Remind me again which game developer had to release their game on Steam? Or which publisher had no choice but to market on the platform? And are you the sole user forced to use Steam, or was that someone else…?
Interesting that first part… Respectfully, no one is entitled to sales on any platform. As a consumer, I’ve tried other launchers and stores. I hate them all. I choose to only use Steam (for the time being). It’s simply choosing the superior option, but it is an option. I can’t say the same for my internet, energy, or cable companies…
Respectfully, no one is entitled to sales on any platform.
I’ve never said that. Of course if I‘m publishing a game I want it to be successful. If I was a book publisher, I‘d have to sell via Amazon, too, simply because a lot of people never buy anywhere else. It is a requirement to sell on Steam for a successful campaign, and OP implied otherwise.
It would really help if the would-be competitors focused on consumer-facing features rather than… whatever it is they’re doing. GoG is doing a great job of this, but EGS is still missing even the most basic features years later, because they keep trying to get market share through buying exclusives and giving away free games and that’s sadly never going to work out. They just don’t understand what the consumers in the industry they’re trying to operate in want.
Sure, but the point I’m making is, it’s not Steam’s fault; they’re simply doing a better job than their competitors of making their storefront attractive to consumers. Rather than blaming Steam, you should be blaming the other storefronts for not being able to capture market share.
I’m referring to your prior comments and history speaking in communities. The most recent one I remember involved Portal, Half-life, and counterstrike.
You’re not at Lembot_0005 level comments yet tho, so that’s good.
Yes, harassing users without context based on previous comments in other threads is much more valuable for a community. I don’t even remember having contrarian opinions about Portal or Half-Life, they are my favourite series‘.
Not to mention the companies that have legal decisions declaring they are a monopoly when they are only 80%+ of a market are in the context of those companies (Microsoft, google) behaving in an anticompetitive way using their majority market position.
So not technically a monopoly and not comparable to legally declared monopolies.
I think the difference here is that Valve isn’t forcing a monopoly in the way our tech overlords like Google and Amazon do through acquisitions and regulatory capture.
Several companies have tried and mostly failed to compete with Steam, I’m primarily thinking of whatever the EA and Ubisoft launchers are. The two closest have been GOG whom I would argue is fairly successful considering what their goals are and Epic, whom I would say is much less so.
Valve arent paying for exclusives or anything, they are just delivering a far better product than anyone else. GOG has it’s DRM-free market, but outside of that, there’s nothing close. Even if Epic Games had feature parity, fuck that company.
I never mentioned Amazon, but it’s really no comparison, even the FTC in the USA has filed suits against them for monopolistic and illegal behaviour.
Ive never seen an advert for Steam myself, outside of on their own platform or a video on their own YouTube channel. They sell largely through word of mouth. I suppose recently they offered journalists to visit their HQ to show off their new hardware.
Valve has lawsuits in the work, although not from the FTC. The fact is Valve is just slightly above the other companies, but it’s a very low bar and that doesn’t negate their very real effect on the industry.
I bring up Amazon because your arguments apply to them. If I told you Bezos deserves all his wealth because he has a better platform then his competitors (all three of them) and offers an easy to use website with cheap delivery, you would probably call me a bootlicker.
All billionaires and their profit making machines are bad, no exceptions imo.
Valve employees aren’t pissing in bottles.
Amazon also does a bunch of shitty things on their marketplace (Amazon basics) and killed all the competition.
There is a difference in the problematic being caused, not the ethics. The soft monopoly they all enjoy together as a group (Valve, Microsoft, etc) is having an effect on the industry. We as consumers get worst quality games in the end, because 30% of profits go directly to a few hosting companies. A lot of indie companies would still be around if the game store club wasn’t insanely greedy and artificially keeping such a huge part of the pie.
If it wasn’t the same, Gaben wouldn’t own a handful of boats worth a combined 1 000 000 000 $. That is 9 zeros for boats.
You are arguing something different. We all agree billionaires shouldn’t exist. You don’t need to try to topic flip to try and let us know. This was simply a discussion about the term monopoly and it’s definition.
The conversation is longer then two comments. It’s highly debatable if valve has a monopoly per the FTC definition, not being sued by them isn’t the bar. You don’t need to have 100% market share. You can have legal monopolies, but that wouldn’t make the gross hoarding of wealth (which is the underlining thread) defendable.
There is no doubt in my mind that they have, in common talk, a soft monopoly at minimum and are colluding and keeping the percentage taken high. If they were actually competing, he wouldn’t be able to afford all the boats.
Remind me again which game developer had to release their game on Steam? Or which publisher had no choice but to market on the platform? And are you the sole user forced to use Steam, or was that someone else…?
If I want my game to sell I have to release on Steam, though.
Minecraft, Star Sector, Dwarf Fortress until recently. Stores like Epic and GOG and itch.io.
Plus Steam gives you content distribution, discussions, patches, all for free.
You don’t even have to release your game on pc to sell… Some don’t at all. Sticking to only consoles.
I know! There’s this great game called Fortnite that no one has ever heard of because you can’t get it on Steam. /s
It did well because EGS is so great /s It’s obviously the exception.
Interesting that first part… Respectfully, no one is entitled to sales on any platform. As a consumer, I’ve tried other launchers and stores. I hate them all. I choose to only use Steam (for the time being). It’s simply choosing the superior option, but it is an option. I can’t say the same for my internet, energy, or cable companies…
I’ve never said that. Of course if I‘m publishing a game I want it to be successful. If I was a book publisher, I‘d have to sell via Amazon, too, simply because a lot of people never buy anywhere else. It is a requirement to sell on Steam for a successful campaign, and OP implied otherwise.
It would really help if the would-be competitors focused on consumer-facing features rather than… whatever it is they’re doing. GoG is doing a great job of this, but EGS is still missing even the most basic features years later, because they keep trying to get market share through buying exclusives and giving away free games and that’s sadly never going to work out. They just don’t understand what the consumers in the industry they’re trying to operate in want.
Yeah sure, but acting like I don’t need Steam for my game to sell is untrue.
Sure, but the point I’m making is, it’s not Steam’s fault; they’re simply doing a better job than their competitors of making their storefront attractive to consumers. Rather than blaming Steam, you should be blaming the other storefronts for not being able to capture market share.
I‘m not blaming anyone.
You can sell your game on Steam, in addition to other platforms as well.
You’re not contradicting anything they said, and you’re not contradicting that Steam is a monopoly.
Hey look, the contrarian is back! Wow! I thought you would take some time to reflect after your wack takes.
I don‘t think it’s very contrarian or whack to acknowledge the fact that I may need to sell on the biggest platform if I want my game to do well.
I’m referring to your prior comments and history speaking in communities. The most recent one I remember involved Portal, Half-life, and counterstrike.
You’re not at Lembot_0005 level comments yet tho, so that’s good.
Yes, harassing users without context based on previous comments in other threads is much more valuable for a community. I don’t even remember having contrarian opinions about Portal or Half-Life, they are my favourite series‘.
Yeah, why do you buy things if you’re against capitalism? Checkmate.
Doesn’t make it less of a monopoly.
Technically Steam isn’t a monopoly by actual definition.
What you, and others often mean with the term, is that they hold a majority market position.
Not to mention the companies that have legal decisions declaring they are a monopoly when they are only 80%+ of a market are in the context of those companies (Microsoft, google) behaving in an anticompetitive way using their majority market position.
So not technically a monopoly and not comparable to legally declared monopolies.
I think the difference here is that Valve isn’t forcing a monopoly in the way our tech overlords like Google and Amazon do through acquisitions and regulatory capture.
Several companies have tried and mostly failed to compete with Steam, I’m primarily thinking of whatever the EA and Ubisoft launchers are. The two closest have been GOG whom I would argue is fairly successful considering what their goals are and Epic, whom I would say is much less so.
This is the key point people are missing.
Valve arent paying for exclusives or anything, they are just delivering a far better product than anyone else. GOG has it’s DRM-free market, but outside of that, there’s nothing close. Even if Epic Games had feature parity, fuck that company.
Fuck valve too. Gabe has over a billion dollars worth of boats. Fuck him to hell and back
Amazon doesn’t either. Most of the arguments defending Steam can easily apply to every other “bad” company.
The only thing that differentiates steam is their marketing budget targeting small forums and Reddit.
I never mentioned Amazon, but it’s really no comparison, even the FTC in the USA has filed suits against them for monopolistic and illegal behaviour.
Ive never seen an advert for Steam myself, outside of on their own platform or a video on their own YouTube channel. They sell largely through word of mouth. I suppose recently they offered journalists to visit their HQ to show off their new hardware.
Valve has lawsuits in the work, although not from the FTC. The fact is Valve is just slightly above the other companies, but it’s a very low bar and that doesn’t negate their very real effect on the industry.
I bring up Amazon because your arguments apply to them. If I told you Bezos deserves all his wealth because he has a better platform then his competitors (all three of them) and offers an easy to use website with cheap delivery, you would probably call me a bootlicker.
All billionaires and their profit making machines are bad, no exceptions imo.
Valve employees aren’t pissing in bottles. Amazon also does a bunch of shitty things on their marketplace (Amazon basics) and killed all the competition.
There’s a huge difference in ethics here.
There is a difference in the problematic being caused, not the ethics. The soft monopoly they all enjoy together as a group (Valve, Microsoft, etc) is having an effect on the industry. We as consumers get worst quality games in the end, because 30% of profits go directly to a few hosting companies. A lot of indie companies would still be around if the game store club wasn’t insanely greedy and artificially keeping such a huge part of the pie.
If it wasn’t the same, Gaben wouldn’t own a handful of boats worth a combined 1 000 000 000 $. That is 9 zeros for boats.
You are arguing something different. We all agree billionaires shouldn’t exist. You don’t need to try to topic flip to try and let us know. This was simply a discussion about the term monopoly and it’s definition.
The conversation is longer then two comments. It’s highly debatable if valve has a monopoly per the FTC definition, not being sued by them isn’t the bar. You don’t need to have 100% market share. You can have legal monopolies, but that wouldn’t make the gross hoarding of wealth (which is the underlining thread) defendable.
There is no doubt in my mind that they have, in common talk, a soft monopoly at minimum and are colluding and keeping the percentage taken high. If they were actually competing, he wouldn’t be able to afford all the boats.
All of them.