• Pxtl@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    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.

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

    There are so many companies that have all the pieces to make good competition to Steam but their greed gets in the way. Microsoft in particular should have been a shoe-in for it, but GFWL was an embarrassing failure, the WIndows store is rubbish and insists on a new file format that (at least in the past) caused all kinds of issues for games, and now their Game Pass service has no focus on a buying element. This is without going into both Amazon and Google tripping on the starting line when it comes to getting in the gaming space. A launcher that was tied in with Amazon’s web store would be a really quick way to get a lot of people in naturally.

    I really wish more people used GoG to where it could be a competitor. Unfortunately the game selection is much lower due to companies turning their noses up at no DRM. Also, I will admit that I tend to buy things on Steam in favor of GoG due to a lot of the features Steam has.

  • Paradoxvoid@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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.

    • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      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

      • nora@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What’s a natural monopoly? Valve currently has the freedom to implement anything they want within an extent because they’re so popular. If they decided they wanted to charge devs 35% would people stop using it? Probably not. Steam’s monopoly is as bad as any other for the same reason any other monopoly is bad.

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

          A natural monopoly is when an industry is difficult to break into, making competition difficult or impossible. This favors incumbents, in fact, a lot of industries are natural monopolies (pharma, aerospace, chip production).

          The difficulty of breaking into an industry may be because:

          • new players cannot compete with established scale
          • start up costs require a nearly all-or-nothing approach, high risk
          • regulations tie the hand of new innovators
        • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Look it up? It’s an actual term, not something I made up for whatever reason you assumed to argue against something I didn’t even say. I already said it’s still not a good thing, it just would have happened regardless of whoever that was able to do it on scale first.

  • UntouchedWagons@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    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
      2
      ·
      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

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

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

      • aard@kyu.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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.

    • nanoUFO@sh.itjust.worksOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      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
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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.

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

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

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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…

    • woelkchen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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
        1
        ·
        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.

    • bogdugg@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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
        0
        ·
        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.

        • bogdugg@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          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
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

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

    • golli@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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.

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

    I will always support valve because of their amazing Linux support but if GOG finally made a client for Linux then I would try to use that more. I wish Epic would also support Linux but with massive douchebag Tim Sweeney running the company, that will never happen.

      • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No they don’t lol. GOG doesn’t even have a client, you have to use Lutris or Heroic Launcher that support it.

        Itch has a half implemented Linux client that they gave up years ago and is straight up unusable/broken. The client is worse then a web wrapper and nas no support for Wine, so if the game doesn’t have native Linux support, it just won’t run through the client. It will download exe’s that won’t actually run and silently fail, and doesn’t have any wine support.

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

          They don’t have a client but both allow you to just download the game and run it from a .sh that installs it in the local folder. That’s enough for me but I agree it may not be for everyone.

    • λλλ@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      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…

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

    People don’t remember what pc gaming was like before Steam. Between the reviews, discussions, guides, workshops, achievement and playtime tracking, friend functionality, and shopping options (gifting, wishlist, instant return, etc.), Steam was, is and remains to be a fucking god send. I wouldn’t be pc gaming right now if it wasn’t for Steam.

  • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I personally get most of my games from GOG and itch.io these days. And I’ve never bought anything from the Epic store whatsoever.

    I will say though that I find it kind of weird how much hate Epic gets for their store. Like, I understand that someone prefers Steam, or doesn’t want to buy stuff from Epic etc. - but what we see goes way beyond that. Epic has people actively campaigning against it, as if its mere existence is insulting. I don’t really get why.

    As for the 30% cut… Developers will try to price their games competitively, and within customer expectations. So with or without Steam’s 30% cut, you can expect games to be similarly priced. The large 30% cut from Steam is basically coming out of the developer’s revenue rather than from your pocket. (I’m under the impression that GOG also has a similar 30% fee. Epic has a lower fee. And on itch.io the seller gets to choose how money goes to itch.io anywhere from 0% to 100%. So itch.io is the best deal for developers in terms of fees.)

  • TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Steam doesn’t have a monopoly, other platforms are just shit.

    Missing features, badly made features, fucking spyware, some barely working at all (I am looking at you, ubisoft)

    Perhaps if the other platforms tried a little bit, they would actually be a competition.

  • darq@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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
      2
      ·
      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.

      • joelfromaus@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        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.

        • 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

        • Gamey@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          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! :/

          • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            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
              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
                0
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                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
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

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

      • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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.

    • 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

  • dan@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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.

    • PM_ME_FEET_PICS@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.

  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Actual unpopular opinion: I don’t give a fuck, I want my launcher to launch my games, all of them do it, Steam just comes with a shit load of extra stuff I don’t care about. I buy my games where they’re the cheapest and with all the free games on Epic I rarely use Steam anymore. If they’re the same price I’ll go with the platform that give the devs the biggest share of the profit and that’s not Steam.

    Edit: See? That was the unpopular opinion…

  • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m one of the few who actually like the existence of Epic. Like, not necessarily Epic itself, but some serious competition is needed. I personally would’ve loved it if the competition was GOG, but it seems consumers don’t particularly care about ownership, so we have Epic.

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

      The problem is that all the competition to steam is far far inferior to steam in technology and ideology and future prospects. Steam isn’t a publicly traded company, has features that are pro consumers, is supporting other OS’s and doesn’t have a CEO that is a prick like epic.

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I just hope Steam can be broken up

    Make the workshop and community their own company