advantage. But that advantage exists because domestic developers are disadvantaged by virtue of national regulations over domestic developers.

what is my opposition that doesn’t encompass a de facto defence of free market capitalism? The damage to the users. What about all the Vietnamese people losing access to Steam’s online features, which are arguably necessary nowadays for many games, especially multiplayer ones.

Your argument is the same kind of "consumer rights" argument that I've seen everywhere on the internet, because you are implying that there is material harm to the people of Vietnam caused by Steam's banning. Which is a fairly specious argument. It's the loss of a luxury item. No one is materially harmed by it. It's not like Vietnam banned insulin. And while you may not use the same language, you are effectively saying that every consumer on the planet should have free access to the best products available for whatever "thing" they want. In this case, video games. It's a de facto argument for free market economic policies.

[-] Muehe@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago

That’s not really contrary to the point, but orthogonal to it.

What? According to the article based on which we are discussing this news that is the point (allegedly). And it is unrelated to your point yes. I'm not entirely sure where you even came up with your point to be honest.

Your argument is the same kind of “consumer rights” argument that I’ve seen everywhere on the internet, because you are implying that there is material harm to the people of Vietnam caused by Steam’s banning. Which is a fairly specious argument. It’s the loss of a luxury item. No one is materially harmed by it.

I guess the consumers, i.e. the people of Vietnam in possession of this luxury item, would disagree with that assessment. Especially if they have sunk significant finances and/or time into their Steam account.

It’s not like Vietnam banned insulin.

Nobody said it is?

And while you may not use the same language, you are effectively saying that every consumer on the planet should have free access to the best products available for whatever “thing” they want. In this case, video games.

Again, what? I'm saying people will want to keep access to something they already paid for, their games on Steam and the according metadata like savegames, multiplayer access, and such. Not sure how you managed to pull this interpretation out of what I said, but be assured it's incorrect.

It’s a de facto argument for free market economic policies.

Since the whole logic chain that led you to this conclusion was already riddled with errors from the very beginning this is simply a non sequitur.

[-] UckyBon@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

They're blinded by love. And they love to hate.

Wait till they find out about Linus Torvalds' net worth 😅

[-] erwan@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 months ago

Linus Torvalds net worth could be way higher if he took jobs a big tech companies (that were easily available to him) instead of choosing a career path that ensure Linux' independence.

[-] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago

For anyone curious, it's around 150 million USD.

[-] randomaside@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 months ago

150 million is nothing for what Linus has control over. That's like the combined net worth of 100 of the top paid strippers in Vegas. (I'm going by vice documentary numbers)

[-] UckyBon@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Lol, bootlicker 😅

[-] UckyBon@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Exactly. Fuck the rich unless I use what they made for me, then give 'm billions because millions ain't hardly enough for them.

[-] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

What's your point? Socialism doesn't mean be you have to be poor, socialism is about getting the full value of your work. If your work is so valuable it makes you a multi-millionaire then from a socialist perspective that's completely fine. Your point makes sense only if you have no fucking clue what socialism is.