Okay so is Steam enough of a money printer for Valve to say "well fuck you guys, we'll make our own credit card with hookers and bingo"? And hold out Half-Life 3 (only purchasable with the ValveCard) as a carrot?
To replace visa/mastercard you need to have thousands of banks support ValveCard across the world. It's hard to imagine how it's going to happen. Players will not switch to another (probably foreign) bank just to buy Half-Life 3. They'll pirate it.
By the way, Gabe has a very famous quote:
> Piracy is a service problem.
He knows it very well that if it's hard for players to buy something they'll just get it free anyway. You can say he's probably the first person in the world who realized this idea profoundly enough to turn it into a business. It's very risky for Steam to make buying games even slightly harder.
You can do that currently. Steam already supports the exact process you described: top up your steam wallet and buy games with steam wallet balance. Actually, there are things you can only buy this way (some in-game items, not sure if it's to workaround gambling accusation or just coded so for no reason).
The issue is Visa/Mastercard/whoever is pressuring Valve isn't happy about the very existence of incest games. They don't want to be associated with incest/rape even indirectly.
If there was a prominent online marketplace for homegrown literature, I would bet there would be corporate pushback against selling incest themed porn on it. But I don’t think there is such a marketplace so it’s a very hypothetical question.
If a book publisher was selling erotic fiction about children online, you could bet your ass they would have a hard time with payment processors.
Eh yeah the Levayen Satanist book exists but I thought they were referring to a religious book from the archaic Bible ages. That'd be much more interesting to read!
Visa and Mastercard are called card _networks_ for a reason. Wherever you are in the world, or in any site anywhere, if your card says Visa and the merchant’s POS machine (or payment gateway) take Visa, both parties know the transaction is good. The merchant gets his money and you get the product.
You get your card from your issuing bank, so the consumer’s last mile is the bank’s problem. The merchant get their POS/gateway from the acquirers. Your bank and the merchants acquirer don’t know each other.
Visa and Mastercard are intermediaries. There’s no way a NatWest card in the UK is connected to whatever POS is in Chile or whatever. They all route through the card brands.
Privacy.com issues cards from the Visa and Mastercard networks.
You can’t run your own card network easily because you would have to convince all of the merchant banks that take card transactions to do business with you.
Digital money movement requires an operating agreement between at least two financial entities - but most of the time there’s a lot more. Depending on the type of transaction you may have two or more gateways, facilitators, processors, issuers and underlying banks involved.
It’s a very fragmented system that relies on many, many different entities all having agreements and contracts with eachother.
You have to offset negative ValveCard balances with USD in everyone's banks, and there's a convenient middleman called Visa who does exactly that by tying store accounts to bank accounts through the universally accepted membership card they issue.
Entirely possible if you're JP Morgan Chase. They're big enough to have both merchants and consumers in their ecosystem, and they tried it, and Visa put a stop to that.
IBM was not able to. Story from a friend-who-claimed-to-be-there:
In days of yore, Visa did processing on IBM iron. The iron in question took a while to boot, and time is very definitely money to Visa and they wanted to speed up reboots (e.g., after a crash). Saving seconds = $$$.
Visa to IBM: "Please give us the source code for the <boot path stuff>, it's costing us money."
IBM: LOL
Visa to some big banks: "Please tell IBM to give us the source code for this, it's costing you money."
IBM, a little later: "Here's a tape. Need any help?"
> I am genuinely curious who can actually threaten Visa (I do not think it is Valve).
Visa is a clearing house whose members are banks. Think of it like a payment router between issuers (banks) and processors (banks).
Only sponsored organizations can directly use the "Visa rails", where "sponsor" is defined as a bank, a bank subsidiary, or an entity previously sponsored by one of the other two.
This is also the case for MasterCard and Discover. "Traditional" American Express is different though.
> Amazon, Walmart, Target and then increasingly unsure.
Those merchants use banks or one of their subsidiaries for processing credit card transactions. Most large merchants do as well in order to minimize their discount rate as well as other transaction fees. Smaller merchants often use ISO's or VAR's for business specific reason, knowing both ultimately transact with a bank or one of a bank's subsidiaries.
> I thought Venmo was trying the most with their card offers, as well as PayPal, Cash, Google Pay and several others too
I know at least two of the above used to use a specific US bank for the credit card transactions backing their payment services. For others, if service usage requires a verified credit card or debit card backed by a credit card network, they too use a processor owned/operated by a bank, bank subsidiary, or an entity sponsored by same.
EDIT:
For payment services which do not require a credit card or debit card backed by a credit card network, they almost certainly use the ACH[0] network. This is a more intimate financial relationship and best used with a dedicated bank account not linked to any others, as fund transfers can be bidirectional.
That seems an overly fine line to draw, when a check is basically just a plain piece of paper with your ACH number printed on it, and anyone with your ACH number can go get checks printed. A credit card is also bidirectional, so the question was just if alternatives exist to VISA processing, not if you necessarily would use them. I meant to mention Zelle and Plaid too, since they integrate with many (most?) banks already to allow transfers via your online account login authentication credentials instead of traditional ACH
From a card holder's perspective regarding a transaction being voided or refunded, sure. What I was talking about are services where the account holder can equally perform purchases as well as receive payments.
> I meant to mention Zelle and Plaid too, since they integrate with many (most?) banks already to allow transfers via your online account login authentication credentials instead of traditional ACH
For the purposes of bidirectional fund transfers, the mechanism for how it is implemented is moot. The net effect and account access (intimacy) is functionally the same.
Any coalition of banks can. Replacing Visa is a daunting task, but rolling out PoS support and the technical challenges are peanuts compared to actually getting banks onboard. Visa itself was started by a single bank, and Mastercard was started by a coalition of banks. They can do it again.
Interac[1] is Canada's debit system, originally created as a non-profit by our largest banks way back in '84, and these days is supported everywhere. The large banks are already used to bullying their way through political or bureaucratic challenges, and a single Canadian bank typically has trillion(s) in managed assets - they _can_ bully Visa.
Zelle[2] (2016) is a limited (etransfer only) clone for the American market, UPI (2016) in India, UnionPay (2002) in China, carte Bleue (1967) in France, etc etc. What's missing is cooperation between national systems like these, as well as lending as they typically only do debit instead of credit.
Any cooperation between these systems would likely get spun out as a separate entity, which would eventually just turn into a new Visa or Mastercard - but 3 choices is better than 2.
Other payment processors, mostly. So other credit card companies (e.g. JCB [1]), government run payment services like Pix in Brazil [2], theoretically crypto, etc.
>> I am genuinely curious who can actually threaten Visa (I do not think it is Valve).
> Likely Apple currently has the deepest finance industry roots.
Apple used a very large bank headquartered in the US for its credit card processing as of about ten years ago. Given that the cost of change is significant once these processes are put in place, it is likely this remains the case.
Note that this is not the same as what Apple Pay supports.
Honestly, with how prevalent iPhones and Androids are today, specially among newer humans, if Apple and Google made a payment system that just transferred money between iPhone/Android, it could practically replace cash & cards for a lot of people.
In some countries the vast majority of payments are done via phone apps for national payment systems already, bypassing Visa/Mastercard etc. entirely. Even kids pay for candy by phone.
Those are all US companies so subject to the same puritan pressures. Their cards would still be good for buying ultra violent games but not sex games...
Walmart was very supportive of fedNow for the express purpose of removing MasterCard from cashless purchases. And for a long time the only way to pay by phone was to allow them to debit via ACH. out of all of them they get it the most.
Steam gift cards are funded by traditional banking products and partnerships. They can’t live without the invisible hand of the banking and credit card industry.
I like this (ab)use of the invisible hand meme. But in economics the “invisible hand” is more of a benevolent deity than a predictable mechanism. I propose “hidden hand” for what credit (card and rating) companies do.
it really is the same invisible hand. the economics invisible hand is doing whatever the capital owners want the economy to do. weighing influence by capital is what makes visa have that power
My first thought is: obviously not. But if 10 years ago you'd asked me if Valve would be able to turn Linux into a serious gaming platform, I'd have answered the same.
All that stemmed from an unlikely but existential fear that Microsoft could lock-down software distribution on Windows. My suspicion is that SteamOS sales and Steam Decks aren't actually profitable, they're just too valuable as a bargaining chip not to invest in. And Valve can invest in them, because they're rich and private.
While Valve bigwigs probably aren't losing sleep over the missed revenue from incest games, having the rest of their revenue stream threatened might make them seek another form of insurance.
I mean, if there's one company that I believe could pull that off is Valve. And maybe Amazon. Maybe the two together. It would be one hell of a JV for both parties.
Nope. Even a company such as valve would be intimidated by the regulation of setting up their own company payment network outside the traditional banking system.
Maybe crypto is an option but I haven’t seen use in retail. Only speculation instrument.
Apple tried. Failed. Google tried. Failed. Only thing that works is partnering up with existing bank
They don't physically print the notes, but they do magically add money to a person's account when they take a loan. That kind of thing is where most "money" (in banks, anyway) comes from.
It's just like matter and antimatter being created at the same time, money and anti-money (debt) are created at the same time and when they meet, they cancel each other out.
So borrowing literally creates money (and debt), and repaying debts literally deletes money (and debt).
No, interest is a typical zero-sum transaction where the borrower spends and the lender earns. The loan itself represents a temporary net increase in the money supply, appearing from nothing and then vanishing when it is paid back.
I'm a bit unsure what happens when a borrower defaults on their loan. The money that was borrowed remains out in circulation, but what happens to the debt (anti-money)?
Does the bank itself use its own money to pay off the debt (deleting some of their own money), or do they simply delete the debt?
In principle, it is 'the bank uses its own money to pay off the debt', as long as you accept that the bank's own 'credit worthiness reputation' and other assets count as 'money'. The hit is _ultimately_ taken by the capital shareholders in the bank, which is the important part.
