• darq@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    185
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • WolfhunterGer@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      176
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Molecular0079@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        84
        ·
        1 year ago

        The whole idea of investments always going up is an absurd idea that needs to go. At this point I infinitely prefer a private company over a publicly traded one.

        • LwL@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s a bit of an inherent issue sadly, if your goal is to multiply money why would you invest in a company whose profits stay the same over one whose go up? And you have no reason to care if the company eventually dies as a result, you just move your money into the next one.

          And most people investing money will be doing so with the only purpose of multiplying that money, as it’s mostly banks and similar institutions. In theory if the main investors of a company want it to prioritize user experience over profits, the companies’ duty to its shareholders would also be to ensure good user experience. But that’s never going to happen.

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not even an “idea”. They legally have to do whatever they can to make it go up. It’s idiotic and poisonous.

      • joelfromaus@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If Gabe ever leaves Valve and the powers that be decide to go public I hope it’s done in a way that gives power to the users instead of faceless investment firms. I don’t even know what that would look like but I fear the day that Valve comes under control of an ex-AAA game company CEO or the like.

        • Gamey@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I wish something like that existed, once you go public you are obligated to grow and that has limits so you always end up squeezing your users! :/

          • ALostInquirer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            1 year ago

            Perhaps a transition to a not-for-profit organization structure might be what folks would prefer? It seems like a potentially better alternative than going public, but I’m not sure how it might work in practice for something like a digital storefront.

            In a weird way, one could almost argue that’s roughly how Valve’s been operating anyway, except I imagine they’ve been lining their pockets more than a not-for-profit organization’s owners/employees do.

            • Gamey@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              1 year ago

              I bet they make a shit ton of money but they certainly seem to reinvest enough of it too. There is a interesting concept called purpose companies here in Europe but it’s not especially wide spread or planned by regulators so the transition is extremly complicated and expensive. The search engine Ecosia is a relatively well known one, it’s basically a company in self ownership where no one from outside can become CEO and no one can sell or go public, they are obligated to their chosen purpose and that’s where their profits go (in the case of Ecosia that’s planting trees), not sure how it works exactly or if it’s doable in the USA at all tho.

          • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I said this elsewhere but that’s not true. 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.

            • Gamey@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well the relation is wrong but it’s a real thing, they have a duty to grow infinitely or the sroxk price will crash and since that’s impossible to achive they essentially have to squeeze their users for short term gains to seem like they still grow sooner or later

              • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                it’s a real thing, they have a duty to grow infinitely or the sroxk price will crash

                This isn’t a thing.

                Here’s another article explaining why and how it isn’t a thing, and also why people like you think it is.

                • Gamey@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Honestly, I don’t care to continue this conversation, even the attempt to convince people like you is rather pointless

          • aksdb@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            We should do this in the food industrie. Then I would become a steakholder.

        • Vespair@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Bro what do you think those Steam levels and experience are for? Obviously they’re gonna divest the company across the playerbase and divvy it up based on Steam levels!

          /s

        • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          One of the big reasons many companies go public is it’s naturally a really nice retirement package for the owners of the company. The owners of the company may have put so much time and money into building the company that they don’t have sufficient retirement savings, so by going public they turn a portion of their ownership into a boatload of cash as well as a boatload of wealth that can be leveraged, then simply elect a new CEO, retain their significant voting power on the board so they aren’t entirely abandoning their baby and then peace out

      • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not a myth, it’s called Fiduciary Duty. The board, officers, and executives of a public company have a legal responsibility to put the financial interests and well-being of the company above other personal interests. The article you linked doesn’t deny this, and it also isn’t discussing the legal definition of it. It’s discussing what you might call “toxic fiduciary duty”, or more or less the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. It’s the idea that profit is the primary motive and should always trump all other considerations.

          Fiduciary duty is important to create a concrete stance against corruption and misuse of the company’s assets for personal gain. But when taken to an extreme, it becomes toxic and has negative consequences for the company. Employee wages are probably the most obvious example. There has to be a balance between underpaying and overpaying. If you chronically underpay, the best employees will seek more gainful employment elsewhere and the company will suffer from a poorly qualified workforce. If you overpay, like 100% revenue share with employees, the company will cease to make a profit and will be unable to function. A balance has to be struck to retain the best talent in order to drive success for the company; that is the point of the article you linked.

          TL;DR extremism is always bad

          (Please don’t mistake this for a pro-capitalism rant, there’s nuance to be had here)

          • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            All of that is true, but it doesn’t contradict my point. Fiduciary duty isn’t a duty to maximize shareholder value.

              • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It isn’t. If it were, that would mean that in practice, board members act to maximize shareholder value because they are legally obligated to do so, and that simply isn’t true.

                In practice, board members and C-suite employees are incentivized to maximize shareholder value. They are not legally obligated to do so.

                Fiduciary duty is a legal requirement, meaning that if you don’t fulfill your fiduciary duty, you’re liable. But nobody has been successfully sued for not maximizing shareholder value when their actions were in line with the business judgment rule (“made (1) in good faith, (2) with the care that a reasonably prudent person would use, and (3) with the reasonable belief that the director is acting in the best interests of the corporation”). Successful lawsuits regarding breach of fiduciary duty (in the context of corporate law) require the defendant to have acted with gross negligence, in bad faith, or to have had an undisclosed conflict of interest.

                The closest instance of legal precedent that I know of (aside from “” of course) that eBay v. Newmark (Craigslist), which Max Kennerly took as meaning that corporations are legally required to maximize profits. In this case, Craigslist was found to have violated their fiduciary duties to eBay because Craigslist, in Max’s words, “tried to protect the frugal, community-centric corporate culture that was a hallmark for their success.”

                Except, if you actually read the case notes, it’s clear that the issue wasn’t that Craigslist wasn’t maximizing their profits, but that they were diluting the percentage of stocked owned and flexibility of selling those stocks of other stockholders. The issue wasn’t that Craigslist wanted to spend half their profits supporting charities or anything like that - no, it was that they were trying to artificially limit, thus directly devaluing, the shares they had already sold. In other words, I agree that this was a case about minority shareholder oppression as opposed to being an edict to maximize profits / shareholder value.

                And other than people threatening legal action, the most recent case we have (other than eBay v. NewMark) in favor of shareholder primacy is 124 years old - Dodge v. Ford. But the opposite is true:

                Shareholder primacy is clearly unenforceable on its own term because the business judgment rule would defeat any claims based on a failure to maximize profit. 40 Corporate managers formulate business strategy. A rule‒sanction is antithetical to the core concept of the business judgment rule. In over one hundred years of corporate law, there is not a case where a state supreme court imposed liability for breach of fiduciary duty on the specific ground that the board, in managing operational matters, failed to maximize shareholder profit, though it made the decision informedly, disinterestedly, and in good faith.41 That case does not exist. In fact, many cases show just the opposite. Courts have held that shareholders cannot challenge a board’s decision on the specific grounds that, for example: the company paid its employees too much; 42 it failed to pursue a profit opportunity;43 it did not maximize the settlement amount in a negotiation;44 it failed to lawfully avoid taxes.45 There are classic textbook cases where courts have rejected attempts of shareholders to interfere with the board’s decisions on the argument that their views of business or strategy would have maximized shareholder value.46

                The belief that a corporation is legally obligated to maximize shareholder value isn’t just wrong; it also:

    • Vespair@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah I’m not really to call Valve a good guy company, but I might be willing to call them the least bad company

  • Paradoxvoid@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    171
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • rtxn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      122
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

    • Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A prerequisite for enshittification is to have a non-shit product, so Epic are actually a safe bet against enshittification.

    • GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      Like what Steam did with Greenlight and the plague of early access asset flips that clogged its home page for years?

  • UntouchedWagons
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    138
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • hh93@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      103
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • Molecular0079@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        58
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Bread@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Don’t forget notes for games, steam workshop, and for those of us open source enthusiasts, making easy/reliable gaming on Linux. It has never been so good being a Linux gamer.

      • jikel@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tell me a game store that supports Linux out of the box (not messing with wine stuff or lutris)

      • HollowNotion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • teolan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Chailles@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          They could sell for cheaper, they just can’t sell Steam Keys specifically for cheaper than what’s on Steam itself. Which makes sense honestly, you’re literally using their service for both presence and distribution.

          • teolan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Looking at steam’s own policies, this is true for steam keys, but there is an an going lawsuit that claims steam also makes this apply to non steam-enabled games: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/07/valve-issues-scathing-reply-over-the-facts-behind-a-steam-antitrust-case/

            But looking mosre closely than I did previously this is based on:

            1. An contract that is apparently not public
            2. A 1 time example that Valve denies

            So I don’t really know, but if what valve says is true (which looks like it is), then I don’t see any monopoly abuse indeed.

            They do have a monopoly, but it’s in large part for providing a better service. As a Linux user, I prefer Valve 100% over Epic that buys Rocket league and discontinues linux support. I do prefer Itch and GOG for the possibility of no-DRM games, but I’ve got to say it’s overall a worse experience (no auto updates, no social features etc…)

            I made my initial comment after watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOEG5qmMQas which suggested that Steam applied the MFN for non steam - enabled games too, but was done prior to Valve’s response.

            • Chailles@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              For the price parity thing, there’s the game Tales of Maj’Eyal that is $6.99 USD on Steam but is free on their website te4.org. Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead is an open source project, but is on Steam for $19.99 USD. Caves of Qud is actually on sale now on GOG, but the Itch.io and Steam version aren’t. Sure, these may just be because traditional roguelikes don’t garner that much attention, but they are cases nonetheless that show otherwise.

              The lack of auto-updates can sometimes be good. StarSector updated relatively recently and if they actually updated automatically (even if they offered an option to disable it, they update so infrequently, I’d probably have neglected it), my save and all my mods for it would just break, or worse break silentl until it was too late.

              • teolan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Thinking about it there are also multiple FLOSS games that are free on GitHub/Linux repos but paid on Steam. For example Mindustry and Pixel dungeon.

            • pkpenguin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              This is still easily verifiably untrue in practice. Go to isthereanydeal and you’ll see verified, approved Steam key retailers running sales for under the Steam price on hundreds of games literally every day. Humble offers a global discount on all keys in their store if you’re s subscriber, undercutting virtually every Steam page. That’s not to mention the bundles they sell which regularly cut hundreds of dollars of keys down to a few bucks.

              • teolan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The steam documentation mentions for keys that while it is OK to run sales on different platforms at different times, the steam store must have similar sales within a reasonable time period, and he base price must not be higher on steam.

      • aard@kyu.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Many years ago I bought some old DOS game where Linux runtimes using the original files exists on GOG. 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.

        • criticalimpact@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not a steam issue, that’s a developer/publisher issue Plenty of old Scumm based games work by just pointing scummvm at the game directory

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          They account for about 75% of game sales on PC from what I’m finding, it’s a “virtual monopoly”, i.e. they have enough reach to control the market even if they have competitors.

          • woelkchen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            75% of the units sold or 75% of the overall revemue. Given that the most successful PC games aren’t even on Steam, the latter seems unlikely to me. Roblox alone is a sustained revenue stream in insanely high numbers.

            Do they block the competition in any way? They aren’t the stewards of Windows. Epic buys exclusive rights to games. Does Valve do the same? On Steam Deck, there’s even an entire independent app store (Discover with Flathub) enabled right out of the box. That’s how the community made Minecraft and Heroic Game Launcher available. Official EGS, GamePass, and GOG launchers could be made available via Flathub but MS etc. choose not to.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              They have their own unethical business practice they’re getting sued for (preventing sales at a lower price on competing platforms) and just because you agree with what they do now doesn’t mean it’s not a risk to have such a behemoth in the market, Gaben is nice now, it just needs him changing his mind or retiring/dying and shit could hit the fan real quick.

              • woelkchen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s not about Valve or Newell being nice or not, it’s about whether Valve has a monopoly and the EU just recently looked at digital markets closely and determined that Valve is not a gatekeeper.

                • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Because of the way they act at the moment, it doesn’t mean that they’re not in a monopoly position.

                  Turns out it’s simply because the EU didn’t even study their case because the PC gaming market is too small to bother 🤡

                • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Frivolous? The judge has accepted new evidence and the lawsuit has been allowed to proceed.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nintendo is compared to other console manufacturers.

              Microsoft is considered to be in a position of monopoly in the OS market, yet they’re not the ones building the PC itself.

              Holy fuck did I just enter a freaking asylum or something?

        • Phil_in_here
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, to say a successful business is a monopoly because it is far reaching is absurd.

          Call me when Good-Old-Epic-Steam launches.

          • rambaroo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            The fact that there are tons of games only available on steam should tell you it’s a monopoly.

            It’s fucking shocking to me that so many people here actually believe that Valve isn’t a monopoly. You must have your head way up your ass.

            • skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              How many games are actually steam exclusive on PC though, not counting 50 cent shovelware crap? A good chunk of the best selling PC games ever (minecraft for example) are not even available on steam.

              I just went through the top 10 on steam and other than counter strike, which is literally made by valve, all of them are available elsewhere.

        • Zorque@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          One can have a monopoly without directly trying for it. Especially when it comes to services with a lot infrastructure involved. Once you make those investments, it’s hard for anyone to compete against them.

          A monopoly just means you control a significant amount of the market. I think, technically, they would fall under oligopoly. Where a few businesses have control of the market instead of just a single business. But the point is they have a far larger share of the market than most others. This is mostly because they create a product that people want to use, instead of making a service that unfairly captures the market through things like game exclusivity or hostile takeovers.

          • woelkchen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            But when the EU recently announced service gatekeepers, Valve was not among them. Microsoft is.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              *Because they don’t meat the minimum financial and monthly user criterias to be taken into consideration when analyzing the monopoly status of their platform

              You forgot to add that part 👍

              • woelkchen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Because they don’t meat the minimum financial and monthly user criterias to be taken into consideration when analyzing the monopoly status of their platform

                So Steam does not meet / meat🥩 the financial and monthly user numbers to count as a monopoly? So Steam is not a monopoly then. Great.

                • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No, the PC videogame market is too small for the European Union to analyse it.

                  If the local hardware store is the only one selling screws for 100km around and it doesn’t show up on their list, does it means they don’t have a monopoly or it simply means that they don’t bother checking that because the hardware store doesn’t:

                  Make 6.5B a year/doesn’t have a market capitalization of 65B

                  Doesn’t have 45m monthly users in the union AND 10k business users in the union

                  Meets those criterias three years in a row

                  Because these are the criterias required for the EU to take the time to analyze a companies’ position in their market.

    • nanoUFO@sh.itjust.worksOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      They are a monopoly because they…provide the best most fair platform. Also why would linux users support ubisoft or epic.

        • Zorque@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          And yet they charge the same amount…

          Seems they use that as a way to get developers to join them, then guilt consumers into using their less useful platform.

          • Paradoxvoid@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ironically this is actually an example of Valve using its dominant marketshare to suppress rivals - Steam’s ToS require devs to have equivalent pricing across all storefronts if they want to sell on Steam at all, so making it harder for cheaper storefront cuts to translate to lower prices to consumers, who might otherwise move to a different storefront.

            Devs aren’t going to drop Steam as a store, so they’re stuck.

            • Aosih@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s not ideal, but I’d say the reason they require equivalent pricing is, so that people don’t just use Steam as a marketing platform, while diverting all sales to their personal website where they sell the game for $X cheaper.

              • Paradoxvoid@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah I do understand the reasoning and honestly can’t fault them for it - they are a for-profit company after all.

                Doesn’t mean that it’s not a good example of them throwing their weight around (which is admittedly rare).

              • rambaroo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s a perfect example of them abusing their position in the market. But since you’re a valve cultist, you make up a bunch of weak excuses for it. If epic or ms did the same thing you’d blow a gasket.

              • DrQuint@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Plus, it only applies to base price, not sale price. If a platform states “you can have your game on sale 100% of the time”, and a game undercuts Steam that way, Steam wouldn’t do anything about it. Well, they wouldn’t have to anyways, it’s illegal to have goods on sale 100% of the time, but the point is there.

            • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Do you have a source for that claim that doesn’t reference the sale of Steam keys specifically?

              • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Steam’s “price parity rule” is a policy that ensures that Steam keys cannot be sold on other sites unless the product is also available for purchase on Steam at no higher a price than is offered on any other service or website.

                Ars Technica tries to spin it in favour of Steam, but if you read between the lines it is there:

                https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/05/why-lower-platform-fees-dont-lead-to-lower-prices-on-the-epic-games-store/

                • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Thanks for sharing that!

                  Steam’s “price parity rule” is a policy that ensures that Steam keys cannot be sold on other sites unless the product is also available for purchase on Steam at no higher a price than is offered on any other service or website.

                  IMO, it’s reasonable to say “If you want to sell Steam keys off Steam, you need to follow our pricing rules,” but it is not reasonable to say “If you want to sell your game, sans keys, off Steam, you have to follow our pricing rules to keep selling on Steam.” You’re talking about the former here, right? Or does that mean that the following situation is prohibited:

                  • Your game is listed at $50 on Steam
                  • You sell keys from your own site for $50
                  • You sell your game directly from your site for $40

                  and if so, that the mitigation is to either stop selling Steam keys entirely or to raise the price on your own site to $50?

                  That’s somewhere in between the two but I dislike it. I suspect it’s more legally murky, too, like tied selling.

                  The article briefly talks about the latter (emphasis mine):

                  Wolfire’s David Rosen expanded on that accusation in a recent blog post, saying that Valve threatened to “remove [Wolfire’s game] Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website, without Steam keys and without Steam’s DRM.

                  However, it also says “Sources close to Valve suggested to Ars that this ‘parity’ rule only applies to the ‘free’ Steam keys publishers can sell on other storefronts and not to Steam-free versions of those games sold on competing platforms. Valve hasn’t responded to a request for comment on this story.” I wonder if the lack of comment was because of Wolfire’s lawsuit?

                  I’m also now curious if the reason for Steam saying that was related to the in-between situation I talked about above.

                  @[email protected] shared this ArsTechnica article from 2022 that covers an update on that lawsuit - I haven’t seen anything more recent. In it, Wolfire makes the same claim, in court, that they’d already made in their blog post, which was sufficient to convince the judge to re-open their case.

                  The ruling [to re-open the case] makes particular note of “a Steam account manager [who] informed Plaintiff Wolfire that ‘it would delist any games available for sale at a lower price elsewhere, whether or not using Steam keys [emphasis in original complaint].’” The amended suit also alleges that “this experience is not unique to Wolfire,” which could factor into the developer’s proposed class-action complaint.

                  Hopefully we’ll hear more about that soon.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            The reason it’s the same price on Steam and Epic is that Steam prevents the sale on their platform if the game is sold for cheaper on other platforms…

            I would also gladly increase the developer’s profit instead of the platform’s profit if the price is the same on both as I don’t use all the extra crap that Steam comes with…

          • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What does your preference have to do with whether or not Valve is fair?

            Developers are people too, do their opinion not count or something?

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Which of these features do you actually use and why wouldn’t you want the devs to make more money so they can produce more games that you, as a user, can play?

            • DualPad@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Steam Input for use with my steam controller and playstation controller for gyro controls. Particularly love the dual touchpads for movement and camera controls and extra click inputs over a single joystick click. I can’t deal with default control schemes anymore when it comes to controllers after becoming reliant on the amount of customization Steam Input provides, since it goes beyond a simple remapping with layers, modeshifts, chords, touch menus, action sets, etc.

              Linux support that reduces need to fiddle around with settings and mess with lutris type tools and more devs putting in the time to try to be Steam Deck certified. Even when it doesn’t run well on the Deck for more demanding titles there is still benefit for more powerful systems and future Steam Deck follow up.

              Existence of Steam forums and guides has come in useful for help and has popped up on search results that I wasn’t able to find on pcgamingwiki, so reddit isn’t the main place I need to rely on. Been a way to also try to reach devs without having to use reddit or twitter.

              Steam workshop. I do use nexusmods, moddb, etc. But, sometimes just having it integrated into Steam makes it convenient.

              Other launchers are more like comparing a dumbphone versus a smartphone where if all someone wants to do is make calls and text that is fine, but for those that have become accustomed to Steam launcher features beyond launching games there needs to be more done by competitors. Having to use stuff like GLOSSI to try and utilize Steam Input when using third party launchers, or have to fall back to syncthing to try and sync saves from other launchers when using Steam Deck just makes the lack of Linux and custom controller support apparent.

            • woelkchen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Which of these features do you actually use and why wouldn’t you want the devs to make more money so they can produce more games that you, as a user, can play?

              In case the question wasn’t targeted at them specifically: Play games on Linux and making sure the actual monopoly of Windows gets broken. Parts of Valve’s revenue goes into open source development, meaning that in the end more developers get paid: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Valve-Upstream-Everything-OSS

              If game developers think the cut is too high, I’d be thrilled to see them distribute their games directly through Flathub: https://docs.flathub.org/docs/for-app-authors/submission/

        • nfntordr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Only because EGS is trying to take market share, not because of the goodness of their own hearts.

    • woelkchen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • rambaroo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • criticalimpact@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wrong, the US has antritrust laws and you can bet your bottom dollar that epic would have sued them already if they had any ground to do so.

        • woelkchen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except it means everything. The EU, not really friendly towards US companies, declared that Valve is not a gatekeeper of digital markets. That means they don’t have a monopoly on PC gaming.

    • golli@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Zorque@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • golli@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think you are right, the first article I linked was a bit ambiguous about it, but rereading the second one it seems that I misunderstood it and you are right.

        • Lojcs@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          If that’s the case, why do people use sites like humble bundle when they could individually buy the games from steam?

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • nfntordr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

    • CoderKat@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Gamey@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Monopsony - a monopoly but instead of controlling production, you control the marketplace, like Amazon

        Steam is almost at that level, but they at least do it by tempting people with features and don’t try to lock you in… Trouble with exchanges is that fragmentation really sucks for everyone

        • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          As I said, I agree that Steam is great. But a monopoly (or monopsony - never heard the word before) is always bad. Yes, Steam is great, but the ownership will change one day. And as it seems everyone wants to take every company public, I’m pretty sure that Steam will be taken public eventually. And the whole wheel of shit will start rolling.

          • theneverfox@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            True, but steam is about as good as it gets. They aren’t actually a monoposody, they’re just the biggest marketplace.

            They don’t do exclusives, don’t restrict you from selling elsewhere, they’ll integrate with any piece of software (including things you’ve installed externally or will install other launchers for you - even if they contain competing storefronts)

            They do have competition, except they did the one thing companies hate to do most at this stage - they compete. They’re the only real option because they limit nothing from their customers and offer better features. Epic offers free games, Microsoft comes pre-installed on most gaming computers, Amazon has everyone’s payment details already, and despite it all these alternatives steam is still the best option in every regard

            Yes, it’s almost guaranteed to go to shit eventually, but what better system is there? There’s no one more trustworthy to run the primary gaming marketplace… They’ve even built their company structure and policies to resist the pull of enshittification.

            A new company isn’t a good answer, a distributed system wouldn’t work well for this application, and even nonprofits struggle to resist enshittification as well as valve has done

            What can we do except keep watch and push back if valve goes out of bounds?

    • bogdugg@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Magiccupcake@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • bionicjoey
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Don’t forget how far they’ve advanced Linux gaming and hardware

        • rambaroo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why would developers care about steams “features”? That’s Valve’s problem, not theirs. 30% is fucking highway robbery for a distributor. The only reason they get away with it is because they’re a monopoly and devs have no choice but to publish games there. It’s crazy that you can’t see that.

          • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Developers care about steamworks, making cloud saves, multi-player, matchmaking, voice chat, anti cheat, drm, microtransactions, user authentication, and more significantly easier than doing it yourself, it’s also basically free to use where many alternatives only support some features for significant fees.

          • woelkchen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            30% is fucking highway robbery for a distributor. The only reason they get away with it is because they’re a monopoly and devs have no choice but to publish games there.

            *googles “epic games exclusives”*

            “no choice”… huh…

        • bogdugg@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t dispute they provide value, but why 30%? Why not 35? Or 25? or 80? or 3? or 29? I don’t know.

          I’m curious, how much of that 30% do you think feeds back into making Steam better and keeping it running?

          • Zorque@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Probably more than a public company, that has to pay dividends and prove worth every quarter.

          • DrQuint@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            but why 30%, why not

            To which the response is: I don’t care. I would have paid the same amount of money for games no matter which of the stupid funny numbers you picked out.

            The beginning and end of how much one should care is “are the devs happy with it? Is that the standard for digital stores as well?”. And the answer to both is Yes, so the concerns are abated.

            If it opens them to driven out of the market by a more generous competitor: Cool. But that alone doesn’t impact me, the costumer. The generous competitor needs to do more. And you know, they know that. That’s why Tim gave me so many free games.

            No you wouldn’t.

            Immortals of Aveum cost 70 monetary-whatevers and killed its studio and no one commented on it. It would have cost 60 whatevers two years ago and still would have killed its studio. But if they did 70, they would have torpedoed that price point in the news circles as a death sentence. They only had the gall because literally no one dared release a game for 70 till Activision did it and others like Sony and Nintendo followed along.

            Steams share has zero impact on my wallet. The market is dictated by things way more arbitrary. Everyone with brain knows this.

            • bogdugg@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              “are the devs happy with it? Is that the standard for digital stores as well?”. And the answer to both is Yes

              I fully disagree. On the first point, do developers accept it? Sure. That does not at all mean they are happy about it. Money is tight for games, and I guarantee you every developer would much prefer to take a bigger piece of the pie.

              To your second point, it is the standard but it is not universal. Epic Games Store takes 12%. Itch.io defaults to 10%. Google Play Store takes 15% on the first $1 million in revenue.

              But that alone doesn’t impact me, the consumer.

              I don’t believe this is entirely true. The more cash flow developers have, the more stable they are as companies, and the more able they are to put out good games. You are indirectly impacted because a larger tax on developers means fewer, or lower quality, games that get released.

              Steams share has zero impact on my wallet.

              Disagree, unless you exclusively play AAA.

              Edit: Actually I’ve changed my mind on this. I mostly agree the percentage cut doesn’t affect the optimal price point.

      • Dudewitbow@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • bogdugg@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The consoles justify the amount they take more because they are selling hardware at a loss to bring in users, so as a developer, you are seeing direct, tangible, and ongoing benefits to giving the manufacturers a cut. Every console cycle, there is renewed investment in the ecosystem to keep users interested.

          For digital platforms, the continued investment in the platform itself is both less tangible, and I would wager less overall (though we can’t know this for Steam because we don’t have access to numbers like that). The longer Steam continues as a platform, the more true this is, unless you believe that Steam will continue to improve at the same rate. I don’t see my interaction with Steam being much different 5 years from now as it is today, so it is less obvious to me that such at steep rate is justified.

          Like, imagine they “perfected” Steam. They made all the features users could ever want, and there becomes no reason to make any more changes. Should they keep charging the same rate? Or, maybe a better way to frame it, would be that rather than investing some of that 30% rate into improving the platform, they invest in developers themselves to make better products, because it’s the only place left to make the platform better than it was before. This would be equivalent to just lowering the rate across the board, in my opinion.

          • Dudewitbow@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not all consoles sell at a loss. Nintendo outright sells for profit, and the ones that didnt are the WiiU and thr Virtual Boy, and I don’t have to remind you how those sold.

            And we are also at an age where even Valve is in the console space. They sell the steamdeck at a severely lower price point compared to its competion.

            Look at the ROG Ally, Lenovo Legion Go, Aya Neos entire catelog, GPD Win 4, Ayn Loki and a bunch more.

            The argument about consoles selling it at subsidized price is justifyable means your saying Valve is in the right to given they are now in that market.

            • bogdugg@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              This is an interesting perspective, and gave me something to think about!

              I don’t think the Steam Deck is quite there in terms of adoption to justify an across the board tax. The order of operations is kind of reversed, where Steam is reinvesting money made from previous sales towards R&D and Hardware ambitions, rather than using the Steam Deck to bring in users. But if you’re developer that benefits from the Steam Deck’s existence, or saw a sales bump from Steam Deck sales, or some other benefit like that, I agree it’s a pretty good trade-off in that case.

              Nintendo is a bit different because they sort of focus on their own thing and everyone else is secondary. Something like 80% of software sales for Nintendo platforms are first party, so it’s mostly a Nintendo machine. Frankly, I think they should take less of a cut. Indies do really well on Nintendo though. They have a kind of pseudo-monopoly of a younger casual gamer demographic, and they maintain that user base by putting out great software. It is an interesting counterpoint though.

        • bogdugg@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is there a source for the $10 fee for digital releases? I’d love to read more about it, had trouble finding it.

  • McArthur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    113
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Competition sounds great, so long as it has all of the following:

    • Something better than steam input and the steam controller.
    • Something better than steam vr.
    • Something better than steam workshop.
    • something better than proton
    • Something better than steams friends/chat/activity interface.
    • Something better than the steam overlay.
    • Something better than big picture.
    • Absolutely no exclusives, and no deals forcing developers to use it.
    • A nicer store interface than valve, with better community pages, curator pages, discussion pages, etc.
    • An equivalent to steam fest with a strong demo scene.
    • Something better than remote play together

    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.

  • Pxtl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • λλλ@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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…

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why shouldn’t you have to use heroic launcher or lutris? The whole point of drm free is that you don’t need a specific launcher connected to Internet.

        • NightOwl@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yet, ease of access is what appeals to the average consumer which leads to preferring steam for Linux for the same reason people get hardware restricted consoles. If a company wants to appeal and expand their market making themselves more accessible is how they do it. Otherwise alternative is to be an overlooked option.

          • Gamey@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not directly related but this Gabe quote still seems somewhat fitting: “Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem”

            • NightOwl@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, had Valve tried to push Linux again without trying to make it accessible for the average user it would have flopped like the Steam machine. Or at the very least users would have tossed Linux for Windows. Accessibility is very important, and technical users should not be looked to as guides on what is acceptable for the masses.

        • λλλ@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because they should be able to make a launcher that works. The Windows GOG launcher (GOG Galaxy) is a joke. They want to make one launcher to rule them all but it struggles with almost every one. I have a Windows computer for games that require it (Valorant mostly for me) and even on PC I use Heroic. I don’t want crazy features. I just want an officially supported GOG client that works well on Linux and Windows.

          • bouh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Galaxy works fine on windows. It’s far more stable than steam btw.

            In the meantime heroic or lutris work very well. So why is there even a need for something else? I’d argue it’s better if a company don’t hold your game hostage for you to play them.

            • ECB@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              “It’s far more stable than steam btw.”

              I’ll admit I’ve only used Linux for the past 5-6 years, but I think the last time steam crashed for me was almost a decade ago or something? Is it not stable on windows anymore?

              • bouh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                It does crash regularly, or it stops working and you need to restart it, and it always did this kind of thing. The obnoxious “I need to update before you’re allowed to play” is hardly a selling feature. The videos and the adds are both obnoxious and intensive on resources.

                Galaxy has its ups and downs, but overall I feel its lighter and much more responsive. The interface is much less cluttered, much more logical and clear. And it’s not a fucking drm.

                I thank vavle for what did for Linux gaming. Proton is brilliant and incredibly useful and valuable. But I also despise them for steam being litteraly a DRM. So I will forgive cdpr if they need time to develop galaxy on Linux and I’ll use lutris and heroic game launcher in the meantime.

                • ferret@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It is trivial to disable all the video content (and some more) on steam if you happen to be on low-end hardware that needs that (or just if you don’t like it, really)

                • woelkchen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It does crash regularly, or it stops working and you need to restart it, and it always did this kind of thing.

                  Then you use it wrong. No idea how that’s possible but I run Steam on Windows, macOS, and Linux and except very early in the life cycle of the Steam Deck, I can’t remember Steam ever crashing on me in the last 10 or so years.

            • λλλ@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I have the exact opposite experience as you. I have never once seen steam crash. My steam account is now 9 years old. I was absolutely stoked when I saw GOG Galaxy was trying to handle not only GOG games but games from other platforms as well. But my experience with that has been so bad. It’s fine for GOG games, but I’d much rather just add all my games into steam at this point. So as for stability, I don’t see any way that GOG Galaxy could ever beat Steam.

              For Linux support, Steam is a DRM which is a detractor. But with all they’ve done with proton, steam input, steam deck OS… I’d say that Steam is definitely doing more for the Linux ecosystem than GOG.

              • bouh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Steam has been working on the steam deck for how long now? 5? 10 years? Gog has that much time to catch up.

                And as I said, I don’t deny the role steam played and is still playing for Linux gaming. But it’s still a drm. And that’s something I simply cannot ignore.

                I do use steam mind you. But I’ll use and support gog everytime I can. If steam did the most for Linux, gog did and still do the most for players.

    • GreenMario@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah. Dusk is an amazing game and the creator is talented as fuck but this is “I like oxygen” levels of unpopular opinion lol

    • reddig33@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh, I dunno. Everyone seems to bitch 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.

      • Gamey@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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!

  • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Gabu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • punseye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

  • dan@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Gamey@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • CoderKat@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • PM_ME_FEET_PICS@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      106
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, no.

        And Valve is perhaps the best PC store since they have continually pushed PC gaming forward, for example:

        • Valve Index - still one of the best, if not the best, VR headset out there; it made VR a lot more interesting
        • Steam Controller - didn’t make as big of a spash as they wanted, but it was really innovative and lead to…
        • Steam Deck - yeah, they weren’t first, but it’s affordable and made a big enough splash to get big studios to care; now we have a lot more options as well for handheld PC gaming

        Not to mention their Linux support, awesome customer support, free dev keys, and Steam Link app. What did other stores do?

        • GOG - DRM-free is great! But that’s about it.
        • EGS - free games and lower store fee are cool
        • Xbox Game Pass - pretty good for users, but it’s troubling long term, and it only works on Windows
        • everything else - can’t think of anything special here

        So no, I don’t think Valve is bad in any way. Quite the opposite, they’re the best behaved games store on PC.

        • Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          GOG Galaxy is actually amazing in what it accomplishes, GOG just don’t have the resources to make it frictionless.

          Gamepass is probably the main competition for Steam at this point. Publishers have been busting to make games run on the cloud, it’s the ultimate DRM, the ultimate goal of the erosion of ownership.

          There will be a time where there is a push towards partial-cloud gaming and then fully cloud gaming, and it will be hard for PC gaming to compete in the mainstream when you buy an Xbox dongle for $50 and game as soon as you plug it in. That’s the real threat to Valve.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            GOG just don’t have the resources to make it frictionless

            They had enough budget to make Cyberpunk 2077 and The Witcher 3, I think they can handle making a decent desktop client. They just don’t prioritize it.

            But yeah, subscription and cloud gaming is where the industry wants to go, and I sincerely hope they don’t succeed.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Then they’re either not meeting the needs of potential customers or not finding new customers.

                For me personally, I would buy more from them if they supported Linux with GOG Galaxy. I would but a lot more from them if GOG Galaxy had a good experience on Steam Deck. I can’t speak for anyone else, but that’s my price, and apparently it’s the most upvoted feature request for GOG Galaxy.

                I didn’t have a Steam account until they made a Linux client (they released in 2012, I made my Steam account in 2013). I bought a few Linux native games here and there, and when they launched Proton in 2018, I bought a lot more games. Before that, I mostly bought games directly from indie devs (Minecraft, Factorio, etc), or tried my luck buying Windows games and running them through WINE (e.g. Starcraft 2).

                That’s my price. If they want me as a customer, they need first class Linux support. That’s why Steam gets my money, and GOG could win my business by offering DRM-free games on top. But to me, a Linux desktop client is more important than DRM-free, so that’s why Steam gets my money.

        • harpuajim@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just want to say that as a VR enthusiast, the Index is nowhere near the top of the list of VR headsets.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I guess that depends on your priorities. It has a competitive resolution and frame rate, is a bit heavy, has fantastic controllers, and has Linux compatibility. It’s also expensive and is best to pair with high end hardware.

            So if you’re looking for Linux support (like me), it’s pretty much your only option, unless you’re willing to buy used or accept a lot of compromises. If you’re looking for cheap, lightweight, or compatible with lower end hardware, it’s not going to score well.

            But on the whole, outside of pricing, it does a good job in almost every category. If money is no object, the Index is one of the best.

        • PM_ME_FEET_PICS@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          The Valve Index is the least popular VR option and doesn’t rank near the top of VR headsets. Still being beat out by entry level Oculus.

          The Steam controller was poorly made flop and has been discontinued. The vast majority of reviews put the controller well below the Xbox controller, which was already PC compatible.

          Steam Deck is very expensive and has a very poor battery life. Making the handheld cable tethered. It also went against its open promise by including locked down proprietary software.

          Steams customer support ranks the third worst of all top level game stores. Just above Ubisoft and Blizzard.

          You mention their Linux support yet the majority of games are yet to be supported and plenty of game will never be supported due to their nature or inclusion of anti-cheat. The only thing Valve has done was release the Steam Client to Linux.

          Steam popularized gambling for children and continue to be one of 2 PC companies that continue to do so.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oculus

            Valve’s goal isn’t to sell a lot of headsets, but to show what’s possible with high quality VR and encourage more VR games and headsets. Valve’s ultimate goal here is to sell more VR games.

            Oculus wants to sell a lot of headsets so they can push some kind of SM interaction and profit from having lots of ads. The priority there is adoption, not quality or compatibility.

            Steam Controller was poorly made

            No, it was well made, it just wasn’t popular. And again, it wasn’t their goal to sell a ton of them.

            The goal was to design a flexible controller to build out their controller API and give an option for a decent desktop mouse replacement for a PC “console” format (i.e. Steam Machine). I think they succeeded at that, but the market wasn’t interested, probably because Steam Machines didn’t go anywhere. It was never intended to replace existing controllers, but to complement them.

            Steam Deck is very expensive

            It’s $400, which is really competitive. Direct competitors like the AYANEO cost ~$1k twice as much, or even more. The Switch cost $300 at launch (OLED is $350, even today) and wasn’t even competitive with current console hardware at launch, while the Steam Deck is competitive with both price and hardware.

            And it’s not cable tethered. I get a few hours of battery life as long as I’m not playing the most heavy games. Most of what I play are older AAA games and newer indie titles, and I get 3-5 hours of battery life, which is longer than my play sessions anyway. If I switch to a modern AAA titles, it’s like 1-2 hours, which is still enough for most play sessions.

            Their goal, again, isn’t to sell a ton and corner the PC handheld market, it’s to make PC handhelds popular so there’s more demand, thus more competition, and thus more game sales. They also want to show what’s possible with a Linux-based PC, so there’s a credible alternative to Microsoft (and most games seem to be playable, check out ProtonDB for a larger picture than just Steam’s official stamp; look at Proton DB medals, 77% are Gold or Platinum, which usually refers to “playable” and “verified” accordingly).

            Steam’s customer support

            You claim it’s worse, but you don’t give examples of services that are better. Here are some examples of worse customer service:

            • Nintendo estore - no returns
            • PlayStation store - no returns if you have started to download it, unless it’s faulty (e.g. Cyberpunk 2077), and even then you have 14 days
            • Xbox - within 14 days and don’t have “a significant amount of playtime”

            And Steam’s policy is 14 days and <2 hours playtime (so the same or better than above), yet there are countless examples of refunds being issued being both the time and playtime limit, provided you don’t abuse it.

            I’m not going to go through other examples because I believe I’ve proven my point, so now it’s your turn: give specific examples of other stores having better customer service than Steam.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, they’re just one example, and perhaps the most clearly documented one, and IMO the most important one (i.e. the one that most users will need to use).

                If you want to discuss another metric, then please do so.

          • woelkchen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The only thing Valve has done was release the Steam Client to Linux.

            countless improvements Valve engineers have made to the the Mesa OpenGL and Vulkan drivers as well as to the kernel graphics driver components. Not just to the AMD graphics drivers for benefiting the Steam Deck’s hardware but also to Zink OpenGL-on-Vulkan and then other common infrastructure. But in this area of the Linux graphics driver support, Valve’s contributions and those of their partners have been incredibly beneficial to the Linux desktop ecosystem even outside gaming.

            https://www.phoronix.com/news/Valve-Upstream-Everything-OSS

      • theragu40@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.