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
Gamers have gotten quite lucky so far that the company that has been in the position to turn the screws and establish a monopoly has been content to only make gobs of money, instead of trying to make all the money like pretty much every other entertainment industry.
Yeah, the reason why Valve can do that is that they are not a publicly traded company but a privately owned one. Gabe Newell doesn’t have a fiduciary duty to any shareholders, so they don’t have to squeeze every penny from their users or abuse their quasi monopoly.
Epic is also private though I agree with your sentiment 100%
The idea that publicly traded companies have a duty to maximize shareholder value is a myth, and anyone privileged enough to sit on a board of directors likely knows this. See this article for an explanation. Every time a board squeezes a company for short term profits at the cost of long term good will, long term profits, etc., that is because they chose to do so.
EDIT: See also This NY Times article. And note that I'm not saying that corporations, board members, etc., aren't pressured or incentivized to maximize shareholder value - I'm saying that they do not have a legal duty to do so.
Yeah I'm not really to call Valve a good guy company, but I might be willing to call them the least bad company
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.
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.
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 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
😡
Is Steam really a monopoly when Valve doesn't try to stifle competition and no other company could be bothered (besides maybe GOG) to make a half decent store?
It is a monopoly - they just don't abuse it as much against their audience.
For developers it's either take their 30% deal or just don't sell your game because a lot of people only use steam.
Not even Cyberpunk or the Witcher could sell more on gog than on steam even though you knew that there the developers got 100% of the money spent. Gwent standalone flopped so hard on GOG that it had to be rereleased with limited features on steam and sold more there
People are just fundamentally lazy so it totally is a problem that you have one store with such a massive market share even if it's very convenient for the end-user they can completely exploit their position against publishers.
Sure EPICs way of making games exclusive to their store is not elegant but without that no-one would choose that store over steam
I am not sure if it's just people being lazy. Steam legitimately is a good gaming platform. It just has so many features that really bring the PC platform to the level of consoles in terms of UX. Social features, discussion boards, reviews, matchmaking, chat, broadcasting, remote streaming, all this alongside a kickass store. That's why Valve could roll out something like Steam OS and not have it feel woefully inadequate compared to what consoles offer.
Tell me a game store that supports Linux out of the box (not messing with wine stuff or lutris)
It's a monopoly, but it's one that a big company like EA or Epic Games can defeat. But, they have to actually put in the work and effort to present an experience that isn't an enshittified version of Steam.
So far, none of them are willing to put in the time, so they don't get the prize.
Not even Cyberpunk or the Witcher could sell more on gog than on steam even though you knew that there the developers got 100% of the money spent.
Most gamers don't know and/or don't care, so they will take the least resistance path, which is Steam.
Steam has a "most favoured nation clause" which prevents companies from actually selling for cheaper on other platform. This is how steam maintains its monopoly. If it were possible for CD Projekt Red to sell it cheaper outside of steam it would force steam to actually charge developers less.
Edit: see below, it's actually not that clear.
Many years ago I bought some old DOS game where Linux runtimes using the original files exists. What I expected was a disk image or a zip containing the files - what I got was some exe containing the files. Why would I ever try to buy something from someone fucking up something that simple again?
I might buy some indie games from a developer directly - but with a middleman steam is the only option.
This is partially on these companies for failing to provide an equal experience to Steam on their platform. I bought Witcher III in GoG to support the devs, and my reward was a lost save by the time the DLCs came out, because their client didn’t have cloud saves. So guess where I bought their stuff from there on? Sure, they added these features later but for some people the damage is already done.
If you're so sure Steam is a monopoly, can you please provide any evidence for that? To be clear, being very successful does not make someone a monopolist.
If Valve were a monopolist, they'd be listed here: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/commission-designates-six-gatekeepers-under-digital-markets-act-2023-09-06_en
One aspect through which one could argue that they might stifle competition is their price parity rule, for which it seems they are being sued. See here (not sure if there is any new development.
Hard to compete with steam if you cant at least do it through lower pricing. Although this article suggests that at least for epic exclusives publisher seem to prefer to just pocket the difference, rather than pass on those savings.
Isn't that just saying you can't sell access to a game on steam (through a steam key) for a lower price than what's on Steam? It's not like they can't just offer a lower price... just that they can't offer it for a lower price bundled with Steam access.
So they can offer a lower price, just not as a third party through Steam itself.
No it means that if the game is for sale on Steam then it can be sold elsewhere (GOG, EPIC...) but it's in the contract with Steam that it can't be sold for a lower price elsewhere, it's not about Steam keys sold by third party vendors.
Even if they are considered a 'monolopy' it seems like people haven't thought that we are the ones that have thrown our money at Valve and it is the ONLY reason why they are in the position they're in now. They offer a fantastic service to the gaming community and Valve is supposed to apologise for that? I'm not aware of any abuses within their own company that has contributed to their success or any anti-competitive behaviour?
No, it's not a monopoly. They aren't even a gatekeeper as defined recently by the EU.
The most successful PC games (Minecraft, Fortnite, Roblox) aren't even on Steam.
That doesn't mean anything. Jesus Christ these arguments that valve isn't a monopoly are just so incredibly weak. They've created a fucking cult.
It's definitely not merely a matter of not bothering to make a decent store though. I mean, do you think Epic is held back by not being bothered? The way they pour money into their store, I'd it were easy, they'd have it. And having a decent store isn't enough. It's kinda like social media in that you need the crowd effect. People want all their games in one place with integrations like friends, mods, achievements, etc. AFAIK, there's no open standard for most of these things, so you need a big market share to convince devs to make the change.
Well, what makes a monopoly is the position in the market, without the obligation to infinite growth that doesn't have to involve anti-competitive prectices.
Yes. Nothing you said doesn't change the fact it's a monopoly. Sure, it might not be a Microsoft-level-evil monopoly, and as far as monopolies go, this is probably the best one, but it's still a monopoly.
I think it's better to reframe the question as "Are there downsides to Valve's PC market dominance?" or "How is Steam's 30% cut different from Xbox or Playstation?"
For the latter: it's worth noting that Microsoft and Sony sell their hardware at a loss, and make up the difference through software, so there are obvious developer benefits to the 70-30 split. For Steam, the equivalent value-add for developers is only the platform itself, and I would wager for many of those developers the biggest reason for selling on Steam is not the feature set - though obviously useful - but because that's where the users are.
So, users get a feature-rich distribution platform, and developers (and by extension users) pay a tax to access those users. So the question is, how fair is that tax, and what effect does that tax have on the games that get made? Your view on that is going to depend on what you want from Steam, but more relevant I think is how much Steam costs to operate. How much of that 30% cut feeds back into Steam? My guess is not much; though I could be wrong.
But anyway, let's imagine you took away half the 30% cut. Where does that money go? Well, one of two places: either your pocket, or the developers (or publishers) pocket (depending on how the change affects pricing). The benefits to your pocket are obvious, but what if developers just charge the same price? Well, as far as I'm aware, a lot of games are just not profitable - I read somewhere that for every 10 games, 7 fail, 2 break even, and 1 is a huge success - so my personal view is that this is an industry where developers need all the help they can get. If that extra 15% helps them stay afloat long enough to put out the next thing without selling their soul to Microsoft or Sony or whoever is buying up companies these days, and Steam isn't severely negatively impacted, I'd call that a win.
But of course, that won't happen, because Steam has no reason to change. That's where the users are, and they are fine with the status quo.
I think you undersell how feature rich steam is for both users and developers.
They offer community forums, reviews, mods through workshop, cloud saves, automatic controller support, openish vr ecosystem (epic cant even do vr, if you buy a vr game you likely need to use steamvr anyway), broad payment and currency options, regional pricing and guidelines, remote play, and more I'm sure.
This is much more feature rich than even console platforms, so I think the 30% fee is justified.
And they do this all without really locking down their ecosystem.
A (private) monopoly or virtual monopoly is always bad for consumers.
So, users get a feature-rich distribution platform, and developers (and by extension users) pay a tax to access those users. So the question is, how fair is that tax, and what effect does that tax have on the games that get made? Your view on that is going to depend on what you want from Steam, but more relevant I think is how much Steam costs to operate. How much of that 30% cut feeds back into Steam? My guess is not much; though I could be wrong.
But anyway, let's imagine you took away half the 30% cut. Where does that money go? Well, one of two places: either your pocket, or the developers (or publishers) pocket (depending on how the change affects pricing). The benefits to your pocket are obvious, but what if developers just charge the same price? Well, as far as I'm aware, a lot of games are just not profitable - I read somewhere that for every 10 games, 7 fail, 2 break even, and 1 is a huge success - so my personal view is that this is an industry where developers need all the help they can get. If that extra 15% helps them stay afloat long enough to put out the next thing without selling their soul to Microsoft or Sony or whoever is buying up companies these days, and Steam isn't severely negatively impacted, I'd call that a win.
Would you claim that devs who also port their game to console are guilty as the consoles also take 30% cut? The entire console scene is basically what Valve is doing, except valve decides to compete on an open platform instead of a walled garden.
Competition sounds great, so long as it has all of the following:
This is of course also ignoring just how efficient, clean, customisable and ergonomic the steam interface is compared to all competition
Oh wait! That doesn't exist. All we need is some way to guarantee valve doesn't become public.
You don't even need all of that really. A lot of Steam functionality can be utilized just by adding it as a Non-Steam Game. Steam Workshop isn't the necessary if you have a modding scene, you just need a good mod manager.
The key point on whether I'll use your storefront or not is whether your plan for success is to buy out anti-Steam contracts (remember that it's not exclusivity to EGS, its to not release on Steam) to get customers and low revenue cuts to get developers and most importantly, to run a loss leading business for a number of years until you are profitable. If EGS were to ever become profitable, how long until they switch to squeezing out as much as they can? They've already rescinded their "curated" catalog.
Not to mention family sharing. I'm not sure of another PC store front that does the same, but it's been a bit help with my friends in being able to show games to each other and letting us try things before buying, similar to sharing discs back in the day.
... And Steam Remote Play.
Don't forget that mods often don't play nice with games off steam
This is not a good way to look at it. Competition is good regardless. It doesn't matter how good Valve is today, if a viable competitor comes out, Valve will be forced to get better in order to compete.
All we need is some way to guarantee valve doesn’t become public.
This is wrong. Valve can enshittify without going public. If you think that public corporations are the only ones that are greedy/evil/anti-consumer, then you've never heard of the "private equity" industry. Look up the recent fight between the FTC and U.S. Anesthesia Partners in Texas for a clear example.
In capitalism, free market forces are what keep tug of war between produces and consumers fair, and competition is the fuel that keeps those free market forces moving. The fact that the Valve of today is both good and a monopoly is just a temporary rounding error/outlier. Over time, Valve will go to shit and consumers will suffer simply because Valve has almost no competition. This isn't a question, it's a fact of the mechanism of the economic system they exist in. It's like gravity; just because you haven't hit the floor yet doesn't mean jumping off that building was a good idea.
Epic games, whether you hate them or not, is fighting the good fight. They are doing shitty things (exclusivity, etc), so maybe they aren't the chosen one who will take challenge Valve, but they are on the right side of that fight. Hoping that Valve will stay great forever is foolish.
...but I will add that I don't think Epic alone should be trying to take down Valve. Valve is way too entrenched in this market to be taken down with any realistic competition (probably why Epic is resorting to exclusivity deals). The FTC needs to step in and regulate the market. Idk what that would look like, but it's possible to do it in a way that makes everyone happy. For example (off the top of my head, so probably flawed but whatever) the FTC could enforce interoperability between digital marketplaces so that consumers don't need to install 30 different launchers to access their purchased libraries. That relatively small change could lower the bar to entry for competitors by a lot, and not be a burden to consumers at the same time. EDIT: and it would not be anything drastic like forcing a break up of Valve.
Its funny how you credit the invisible hand of free market forces to keep things fair but acknowledge everywhere else that the only thing that actually intervenes to promote fairness is the FTC as government regulatory body.
If we could drop the obvious bullshit romanticism of capitalism this would be a mostly accurate post.
Apologies for the confusion when I said to stop preventing steam becoming public. I was just too lazy to write something along the lines of defining some kind of perpetual way to prevent the downfall of steam. Ideally it becomes an open source utopia tomorrow... but that's not exactly realistic for a game store or as a business decision by valve and without people beying able to fork it we are never safe.
It kind of doesn't, though. Because you can still launch non-Steam games through Steam, and activate retail Steam keys without Valve taking a cut, there are plenty of ways for things to compete against the Steam Store without needing to also compete against the Steam launcher.
All of the following? Why would you need to be better in every way? There's a perfectly valid use case for trade offs. Eg, let's say some competitor had exclusives, no VR, the store interface was a little worse, and it was only roughly comparable on many other points. If it's simply faster and more lightweight, that's its competitive advantage. Or if it focuses on being open source and DRM free like GoG, that's a competitive advantage.
Expecting something to be better in every way (than something with a massive head start) or else it might as well not exist? That's just unreasonable. I don't require a clothing store to be better than Walmart to shop there. I mean, the clothing store doesn't even sell fruit! Why would anyone shop there when you can go to the Walmart and buy some grapes with your jeans?
Except these aren't two different kinds of stores, they'd both be gaming marketplaces and if one has better features in every regard... Why use the inferior one at all?
Something better than steam workshop.
Maybe Nexus Mods' third mod manager will be better than the first two? lol.
As soon as it has linux support for more than wow... people praise valve for proton lots but workshop has also done so much for Linux nmodding which is otherwise a nightmare.
It can't exist. You can't launch a new competitor to a mature and well-developed platform and hope to come anywhere near its feature set right off the bat. That's never gonna happen, especially when a lot of the "requirements" you presented there are expensive shit that takes years of hard work to develop. You're gonna have to give them time. And money, as it happens. They're not gonna be able to develop that VR you present as a requirement if everybody refuses to use their platform because there is no VR. It's a catch 22.
I'd be happy to support any kind of platform aiming to do these things even if it doesn't have them yet, so long as it was open source or had some kind of structure that prevented enshitification. I'd contribute, probably force myself to use it where possible much like I do with other things. The issue is that the current competition trying to do what steam does (epic) is just trying to do it but worse.
Then they should be able to use the same tactics Valve used in the beginning.
But then you Valve fanboys start to cry when specific software requires you to install the Epic store? Which Valve did before.
It's incredibly frustrating from an ideological perspective that the whole PC gaming industry runs on a benevolent dictatorship by Valve.
I mean they have near total control not just over sales, but over the gaming software installed on our PCs. They have the power to do whatever, whenever, to whoever.
But at the same time, they're cool people with good products who have good stewardship of this role.
So we uncritically give them all the power.
GabeN is getting pretty old, and he can't keep doing this forever. It'll be interesting to see where the company goes after that.
By "interesting" I mean "expecting it to be handed over to salivating, greedy idiots who don't know what made it work before".
It's what happens when your competition is publicly traded cancer.
..but.. Literally, benevolent, sectionalized dictatorship is the only response to the Tragedy of the Commons.
..that is to say, individual responsibility and exercise of power. Work primarily on responsibility until you've got one area covered - then expand your power. Know your limits, and don't try to expand your power beyond what you're capable of handling responsibly. Encourage others to do likewise. Steam is good because they haven't sold out, but are managed by people who have genuine interest in the industry, and who are willing to exercise power responsibly.
This is a great opportunity to mention 15th Anniversary of GOG.
If only they supported Linux better, or really like at all... I know you can grab the files and install without DRM. But, the whole lack of a client makes it a nuisance to use. I used to buy everything on GOG when possible. Since I got a Steam Deck that's changed. I shouldn't have to use Heroic Launcher IMO..
This is literally the most popular opinion.
Oh, I dunno. Everyone seems to removed about Apple not wanting to give any leeway to Epic on the App Store. Personally I find Epic ridiculously hypocritical, so I say let them eat dirt.
This is also the most popular opinion.
Everyone likes to shit on Epic so it's probably not a very unpopular opinion ether but there is a big difference between the App and Play store and Steam, only one of them doesn't use anti-competiive practices and the other two also force their payment provider which is rather shitty!
Then why are must of the comments arguing against it?
This post has more upvotes than most of the posts on this server.
Valve may not be the cheapest by any means, but that's because they're offering a product 30x as valuable. The other launchers companies have are shit, across the board, nothing but shit. It's not even in the same continent. If any one of these companies actually wants to ever see this change, they are going to have to set their greed aside. That's impossible for CEOs in this day and age, so I don't see Steam ever losing their stranglehold unless they do an about-face from everything they've done so far. In the grand scheme of things, Valve is one of the most customer friendly companies on the face of the Earth and they continue to be innovative and supportive to users. Epic on the other hand is everything wrong with capitalism, and much the same can be said for any of the other companies with competing launchers/game stores.
What's so wrong with Epic? I prefer Steam but Epics client has a better UI, I haven't found any problems, and deals seem better than Steam, especially with free games.
No communities, no guides, no VR , no game streaming, annoying download manager, annoying friends tab, no steam deck, no game collections AFAIK. When Fall Guys came out for free I gave the Epic launcher a real chance and it was incredibly limited in it functionality and frustrating to use compared to Steam.
Steam is shaping up to be your all in one library for anything games be it PC, VR or portable. The Switch, Quest, Playstation, Xbox and Epic launcher all offer a piece of that experience but having a unified platform that syncs your saves and doesn't nickel and dime you for features and accessories is why Steam is more popular.
I haven't been using Epic enough to really compare with Steam sales but stuff gets really cheap on steam really fast. I would also gladly buy my games for money on Steam just to be able to play them easily on my Steam Deck. Also Epic is only doing the free games because they have unreal and Fortnite money, there's no telling when the free games will stop.
Adding to what Natryamar said, epic once bundled actual malware with their client and is partially owned by Tencent, the chinese company known for turning games into garbage.
This opinion is in no way unpopular. Valve is privately owned and headed by a single individual with tremendous purpose of will, which is how they've done so many great things for the gaming industry. The issue lies with said leadership vacating their role (GabeN is getting old) and some greedy bastard taking the company in a wholy different direction. tl;dr: we need a strong competitor, but not now, and ABSOLUTELY not Epic.
I'd love competition in the Linux gaming space, but none of them even attempt to support it
Itch and GOG have decent linux support
No they don't lol. GOG doesn't even have a client, you have to use Lutris or Heroic Launcher that support it.
Itch has a half implemented Linux client that they gave up years ago and is straight up unusable/broken. The client is worse then a web wrapper and nas no support for Wine, so if the game doesn't have native Linux support, it just won't run through the client. It will download exe's that won't actually run and silently fail, and doesn't have any wine support.
Steam's de-facto monopoly is so strong, Epic can't break it. Epic made four billion dollars per year on one game. Epic licenses the engine for like half of all noteworthy games. Epic has the only platform not seizing one-third of all revenue from developers, and that platform throws free shit at customers in constant desperation. And they still can't move the needle.
Monopoly doesn't mean there's zero competition. It means the competition does not matter.
PC gamers have alternatives to Steam the way that Android users have alternatives to Google Play. Yes, there are dozens. And that's how many users each one has.
If it's even possible it would take years or decades of work building up good will. It's kinda Valve's game to lose right now. They just need to not make any enormous mistakes and they win by default. Fortunately for Valve, they seem to be one of the few companies in game dev that isn't managed exclusively by misanthropes and buffoons.
Would it though? Being a competitor to Valve, not sucking, and not pulling shady anti-consumer shit would result in immediate good will for a decently large (though disproportionately loud) section of the market. Hell, EGS failed at the 2nd and 3rd thjngs in that list and they still got a loyal fanbase
Epic can't make a dent because their product is dogshit.
Customers don't care that Valve takes a well earned cut (that only applies buying directly from Steam); they care that their games are on a platform that's actually fucking useful. If Epic didn't insult gamers shipping that piece of trash and had put work into actually providing a product that could possibly be considered acceptable, they might have been able to make a dent.
You're not going to take market share with shitty gimmicks if your actual product is a crime against humanity no one wants.
that's opposite of unpopular opinion lol
that being said, a healthy competition is still necessary as we don't know what valve would become post gabe
Needs more GOG
I absolutely love their client and prefer GOG over Steam. I remember how their client GOG Galaxy is highly praised in the developer community, because it is so well designed and runs so performant. It also allows you to play any previous versions of games you own.
https://www.reddit.com/r/gog/comments/fhd6b1/what_was_gog_galaxy_20_made_with/
What has GOG done for Linux? I care about OSS and companies supporting my preferred OSS operating system. To that end, Valve continues to be a steward without peer.
Also DRM free.
At some point we could also perhaps resell the games, maybe (not sure where the proof per license would be tho).
But Steam doesn’t have a monopoly. There’s Epic and GOG and whatever Origin’s called now and probably others. They’re all free to exist, Valve doesn’t do anything to stifle competition, and even lets other companies sell games that start their launcher from Steam.
The only thing you have to lose by using a different system is that it’s probably not as good.
All they’ve done is produce a really fucking exemplary product and it’s become really popular because it’s honestly just good. The second it stops being good or Valve stop being awesome there’s plenty of alternative ways to buy games that I’m sure will be there to replace it.
But for now.. it’s pretty good.
The position makes a monopoly so I would say they are but they remain the good guys because they don't engage in anti-competitive practices, you can have a monopoly wven if you don't abuse it.
Monopolies aren't based on the mere existence of competition. It's based on power and market share. Eg, Chrome has a monopoly. Firefox, Safari, and a few niche browsers exist. But Chrome is the utter vast majority of the market and has pretty much all the power on dictating web standards as a result.
Microsoft had competitors when they got sued for their IE + Windows monopoly. But they had an utterly massive amount of the market share and used that to push their own browser.
Steam is a boggy garbage client and the company was solely responsible for the 50 to 60 USD price hike on the PC market.
Valve can get fucked. Hopefully the class action makes them rethink their choices and they sell to Microsoft.
Yeah, no.
And Valve is perhaps the best PC store since they have continually pushed PC gaming forward, for example:
Not to mention their Linux support, awesome customer support, free dev keys, and Steam Link app. What did other stores do?
So no, I don't think Valve is bad in any way. Quite the opposite, they're the best behaved games store on PC.
Solely responsible? Lol
When did we start blaming one private company for inflation? Games should cost $100 or more right now if they were increasing linearly over time.
You want Microsoft to own everything? What?
You forgot /s
Valve does not mandate any prices.
There are so many companies that have all the pieces to make good competition to Steam but their greed gets in the way. Microsoft in particular should have been a shoe-in for it, but GFWL was an embarrassing failure, the WIndows store is rubbish and insists on a new file format that (at least in the past) caused all kinds of issues for games, and now their Game Pass service has no focus on a buying element. This is without going into both Amazon and Google tripping on the starting line when it comes to getting in the gaming space. A launcher that was tied in with Amazon's web store would be a really quick way to get a lot of people in naturally.
I really wish more people used GoG to where it could be a competitor. Unfortunately the game selection is much lower due to companies turning their noses up at no DRM. Also, I will admit that I tend to buy things on Steam in favor of GoG due to a lot of the features Steam has.
I'll never buy another game on Microsoft's store ever again. And this is AFTER all that GFWL bs. Bought Forza 7 and it refuses to install. It did once before but now it says it's done immediately and is nowhere to be found. I've tried everything short of a reinstal, which I will not do
I have a lot of problems with them too. I gave Game Pass an honest shot once, but could never get any games to run or install properly. Can't imagine the normal store front is any better.
Sometimes, I just forget to use GoG. Like Balder's gate 3, I realized after purchasing on steam, fuck, why didn't I buy this on GoG.
Honestly, I can be the same.
I have no problem with competition, but don't force me to use your inferior product. If any of the major companies developed an actual competitor with the Steam launcher (in terms of features, not just a lousy storefront), it would likely get some use. If they somehow made it better than Steam, plenty of people would likely jump ship.
Epic is just a failure of a launcher. Nobody uses it over Steam by choice, because it's lacking in nearly every way. While I'm not big on exclusives, if the launcher was a reasonable Steam alternative, they wouldn't bother me nearly as much. As things stand, I'm firmly in the "fuck Epic" camp.
I d trust a privately own company with Gabe as the head than the asshats that proliferated micro transactions and shitty always online DRM for single player games.
The funny thing is that Valve kickstarted the digital sales with Half Life 2 back in 2004. Steam was an utter piece of shit for, what, some 6 years? It took them a lot of time to make it bearable, then good.
That the EGS launcher is a fucking Unreal app, needlessly bloated as fuck and with barely working UI shows their complete disregard for what is supposed to be their "money givers" (us, customers) and, like every other stupid company with their own launcher which manages to be worse than their fucking website, shows they refuse to learn the obvious.
I hope GOG never goes the enshitification path.
I fucking hated Valve for making me buy a physical CD of Portal, only to get a CD with the Steam Installer and a code to download the game on their store.
Same thing happened to me but with portal 2. I had DSL at the time and it barely hit 10 Mbps on a good day which was great because I thought the disk had the game on it. Despite all of the pain I still love steam to this day lol (and I've gotten better Internet)
I remember when steam first came out and I was like..I need this extra program to play counter strike now ?!
I'm one of the few who actually like the existence of Epic. Like, not necessarily Epic itself, but some serious competition is needed. I personally would've loved it if the competition was GOG, but it seems consumers don't particularly care about ownership, so we have Epic.
The problem is that all the competition to steam is far far inferior to steam in technology and ideology and future prospects. Steam isn't a publicly traded company, has features that are pro consumers, is supporting other OS's and doesn't have a CEO that is a prick like epic.
I feel Steam vs competitors is like how after 1st wave MCU, everyone was jumping on that bandwagon, but instead of putting in the groundwork just skipped ahead, or like the monsters one just abandoned it because of one bad movie.
i would love for steam to have some competition. i will gladly switch over to the first competitor that has
and doesn't
particularly now that steam has switched over to electron, so the client runs like shit
i do sometimes use gog because i like their ideology, but they're missing quite a few from this list. any gog or itch.io games i buy, i inevitably add to steam as a non-steam game. which adds a lot of these handy features, but not all
unfortunately, until a competitor brings along something new to the table, i'm quite happy to wait and pay more for a game on steam. it just has too many features i can't give up
particularly now that steam has switched over to electron, so the client runs like shit
It uses CEF not Electron, which it has used for over 13 years. This isn't something they just added. If it's running slow for you you probably have an issue with hardware acceleration.
I personally would’ve loved it if the competition was GOG, but it seems consumers don’t particularly care about ownership
What the fuck are you saying? Of course consumers care about ownership, otherwise Stadia would be dominating the market, and we can see that it's not.
Valve supports linux gaming! The Steam Deck is awesome and with an even better configuration (or the rumored valve's own new steam machine) this is only getting better. So, only Valve gets my money.
I buy games pretty much exclusively on Steam because of the Linux support (my gaming PC runs Linux only).
Hopefully more places follow suit because I believe competition is a good thing but for now it's Steam all the way pretty much apart from Starsector and until recently Dwarf Fortress.
I will always support valve because of their amazing Linux support but if GOG finally made a client for Linux then I would try to use that more. I wish Epic would also support Linux but with massive douchebag Tim Sweeney running the company, that will never happen.
If these platforms supported Linux, they'd be able to compete with Steam... 15 years ago.
Nowadays Steam offers so many solutions to PC gaming that other clients simply would take ages to copy. Steam Input, cloud saves that actually work, Steam Link, Remote Play Together, etc
I get it. Steam doesn't seem to do exclusivity deals with 3rd party titles. So you could still sell your game on gog and humble without issue.
I personally get most of my games from GOG and itch.io these days. And I've never bought anything from the Epic store whatsoever.
I will say though that I find it kind of weird how much hate Epic gets for their store. Like, I understand that someone prefers Steam, or doesn't want to buy stuff from Epic etc. - but what we see goes way beyond that. Epic has people actively campaigning against it, as if its mere existence is insulting. I don't really get why.
As for the 30% cut... Developers will try to price their games competitively, and within customer expectations. So with or without Steam's 30% cut, you can expect games to be similarly priced. The large 30% cut from Steam is basically coming out of the developer's revenue rather than from your pocket. (I'm under the impression that GOG also has a similar 30% fee. Epic has a lower fee. And on itch.io the seller gets to choose how money goes to itch.io anywhere from 0% to 100%. So itch.io is the best deal for developers in terms of fees.)
The reason people hate Epic is fairly obvious – they don't give a shit about the gaming industry nor about players. At some point their client contained literal spyware, they tried to brute force market share via sleazy exclusivity contracts, their software doesn't have one tenth of the features Steam has, their CEO is a piece of shit, etc.
The reason people hate Epic is fairly obvious – they don’t give a shit about the gaming industry nor about players.
What do you mean by that? For developers, they take a much smaller fee than Steam or GOG, and for players they're constantly giving away free games.
At some point their client contained literal spyware.
That sounds like a decent reason to campaign against them. I haven't heard anything about that before. What was the story behind that? (As in, when / why / how / what? Perhaps you have a link or something.)
brute force market share via sleazy exclusivity contracts
I've heard people talk a lot about exclusivity contracts... but can you name even a single game that has such a contract? When people have discussed this the past, the relevant developers basically said "there is no contract". But maybe there is some different case I don't know about. In any case, that personally doesn't bother me anyway. If some developer wants to take money to be on one store rather than another, they can do that at their own peril. As for customers, we're only talking about a store. It's not like anyone is in danger of not being able to buy / play their favourite games. So it seems like a bit of a nothing-burger to me. Like, is there actually something bad happening here? Or are people just speculating that something bad might one-day happen if Epic got bigger?
their software doesn’t have one tenth of the features Steam has,
Steam has more features, yeah. Steam is very good. But Steam has been around for some 20 years. It's hard to catch up with that so quickly. In any case, although missing features is a good reason to prefer Steam, it certainly isn't a reason to campaign against Epic.
... So from your list, I'll keep the spyware thing and the CEO complaint. I don't know enough about either of those to say much though. I don't recall who the CEO of Epic is right now, so I won't say whether or not I think that's a good reason. And the spyware... I take that kind of stuff seriously. Right now I'm posting this from Linux - because I'm fed-up with Windows spyware. But as I said, I've not heard any details about any Epic spyware thing.
Incidentally, I've found that Steam is very good for Linux gaming. ... But obviously that doesn't mean that I'm going to start making posts trash-talking Epic. I don't find it weird that people prefer Steam. I just find it weird that people put so much energy into attacking Epic.
Steam can also leverage their insanely huge userbase. Even with the 30% cut, a company will probably see more profits if they use steam and give up 30% than trying to launch it outside.
At this point. The 30% is just the cost of doing business
Higher fee but significantly many more multiples of customers on steam who see and buy the game.
Just like I could sell on Etsy for a massive margin or I could sell it to Walmart at a smaller margin but make 100x the sales.
You're paying for the customer base
Steam doesn't let you sell the game for cheaper prices in other stores.
ITT: G*mers being Stockholmed.
I can't name a single other digital service anywhere near steam level of trust. things you bought don't disappear. they are on the record saying there is a contingency in case of shutdown. they havnt a used their position. as far as market leaders go, you could do worse
Why would you censor the word gamer? The Internet is bizarre
Steam doesn't have a monopoly, other platforms are just shit.
Missing features, badly made features, fucking spyware, some barely working at all (I am looking at you, ubisoft)
Perhaps if the other platforms tried a little bit, they would actually be a competition.
The position makes a monopoly, not the reason...
Imagine thinking that Valve has a monopoly.
Monopoly doesn't mean "Largest market share". It's a real term with a real meaning.
Monopoly:
the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
What, exactly, does Valve control? They don't require exclusivity, they don't require their DRM, they don't require the use of their network system. Hell, they don't even require you to to give them 30% if you sell your own key.
Valve is also not a publicly traded company, while this doesn't mean you can fully trust them it does mean they aren't required to seek profit at all costs. This allows then to do things like, support Linux, make their own hardware (twice after their first attempt was a failure), work on Proton, develope games that make them no money, etc.
Itch.io, GOG, EA, Epic, Windows Store, Game Pass, Humble Bundle, personal websites. These are all examples of places you can buy video games on computers.
Timmy Tencent's propaganda is working on you if you think Valve is any sort of monopoly.
Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.
I don’t think Steam qualifies still. There are still plenty of competitors such as GOG, Green Man Gaming, itch.io, Epic, Humble Store, Microsoft Store, and so on.
The "significant durable market power" part is why I went on to explain how they don't lock you into their ecosystem. How can Valve raise prices or exclude their competitors when they literally do not have any mechanisms in place to do any of those things?
Just like I am happy with Apple and Google taking a cut and running their app stores. If these big companies could make their own store, they would. Apple would lose a cut, but that does not affect me as a consumer. What does affect me is a gate keeper keeping terrible practices in check. Making it nearly impossible to cancel a subscription instead of having a handy menu to just turn it off. Having places to put credit cards that are not secure. Collecting personal data nonstop. Etc etc.
I buy all my games on Epic Games Launcher becomes it has less DRM than steam. If you have kids, they can't play 2 completely different games on two different computers.
It's like your kid not being able to play Mario kart on her switch because her brother is playing Halo on Xbox in another room. Steam doesn't support that. Epic games doesn't have a problem with you having 2 different games being played on 2 different computers, so I buy my games there whenever I have the choice because it's the more consumer-friendly platform.
If you have kids, they can't play 2 completely different games on two different computers.
Steam does support that tho. That's what Family Sharing is. And it works really well.
Now, if you wanted to play the same game at the same time, that's on a single Steam account, that you can't do. But I'm pretty sure you can't do that on EGS, either. Not without 2 accounts and 2 copies of the game.
No, it explicitly does not work that way. If you share a game to another family member, and that family member plays that game, you are not allowed to play any other game at all on steam.
"A Steam library can only be used by one user at a time to play one game at a time. The same is true if that library is being accessed by another user via Family Sharing."
A monopoly is a monopoly. Just because Steam is a good store today doesn’t mean they deserve to hold a monopoly over the pc gaming market. So what happens when Valve has crushed every competitor? Gamers and devs have nowhere to go if Steam turns to shit. Eventually there will be a change of guards at Valve’s C-suite when Gaben retires or is dead. There is a good chance that those new execs will hollow out Steam and extract all the value out of it for their own benefit by screwing over the customers and developers. And they can get away with that if there is no competition. Competition is what keeps Valve in check.
Ubisoft, Epic etc.. have done nothing to make the market better or make it more healthy. Epic is even more anti competitive than it's competition.
Doesn’t matter. It’s still competition. They motivate Valve to create a better store and keep it that way. Since that is Valve’s unique selling point and what distinguishes them from the competition. Therefore I believe devs should make their games available on every storefront. Not just the best one, to give customers a choice.
But they haven't crushed any other competitor through any mechanism but having a dramatically better product.
They don't force you to be exclusive to be on steam. They don't force you to implement any of their Steam stuff. They are very permissive unless you do shit that potentially exposes them to liability down the road, like the NFT nonsense.
And they let you generate keys for literally free to sell on other stores.
All their stuff companies use is because it's things customers value.
When they started, they did used to force you to use products edit: aside from their own games(fair cop), some 3rd party games like Lost Planet also required it.
Certain games, and not just valve games, you'd buy in a store and the disc would force you to install and create a steam account to play the single player offline game.
The only thing Valve has done with Steam that apparently is anti-competitive, is actually having a decent product with good features and no one else is capable of actually delivering parity with it to be a viable competitor.
A natural monopoly is a far cry from one built through anti-competitive practices, and easily toppled by competent competitors.
Perhaps if Valve's competition was competent, there would be better options.
True. But Google became the number one search engine by creating a better product and basically got a natural monopoly. And now look what kind of monster the company has become.
Just because Steam is a good store today doesn’t mean it will stay that way in the future. Therefore I rather not see Steam be the only game store left in the pc gaming space.
Wait, this is unpopular? Well shit, I'm right there with you. I was already not liking Epic for many reasons, but the Satisfactory exclusivity deal seared them to a cinder for me. At least Valve is not publicly traded and the owner never has any intent on doing so. He is able to base his decisions on what he wants and is able to treat employees, customers, and content creators more fairly, even if it hurts his bottom line. Honestly, that is all I need to know about the man. He could go public and make billions, but he doesn't. He wants the control and wants the closed company. In the modern world it is rare and, to me, laudable.
He's already a billionaire
This is quite true, though, unlike most of his cohort, he seems content with making more of them slowly over decades than trying to cash out asap.
People don’t remember what pc gaming was like before Steam. Between the reviews, discussions, guides, workshops, achievement and playtime tracking, friend functionality, and shopping options (gifting, wishlist, instant return, etc.), Steam was, is and remains to be a fucking god send. I wouldn’t be pc gaming right now if it wasn’t for Steam.
Eh, more competition is good. This opinion is pretty basic.
From memory Epic has improved rates for developers/publishers - why the fuck wouldn't you want that/just be ok with a base 30% cut because of some shitty ideal?
Epic also tried to datamine their users with literal spyware, their store is shit with no features, they gained market share via exclusivity deals (I shouldn't need to explain why this is bad, yeah?), their CEO is a POS with horrible takes, Tencent has a large stake in the company... If anything, your opinion is shallow.
Ahh, so you can only have good competitors? It's either a monopoly (which is only as good as the CEO in charge, and with time will go to shit), or competitors which do the same stuff and play nice?
This is reality. And you get good competition, you get bad, but in general it's good for the consumer to have options. Fuck it, I'm actually completely happy using Valve for most things and then getting free games from Epic.
The view that a monopoly is better is just extremely short-sighted and naive. Similar to a "We should just have a dictator! This one guy is really good now, what could go wrong in the future?" type thinking.
What spyware? The CEO has been a big advocate for lowering store prices (including Google and Apple stores) to help smaller developers. Their exclusive deals have also helped a lot of developers get their games made. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a game developed these days. Xbox, Sony, Nintendo all have exclusives.
I would say your take is a bit, shallow.
I don't see what people have against Epic, they're just another company running a storefront, right? Or are they union busters or something?
Any competition that can take on Stream's monopoly is good, it's been a long time coming.
You might think Steam are the good guys because they don't abuse their customers yet, but all good things come to an end, eventually. A company with their level of monopolistic grasp doesn't remain benign forever.
Valve is a private company so Gabe doesn't have anyone breathing down his neck to grow endlessly not matter the costs. Also epic refuses to add any half decent consumer features along with buying exclusivity to their platform. Sweeney is also extremely anti linux so why would I give him money.
Steam is pretty good, in many ways. ... ... There is a little bit of customer abuse creeping in though. It annoys me that I can't turn off the "what's new" panel. It's nothing more than an advertisement panel, and the only options are to say 'show less' for individual games, one by one (and even then, it doesn't stop showing advertisements related to those games).
In any case, I don't use Epic's launcher at all; so I won't try to comment on which is better. I just think it's good to point out that Steam isn't perfect, and I agree that competition probably does them some good.
You just claimed 2 companies are monopolies of the same industry lol but I agree larger companies are not the way to go
They didn't. They claimed Valve has a monopoly while Epic is working towards having one in the future.
Actual unpopular opinion: I don't give a fuck, I want my launcher to launch my games, all of them do it, Steam just comes with a shit load of extra stuff I don't care about. I buy my games where they're the cheapest and with all the free games on Epic I rarely use Steam anymore. If they're the same price I'll go with the platform that give the devs the biggest share of the profit and that's not Steam.
Edit: See? That was the unpopular opinion..
I just hope Steam can be broken up
Make the workshop and community their own company