Steam bans blockchain games

[Silberman]

I thought Steam was a little more open to innovation then that, the problem here is steam is a closed off internal market where you cannot withdraw the cash back out.    You must use their marketplace to trade items, I had thought there must be other games that let you buy stuff separate to steam market but those will be very large publishers if thats the case and able to form special deals to operate seperate.

Many might hate them because of the move they've done but its their platform and they will do whatever they want to do.
We've seen some Blockchain games under Steam like Age of Rust, MIR4 and Mist in the future but they kicked out these blockchain games because they have their own economy. An economy that Steam's isn't involved so why are they putting it under their platform.

In the future, we might see a company that will act like Steam that is purely blockchain games. A platform that will benefit blockchain games. Who knows and besides, nobody expected that NFT games will be created under blockchain right .

Exactly, steam is a business so they are not going to put games on their platform that are not going through their channels to buy and sell what you can get in the game, however people should take this as an opportunity, the first to release a decentralized platform that acts like steam will make a lot of money, it is to be expected that there are probably a lot of people working on this as we speak, so it is just a matter of time until steam is not really necessary for those kind of games.

[1714290237]

1714290237

[1714290237]

1714290237

[1714290237]

1714290237

[1714290237]

1714290237

[1714290237]

1714290237

[stomachgrowls]

I thought Steam was a little more open to innovation then that, the problem here is steam is a closed off internal market where you cannot withdraw the cash back out.    You must use their marketplace to trade items, I had thought there must be other games that let you buy stuff separate to steam market but those will be very large publishers if thats the case and able to form special deals to operate seperate.

Many might hate them because of the move they've done but its their platform and they will do whatever they want to do.
We've seen some Blockchain games under Steam like Age of Rust, MIR4 and Mist in the future but they kicked out these blockchain games because they have their own economy. An economy that Steam's isn't involved so why are they putting it under their platform.

In the future, we might see a company that will act like Steam that is purely blockchain games. A platform that will benefit blockchain games. Who knows and besides, nobody expected that NFT games will be created under blockchain right .

Exactly, steam is a business so they are not going to put games on their platform that are not going through their channels to buy and sell what you can get in the game, however people should take this as an opportunity, the first to release a decentralized platform that acts like steam will make a lot of money, it is to be expected that there are probably a lot of people working on this as we speak, so it is just a matter of time until steam is not really necessary for those kind of games.

True, as a business then you wouldnt really let anything that passes into them and wont able to make benefit while using up their platform.They cant really just allow on how things should go specially
we are talking about big revenue on here.

They had integrated bitcoin before in terms of payment but still end up on removing it because they dont like volatility and the fees.Then it does indicate that they are really
indicate that they arent really that positive in dealing with crypto.

Therefore it isnt surprising that they wont really be that positive towards other things connected to it.

[Mahanton]

I thought Steam was a little more open to innovation then that, the problem here is steam is a closed off internal market where you cannot withdraw the cash back out.    You must use their marketplace to trade items, I had thought there must be other games that let you buy stuff separate to steam market but those will be very large publishers if thats the case and able to form special deals to operate seperate.

Many might hate them because of the move they've done but its their platform and they will do whatever they want to do.
We've seen some Blockchain games under Steam like Age of Rust, MIR4 and Mist in the future but they kicked out these blockchain games because they have their own economy. An economy that Steam's isn't involved so why are they putting it under their platform.

In the future, we might see a company that will act like Steam that is purely blockchain games. A platform that will benefit blockchain games. Who knows and besides, nobody expected that NFT games will be created under blockchain right .

Exactly, steam is a business so they are not going to put games on their platform that are not going through their channels to buy and sell what you can get in the game, however people should take this as an opportunity, the first to release a decentralized platform that acts like steam will make a lot of money, it is to be expected that there are probably a lot of people working on this as we speak, so it is just a matter of time until steam is not really necessary for those kind of games.

True, as a business then you wouldnt really let anything that passes into them and wont able to make benefit while using up their platform.They cant really just allow on how things should go specially
we are talking about big revenue on here.

They had integrated bitcoin before in terms of payment but still end up on removing it because they dont like volatility and the fees.Then it does indicate that they are really
indicate that they arent really that positive in dealing with crypto.

Therefore it isnt surprising that they wont really be that positive towards other things connected to it.

Lets put up some link in regards to that.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/6/16743220/valve-steam-bitcoin-game-store-payment-method-crypto-volatility
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42264622
https://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1464096684955433613

This was on year 2017 and now that NFT or blockchain games are flourishing then they do really tries to wash off their hands.

[kryptqnick]

Banning scams is good, and ensuring that the money of people is safe is also good. However, this move seems a bit hypocritical. So the issue is that real money is spent for game stuff, right? Well, how about FIFA's loot boxes, then? People pay with real money to get better players, and in an addictive way. But this is no problem for Steam because it's not blockchain-based? I think they should focus on the issues themselves and formulate things accordingly. If the problem isn't blockchain, but real money involved, then they should only ban blockchain games. Correct me if I'm missing something here.

[uneng]

I thought Steam was a little more open to innovation then that, the problem here is steam is a closed off internal market where you cannot withdraw the cash back out.    You must use their marketplace to trade items, I had thought there must be other games that let you buy stuff separate to steam market but those will be very large publishers if thats the case and able to form special deals to operate seperate.

Many might hate them because of the move they've done but its their platform and they will do whatever they want to do.
We've seen some Blockchain games under Steam like Age of Rust, MIR4 and Mist in the future but they kicked out these blockchain games because they have their own economy. An economy that Steam's isn't involved so why are they putting it under their platform.

In the future, we might see a company that will act like Steam that is purely blockchain games. A platform that will benefit blockchain games. Who knows and besides, nobody expected that NFT games will be created under blockchain right .

Exactly, steam is a business so they are not going to put games on their platform that are not going through their channels to buy and sell what you can get in the game, however people should take this as an opportunity, the first to release a decentralized platform that acts like steam will make a lot of money, it is to be expected that there are probably a lot of people working on this as we speak, so it is just a matter of time until steam is not really necessary for those kind of games.

True, as a business then you wouldnt really let anything that passes into them and wont able to make benefit while using up their platform.They cant really just allow on how things should go specially
we are talking about big revenue on here.

They had integrated bitcoin before in terms of payment but still end up on removing it because they dont like volatility and the fees.Then it does indicate that they are really
indicate that they arent really that positive in dealing with crypto.

Therefore it isnt surprising that they wont really be that positive towards other things connected to it.

Steam is in a comfort zone making a lot of money already without any competitors at their heels, so changes and innovative adoptions aren't considered a need for them. Maybe in some years when blockchain games start playing a bigger role on the gaming scene they will be forced to make some adjustments, but by there I don't expect anything to happen.

I just think they are a a bit selfish, because with blockchain games, earnings opportunities could be also disponible for players and not only for the Steam platform and developers, especially considering players invest a huge amount of time on videogames (if not their entire life), but Steam doesn't really care about it.

[hatshepsut93]

Maybe in some years when blockchain games start playing a bigger role on the gaming scene they will be forced to make some adjustments, but by there I don't expect anything to happen.

Blockchain games will never get any traction, gamers don't care about blockchain technology, NFT and other buzzwords. The people who engage with them are just those who try to get rich quick on a speculative market.

So the issue is that real money is spent for game stuff, right? Well, how about FIFA's loot boxes, then? People pay with real money to get better players, and in an addictive way. But this is no problem for Steam because it's not blockchain-based?

No, the real money isn't the main issue, the issue is that those games are created just to make people participate in speculative investing on a highly rigged market. Steam wants nothing to do with that, it's a gaming platform, not a stock exchange.

While EA's lootboxes are highly problematic, they are not the same as some blockchain game NFT's that people buy to get rich quick.

[g-uid]

That's steam kinda own decision, for me gaming on blockchain and making money out of it makes more sense that playing games on PlayStation 5 and earn nothing in return, there is a saying that time is money and if money can be made from fun then it's even better, screw steam I love axie infinity

But the purpose of games is to have fun not to make money, I know that even with single player games people are making money when streaming their content and stuff like that but the main purpose of any game is to provide entertainment not a way of life and  a way to earn money, now in many games you can sell your gold and items for real money however when you cannot even play the game without tokens and everyone is there not to have fun but to sell whatever they get then this is not an ecosystem that can be maintained long term.

it's not about fun or making money. it's a smart move from steam and it's not because they want to, it is because they have to. money laundering through markets the size of those that operate through steam is a paradise for players who know how to maneuver in this space. steam is protecting their market, themselves and players on both sides.

[uneng]

Maybe in some years when blockchain games start playing a bigger role on the gaming scene they will be forced to make some adjustments, but by there I don't expect anything to happen.

Blockchain games will never get any traction, gamers don't care about blockchain technology, NFT and other buzzwords. The people who engage with them are just those who try to get rich quick on a speculative market.

May I ask what blockchain games do you know? And if you have played them?

You don't need to care about blockchain technology or any other keywords to play a game of that kind, just like you don't need to care about games' engines, development or any other technical informations or characteristics to play games in general.

Those who play blockchain games do this for different reasons: extra income is a big attractive, what doen't mean all of them are trying to get rich by speculating few assets at a high price, but there are also competitive players who spend lots of money to reach the top of a server's ranking and/or to oppress another players, exactly like in regular online games and in real life. Moreover, considering how miserable the world is, to get traction is just a matter of time, because there are millions of people looking for extra income and if it's possible to make it through a video-game they will go for it without any doubts.

Actually, "play to earn" isn't an exclusivity of blockchain games. You have people making money even from the most popular and famous online games, although it's illegal by the rules.

[jostorres]

Banning scams is good, and ensuring that the money of people is safe is also good. However, this move seems a bit hypocritical. So the issue is that real money is spent for game stuff, right? Well, how about FIFA's loot boxes, then? People pay with real money to get better players, and in an addictive way. But this is no problem for Steam because it's not blockchain-based? I think they should focus on the issues themselves and formulate things accordingly. If the problem isn't blockchain, but real money involved, then they should only ban blockchain games. Correct me if I'm missing something here.

Banning scams is definitely good but at what cost? If you are banning blockchain games overall, then you are banning the scams along with the fair ones. Like for example axie is not a scam and we know this already, it is a good place and a good game that people could earn money from. So, having axie listed on steam would not be a bad idea, I don't know if they have any talks between them so far but if that happens then it would basically be a launcher help.

I believe it should happen for sure, it would help steam get into blockhain world, and it will help axie to get in front of many people. What I do not get however is why ban all of it, or just have none of it, that doesn't make sense to me. Ban the ones that doesn't look good or just looks shady, do not even allow them to be there, but at least have a path for the good ones to take in order to be better.

[hatshepsut93]

Those who play blockchain games do this for different reasons: extra income is a big attractive, what doen't mean all of them are trying to get rich by speculating few assets at a high price, but there are also competitive players who spend lots of money to reach the top of a server's ranking and/or to oppress another players, exactly like in regular online games and in real life. Moreover, considering how miserable the world is, to get traction is just a matter of time, because there are millions of people looking for extra income and if it's possible to make it through a video-game they will go for it without any doubts.

Gamers are spending hundreds of dollars on their PCs or consoles and then hundreds of dollars on games every year, why would they need opportunities to earn some pennies? People play games to relax, not to earn money. When a game is turned into a job it stops being a game, it becomes a boring grind.

There are already enough markets for games that doesn't feature real-money trading directly, and the small minority of players that wants it uses them, so blockchain games aren't exactly revolutionizing anything. This is a typical case of blockchain devs having no idea what people want and need, and just trying to fit their "revolutionary technology" when no one asked for it.

[uneng]

Gamers are spending hundreds of dollars on their PCs or consoles and then hundreds of dollars on games every year, why would they need opportunities to earn some pennies? People play games to relax, not to earn money. When a game is turned into a job it stops being a game, it becomes a boring grind.

I will take mmorpgs as example, because this is the kind of game which has the most complete economical system where the real world trading mechanism better works.

There are gamers and gamers, or as some may prefer to say: "farmers". Some people play online games for status, achievements, while others join to farm some income. That is what already happens in some mmorpgs. There are people playing those games only for money right now, although they have spent a long time of their childhood and adolescence on those games for fun. Things change within time and something that used to be a leisure activity may turn into a job.

There are already enough markets for games that doesn't feature real-money trading directly, and the small minority of players that wants it uses them, so blockchain games aren't exactly revolutionizing anything. This is a typical case of blockchain devs having no idea what people want and need, and just trying to fit their "revolutionary technology" when no one asked for it.

I believe blockchain games are just legalizing something that is usually illegal in mainstream games. By the terms and conditions of online games you don't own your account, the game lends it to you instead, so everything you have in your inventory doesn't really belong to you. Blockchain games are fairer with players regards this subject, as you really own what you have acquired inside the game and can do whatever you want with those goods. I don't consider it a revolution, just a very welcome feature for players who can be finally rewarded for the time spent on those games (since repetitive grinding has always been a major part of such games).

[ashmodeus]

well , that a bad news , i was think about how big ALICE later when the game launch on steam, because i see on their roadmap , their game will available via steam. i guess Gaben just try to focus for the next TI .

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

and I can't agree that blockchain is the future for gaming, I'm a gamer myself and I never thought "Oh how I fish this game was running on blockchain". I never had any problems with centralized game servers, so why fix what is not broken? Especially since it's the blockchain that has problem like high fees, bugs in smart contracts, confirmation times. Not to mention that introducing real money into games tends to leading into very poor ecosystem.

Steam has always avoided games that involve in-game transactions between players. and I think banning blockchain games or financial games on the steam platform is a good thing because if it was too easy nft gaming would get a good platform like steam . and I'm afraid that if there are nft games that end up being a scam or fail, it will affect Steam as well.

[Wexnident]

Steam has always avoided games that involve in-game transactions between players. and I think banning blockchain games or financial games on the steam platform is a good thing because if it was too easy nft gaming would get a good platform like steam . and I'm afraid that if there are nft games that end up being a scam or fail, it will affect Steam as well.

Steam would simply be filled with various requests to publish nft games at that point imo, which is not what they want. They want quality games in their platform so as to help players be able to buy and enjoy games that they actually want. Still, I largely believe that it's mostly due to nft games being still somewhere in between when being judged as a game? Maybe if nft games were to continue developing, who knows, we may actually see them in there at some point.

I believe blockchain games are just legalizing something that is usually illegal in mainstream games. By the terms and conditions of online games you don't own your account, the game lends it to you instead, so everything you have in your inventory doesn't really belong to you. Blockchain games are fairer with players regards this subject, as you really own what you have acquired inside the game and can do whatever you want with those goods. I don't consider it a revolution, just a very welcome feature for players who can be finally rewarded for the time spent on those games (since repetitive grinding has always been a major part of such games).

NFT's are simply trying to build an economy, a REAL one that could be directly linked to the irl world instead of having their own economy inside the game. I actually want the concept of that economy since players would be forced to treasure each and every item, and game devs would be forced to think long and hard about the value of each item since they wouldn't be able to nonchalantly ignore its importance.

[finaleshot2016]

Steam has always avoided games that involve in-game transactions between players. and I think banning blockchain games or financial games on the steam platform is a good thing because if it was too easy nft gaming would get a good platform like steam . and I'm afraid that if there are nft games that end up being a scam or fail, it will affect Steam as well.

Steam would simply be filled with various requests to publish nft games at that point imo, which is not what they want. They want quality games in their platform so as to help players be able to buy and enjoy games that they actually want. Still, I largely believe that it's mostly due to nft games being still somewhere in between when being judged as a game? Maybe if nft games were to continue developing, who knows, we may actually see them in there at some point.

I agree with what you've mentioned; Steam is a reputable gaming platform, and we all know that there's a rapid growth in NFT games, and of course, there's money involved, which could threaten the system and its conditions. I mean, reviews should be based on how amazing the game is, not how good the P2E is, and I understand why Steam would want to prevent this. They adamantly desire clean and balanced reviews for the game. Of course, this is just the start, and Steam may change it quickly after it has been evaluated, or have different protocols for P2E games.

For now, Epic Games is the platform where NFT games can be published.

[hatshepsut93]

There are gamers and gamers, or as some may prefer to say: "farmers". Some people play online games for status, achievements, while others join to farm some income. That is what already happens in some mmorpgs. There are people playing those games only for money right now, although they have spent a long time of their childhood and adolescence on those games for fun. Things change within time and something that used to be a leisure activity may turn into a job.

Those people who play to earn real money are a minority, while it's the first group that is creating value for in-game items, so the game that is developed with primary focus can't be successful and popular. So when blockchain devs advertise their projects as the next big thing in gaming, they are just lying.

Second, these blockchain games get such high budgets from their crypto funding, yet they deliver completely bland product, way worse than what people on kickstarter do for a fraction of the budget. That's because these blockchain games are just like shitcoins - they deliver minimal working product to make people invest in their token, then they will bail once the cow has been fully milked.

[bittraffic]

There are gamers and gamers, or as some may prefer to say: "farmers". Some people play online games for status, achievements, while others join to farm some income. That is what already happens in some mmorpgs. There are people playing those games only for money right now, although they have spent a long time of their childhood and adolescence on those games for fun. Things change within time and something that used to be a leisure activity may turn into a job.

Those people who play to earn real money are a minority, while it's the first group that is creating value for in-game items, so the game that is developed with primary focus can't be successful and popular. So when blockchain devs advertise their projects as the next big thing in gaming, they are just lying.

Second, these blockchain games get such high budgets from their crypto funding, yet they deliver completely bland product, way worse than what people on kickstarter do for a fraction of the budget. That's because these blockchain games are just like shitcoins - they deliver minimal working product to make people invest in their token, then they will bail once the cow has been fully milked..

I also noticed those games does not have quality graphics. Often their tokens are meant for staking in the game and then players get shitcoins from staking. Can't really complain as its what they promised to their investors.

The token has fiat value though.  It may be seen as shitcoin but the use of blockchain for games are innovative, its a game changer for gamers too since they now earn than jist wasting time. Overtime I think the games will improve since thess are encouraging the developers, maybe one day developers of EA, Ubisoft and Activision will release their own blockchain games with their shitcoin still.

[Tumanggor]

steam made a good decision so that there are no more victims of p2e scams

That's steam kinda own decision, for me gaming on blockchain and making money out of it makes more sense that playing games on PlayStation 5 and earn nothing in return, there is a saying that time is money and if money can be made from fun then it's even better, screw steam I love axie infinity

oh yeah axie infinity is a good game I have friends who make a lot of money from axie. It's really bad luck I didn't play when the capital needed was still low

[Anonylz]

As much people wants to see blockchain and crypto adoption, it is very important to prevent any means of exploitation of the naive people in the space, am sure the steam teams have carefully thought it over because taking such decisions, they probably knows many people will fall victims if they allowed it, the hype of play to earn games is so high that many people will easily get burnt, I think they made the right decision if viewed from the naive users point.

[Silberman]

Banning scams is good, and ensuring that the money of people is safe is also good. However, this move seems a bit hypocritical. So the issue is that real money is spent for game stuff, right? Well, how about FIFA's loot boxes, then? People pay with real money to get better players, and in an addictive way. But this is no problem for Steam because it's not blockchain-based? I think they should focus on the issues themselves and formulate things accordingly. If the problem isn't blockchain, but real money involved, then they should only ban blockchain games. Correct me if I'm missing something here.

It is obvious for anyone that uses their common sense that this is not about protecting their clients, this is about the fact they are not getting their fair share of the profits those games are generating and they do not like this one bit, and while I am not fan of those games it is obvious I do not like anything that delays the implementation of cryptocurrencies so I do not like what is happening here, but at the end of the day Steam can do whatever they want with their platform whether we like it or not.