I never thought I'd live to see this day, but I'm glad I did. :)

Vayra86No they ain't removing choice, there's a whole gutter called the internet where you can wade through mountains of shite

A digital distributor cannot remove choice on its own, when there are multiple other distributors and ways to get content, AND a thousand different variations on the same content available. There's really an overabundance of choice, and Steam is doing the right thing filtering for us. If we disagree with what they filter... we can voice a concern.

Curation is going to be huge going forward, especially with AI content flooding everything.


Yes, I'd prefer Rockstar keep making parodies on that twisted overcommercialized existence we call normal today.

Games are an escape and the world you play in is part of that escape. I play them precisely to NOT have to watch ads all day, because they're already everywhere you look.

Then again if Rockstar allows us to buy and install an adblocker in-game, that would turn this whole affair into a gameplay element I would appreciate a lot :) That's Rockstar parody level shit and perhaps a way to have a win-win situation :p

I didn’t expect people to be so sensitive about it. Personally, I wouldn’t mind, but I’m not much of a GTA fan; It’s not the kind of game I’d spend $100+ on.

Well, FINALLY, someone has taken a stance against the over-monetization & over-commercialization of practically everything, everywhere, all of the time, all at once.... hats off to Valve :D

Although I don't do pc gamz, I hope this move inspires other companies to start thinking about the issue and take action to stop or at least minimize it.....

Just like that so-called "sporting" debacle that was on yesterday..... ~1 hour of actual game time, ~2.5 hours of ads, and 30 mins of whatever that crapfest sh*tshow was at halftime.....

I haven't seen ads in PC games, but cool!

I know they do exist on phones though.

That's like the opposite of "enshittification"! Well played.

AssimilatorOf course it's not, it's Valve being smart and protecting their brand by pursuing long-term gains over short-term ones. Which pretty much every other company has apparently forgotten how to do.

I'd also remind you that the reason doesn't matter particularly much, if the outcome is generally positive.


HAHAHAHAHA you're a funny guy.

When Steam recently changed their terms of service it was not about benefiting the consumer. Somebody found a way to force them to pay for a silly amount of arbitrations...so they changed policy. People hailed that as a benefit for gamers...until 2+2=4, and we discovered the motivation was not about gaming.

Valve banning games...because they literally do not see any revenue from a free game + advertisements is not about gamers. It's about them pushing for transactions that will benefit them. Note that a one time purchase or microtransactions is what they suggested...not releasing games for free. Not removing advertising...just making games that earned Steam nothing, but were paid Skinner boxes with adds not allowable on their platform. It also does not prevent advertisements...so look forward to your next character wearing branded UnderArmor, with a Bear fleece, and Air Jordans (with you having to pay real money into intermediate currencies before buying a loot box to get a chance to earn crap). You know who else tried that crap? Epic tried to get around having to pay Apple by buying their stuff outside of the App store.

Also, LOOT BOXES IN TEAM FORTRESS 2!

Do you see how maybe, if you think one step ahead, it's not really about doing what is right for us? Moreover, how it isn't actually right for us, but simply gently nudging more crap like League of Legends to exist...a game with hundreds of dollar skins for a single character. Consider me jaded, but after your rant about stupid Americans it's really funny to see you taking the bait on this. Almost like Valve is a blind spot for so many people, because they just never seem to be overtly evil.


The absence of evil is not good, as the absence of good is not evil. Just consider that before everyone starts lining up to give Valve a long loving sloppy kiss.

Bet they don't ban Call of Duty. Season 1 nothing but a netflix ad.

lilhasselhofferWhen Steam recently changed their terms of service it was not about benefiting the consumer. Somebody found a way to force them to pay for a silly amount of arbitrations...so they changed policy. People hailed that as a benefit for gamers...until 2+2=4, and we discovered the motivation was not about gaming.

Valve banning games...because they literally do not see any revenue from a free game + advertisements is not about gamers. It's about them pushing for transactions that will benefit them. Note that a one time purchase or microtransactions is what they suggested...not releasing games for free. Not removing advertising...just making games that earned Steam nothing, but were paid Skinner boxes with adds not allowable on their platform. It also does not prevent advertisements...so look forward to your next character wearing branded UnderArmor, with a Bear fleece, and Air Jordans (with you having to pay real money into intermediate currencies before buying a loot box to get a chance to earn crap). You know who else tried that crap? Epic tried to get around having to pay Apple by buying their stuff outside of the App store.

Also, LOOT BOXES IN TEAM FORTRESS 2!

Do you see how maybe, if you think one step ahead, it's not really about doing what is right for us? Moreover, how it isn't actually right for us, but simply gently nudging more crap like League of Legends to exist...a game with hundreds of dollar skins for a single character. Consider me jaded, but after your rant about stupid Americans it's really funny to see you taking the bait on this. Almost like Valve is a blind spot for so many people, because they just never seem to be overtly evil.


The absence of evil is not good, as the absence of good is not evil. Just consider that before everyone starts lining up to give Valve a long loving sloppy kiss.

I'd much rather pay for games than watch ads. Removing games with ads isn't gonna change the world overnight, but it is a step in the right direction. If a game isn't profitable without ads, then it's not a good game. Shitty business models shouldn't be supported.

The cake is REAL !!

With that said. Isnt the new GTA game said to have a tonne of ads and ad placement in game?? I think some of EA and 2K sports games also had ingame ads/product placement and you cant turn these off meaning they are unskippable. These probably wont be included as part of the ban but I wonder how Steam will approach these games (or not)

I mean, this move is obviously intended to plug a loop hole in Steam's monetization structure that allows devs to offer free games while making money from paid ads...

But that doesn't mean it's a bad thing from a consumer perspective as well. Steam has a lot of shovelware on it, anything that cuts down on that is a good thing IMO.

"While cross-promotional partnerships and product placements remain acceptable, the forced ad model is no longer supported."

You do understand that Valve is doing this not to protect players but to protect their pockets, right?
In game ads are mostly run by some custom engines and all the revenue goes to game studios and nothing to valve.
The DLC way is much better for Valve because they get a cut of $$.

Nobody cares about players, forget about it. Its all about who gets the $$$.

It doesn't have to be an either/or choice. Both reasons can be counted. Keeping the user happy can matter to Valve.

ShihabYes! Filthy smartphone devs should remain in their crappy platforms. PCMR!

Now we just need to get Google to do this!

AusWolfI'd much rather pay for games than watch ads. Removing games with ads isn't gonna change the world overnight, but it is a step in the right direction. If a game isn't profitable without ads, then it's not a good game. Shitty business models shouldn't be supported.

Please, be critical for just one moment. What they banned was advertisements which basically stopped the games dead. What they did not ban were advertisements.

Again, be critical. Let's list some things that theoretically can still exist.
1) Add banners taking up the bottom 1/4 of your screen.
2) Constant nagging to buy premium stuff, Angry Birds style with the "purchase a golden eagle" banner.
3) Branded merchandise.
4) Loot boxes.
5) Branded goods appearing everywhere. Again, those fun logos are basically advertising.
6) "Non-invasive" advertisements. Imagine 80% of those billboards in GTA suddenly saying "buy Shark Cards" and you'll have an easy viable example.

I am tired of being the only person thinking about this...because so many people just want to believe that this is Valve benefiting everyone. It is not...and anyone with half an ounce of awareness would spend a nanosecond carefully considering that Valve is not doing this because it is good, only because it's killing a non-value added cost and simultaneously making it impossible for them to be held accountable like the mobile market sludge factory.


Let me put this into the most positive light I can. A few years back, Take2 patented a means to stop games during the quarters (basketball), and show an advertisement. This "organically replicated the genuine experience" of the between quarters experience. IE, they wanted to insert commercials into a full AAA game. Patent filed...and then ignored because they went down the whole annual release and loot box path. It was ignored because basically everyone thought it was distasteful, and my suspicion is that the patent filing was leaked as a soft means to discover if it was a deal breaker or not...because if you've got to always be online for your single player game you might as well also connect to a server to get paid and targeted advertising, right? Don't believe me? Maybe you are wary? 2009. Google Patent Application
Yep, Valve is really on the ball here. 2024-2009 = 15 years. The reason that this effectively died was that loot boxes proved to be a much easier pill to swallow, and 0.01% chances of getting a game breaking character or bit of tech absolutely drove certain whales to plunge tens of thousands of dollars into the system.

So...square the circle for me. 15 years late to the party. Focused only on a very narrow type of advertising. Allowance of parallel streams, and a call to instead structure games such that they require payments that Valve gets a slice of. Tell me, in any other company this would be viewed as a basic protection that does almost nothing for the consumer, but you guys are lining up to pray at the Valve altar. Can you maybe see why anyone who has a long enough memory might see this as nothing special, or do I have to explain the enormous benefits of differentiating your platform from the mobile market when you release 10k games a year?

Note that the amount of games on the market is 89,000+, and the last few years have seen an average of more than 27 games a day being released (that's 10k/365, but 2024 was 42.25 per day) :

• 2024: 15,422 games released
• 2023: 11,583 games released
• 2022: 10,117 games released
• 2021: 9,819 games released

That kind of pipeline means banning a 15 year old monetization scheme (older, but the first patent I remember) is literally nothing but a PR win...and everyone here willing to pretend Valve is amazing for doing it basically needs to be intentionally blind to how late this was done. Wake me when they start requiring developers to disclose all drop rates, or ban intermediary currency conversions so the cost of goods is plainly understood. Those would be protections which might hurt them, but would absolutely make the industry as a whole better.



As a means to an end, Digital Extremes publishes a drop table for all their loot. You can see the 0.001% drop rates for certain things...and you know why buying the thing is a better use of your time, if you don't ignore that garbage completely. If FIFA listed a 0.001% drop chance and an average loot box costing of $5 it'd be apparent that they wanted an average cost for their stuff to be as astronomical as it actually is...but I see EA sports FC 25 on steam for $69.99 right now, with the "Buy FC points" option of $49.99 for 5900. Almost like you need to buy a full priced AAA, then spend multiple AAA games more money on unlocking content...for a yearly released game, that in lass than 360 days will reset. Not scummy at all, right (I say, dripping with sarcasm)?

lilhasselhofferPlease, be critical for just one moment. What they banned was advertisements which basically stopped the games dead. What they did not ban were advertisements.

You missed the point being made by Auswolf, one I agree with fully.

lilhasselhofferSo...square the circle for me.

Your great wall of text is matched only by your ignorance of the point they were making. Well done.

lilhasselhofferPlease, be critical for just one moment. What they banned was advertisements which basically stopped the games dead. What they did not ban were advertisements.

Again, be critical. Let's list some things that theoretically can still exist.
1) Add banners taking up the bottom 1/4 of your screen.
2) Constant nagging to buy premium stuff, Angry Birds style with the "purchase a golden eagle" banner.
3) Branded merchandise.
4) Loot boxes.
5) Branded goods appearing everywhere. Again, those fun logos are basically advertising.
6) "Non-invasive" advertisements. Imagine 80% of those billboards in GTA suddenly saying "buy Shark Cards" and you'll have an easy viable example.

I am tired of being the only person thinking about this...because so many people just want to believe that this is Valve benefiting everyone. It is not...and anyone with half an ounce of awareness would spend a nanosecond carefully considering that Valve is not doing this because it is good, only because it's killing a non-value added cost and simultaneously making it impossible for them to be held accountable like the mobile market sludge factory.


Let me put this into the most positive light I can. A few years back, Take2 patented a means to stop games during the quarters (basketball), and show an advertisement. This "organically replicated the genuine experience" of the between quarters experience. IE, they wanted to insert commercials into a full AAA game. Patent filed...and then ignored because they went down the whole annual release and loot box path. It was ignored because basically everyone thought it was distasteful, and my suspicion is that the patent filing was leaked as a soft means to discover if it was a deal breaker or not...because if you've got to always be online for your single player game you might as well also connect to a server to get paid and targeted advertising, right? Don't believe me? Maybe you are wary? 2009. Google Patent Application
Yep, Valve is really on the ball here. 2024-2009 = 15 years. The reason that this effectively died was that loot boxes proved to be a much easier pill to swallow, and 0.01% chances of getting a game breaking character or bit of tech absolutely drove certain whales to plunge tens of thousands of dollars into the system.

So...square the circle for me. 15 years late to the party. Focused only on a very narrow type of advertising. Allowance of parallel streams, and a call to instead structure games such that they require payments that Valve gets a slice of. Tell me, in any other company this would be viewed as a basic protection that does almost nothing for the consumer, but you guys are lining up to pray at the Valve altar. Can you maybe see why anyone who has a long enough memory might see this as nothing special, or do I have to explain the enormous benefits of differentiating your platform from the mobile market when you release 10k games a year?

Note that the amount of games on the market is 89,000+, and the last few years have seen an average of more than 27 games a day being released (that's 10k/365, but 2024 was 42.25 per day) :

• 2024: 15,422 games released
• 2023: 11,583 games released
• 2022: 10,117 games released
• 2021: 9,819 games released

That kind of pipeline means banning a 15 year old monetization scheme (older, but the first patent I remember) is literally nothing but a PR win...and everyone here willing to pretend Valve is amazing for doing it basically needs to be intentionally blind to how late this was done. Wake me when they start requiring developers to disclose all drop rates, or ban intermediary currency conversions so the cost of goods is plainly understood. Those would be protections which might hurt them, but would absolutely make the industry as a whole better.



As a means to an end, Digital Extremes publishes a drop table for all their loot. You can see the 0.001% drop rates for certain things...and you know why buying the thing is a better use of your time, if you don't ignore that garbage completely. If FIFA listed a 0.001% drop chance and an average loot box costing of $5 it'd be apparent that they wanted an average cost for their stuff to be as astronomical as it actually is...but I see EA sports FC 25 on steam for $69.99 right now, with the "Buy FC points" option of $49.99 for 5900. Almost like you need to buy a full priced AAA, then spend multiple AAA games more money on unlocking content...for a yearly released game, that in lass than 360 days will reset. Not scummy at all, right (I say, dripping with sarcasm)?

I never said it's a perfect solution. But it is a step in the right direction. Game stopping ads are the worst thing you can encounter in any game ever, bar none. Getting rid of them at least is a good thing, right?