Dusk: Unpopular opinion: I'd rather pay Valve 30% and put up with their de facto monopoly than help Epic work towards their own (very obviously desired) monopoly
You're viewing a single thread.
People saying Steam doesn't have a monopoly because other stores exist, is the same as saying Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on PC Gaming because Mac and Linux exist. Technically true, but ultimately meaningless because its their market power that determines a monopoly, not whether there are other niche players.
While Valve and Steam have generally been a good player, and currently do offer the best product, they still wield an ungodly amount of influence over the PC gaming market space.
Epic is chasing that because they really want what Valve has, though no doubt they plan to speedrun the enshittification process as soon as they think it safe.
When people say Valve doesn't have a monopoly, they usually mean they don't engage in anti-competitive practices (like making exclusivity a condition for publishing on their store, cough cough).
Actually, Valve's recent moves represent what free market capitalism should be about - when competing stores started to appear, they instead made massive contributions to Linux gaming and appealed to right-to-repair advocates with the Steam Deck. Now both of those demographics are suckling on Gaben's teats, myself included.
Capitalism and a free economy are good when it's serving customers by making the best product or service possible, while balancing that with paying labour to make that happen.
The problem is that nowadays, there's a third party to this for the megacorps: Shareholders, which is where the enshittification begins.
Valve is a private company, so it is not beholden to any external shareholders, which is why it's been able to chart its own course. Still, I do worry what will happen when Gabe steps down.
Even when capitalism serves customers well, it still takes the work of people who make things, and gives it to people who own things
What does that have to do with Valve?
Are you lost? I'm responding to the previous comment
Who was replying to someone talking about Valve
And benevolent capitalism
I just don't think that's the case with Valve, they work on steam and add new features consistently, it's not like they're providing no value for the cut they take.
I get where you're coming from though and way too many companies get away with that kind of situation. Just what capitalism often gives us :/
I'm not talking about Valve giving things back to us. I'm talking about the fact the owners of the company get money simply by owning the company. They take money they didn't work for. Even if the company isn't manipulative or scummy, they're enriching people who don't deserve it.
Generally companies do provide a service of some sort, the problem is that the higher ups who generally do less actual "work" rake in way way more then the average worker of the company.
Especially true for larger corps like Amazon
I hate DRM but really like Steam, they put in a shit ton of work to achive that! It's certainly a monopoly but I think one of the biggest differences is that it's not a publically tradet company so they don't have to chase that infinite growth many very influencial idiots don't see any issue with and there for aren't willing to destroy everything for short term gains.
Despite not having pressure from shareholders Valve pioneered or at least popularized and normalized many of the worst practices in videogame industry designed to milk players dry: microtransactions, battle passe, loot boxes, real money gambling, you name it, Valve has it
True, their games have quite a few very questionable mechanics!
That may be so, but that's not the way that the initial tweet is using the term, and not the commonly understood definition.
I'm not denying that Valve as a whole have been a force for good in the PC gaming market, but it's pointless to argue semantics and make up definitions to better suit personal bias instead of debating the actual point that's being made.
they usually mean they don't engage in anti-competitive practices.
But they do. They forbid devs to sell their games cheaper on other storefronts (outside of timed sales). Basically they enforce anti-competitive pricing on products in a way that makes it impossible for the devs to move the platform costs into consumer prices.
Devs could sell the product on Epic for example for $49 and make the same amount of profit as they do on Steam when priced $59 due to lower cut, but they can't do it because Valve forbids it. It anti-competitively protects Valve and their 30% cut against competitors who would take lesser cuts, at the expense of end customers.
Steam is a natural monopoly, which although still not entirely good but are a wholly different beast from monopolies made by exploiting flaws in the system
What's a natural monopoly? Valve currently has the freedom to implement anything they want within an extent because they're so popular. If they decided they wanted to charge devs 35% would people stop using it? Probably not. Steam's monopoly is as bad as any other for the same reason any other monopoly is bad.
A natural monopoly is when an industry is difficult to break into, making competition difficult or impossible. This favors incumbents, in fact, a lot of industries are natural monopolies (pharma, aerospace, chip production).
The difficulty of breaking into an industry may be because:
Look it up? It's an actual term, not something I made up for whatever reason you assumed to argue against something I didn't even say. I already said it's still not a good thing, it just would have happened regardless of whoever that was able to do it on scale first.
A prerequisite for enshittification is to have a non-shit product, so Epic are actually a safe bet against enshittification.
same as saying Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on PC Gaming because Mac and Linux exist
😡