Less drama more context would be nice from headlines, but man does it feel like I’m asking too much
I am not sympathetic at all to epic, let alone Tim Sweeney, but I do think people are very unwilling to talk about valve’s absolute dominance and how much the current ecosystem is heavily dependent on how magnanimous they are feeling.
We worry about companies that aren’t anywhere near as dominant as valve. Just because their interests align with ours today doesn’t mean they will tomorrow.
Here’s the difference. When we talk about companies dominating an industry, we’re usually talking about practices that keep competition from even forming. Monopolies are formed as a result of big companies buying out or making it impossible for their competition.
Steam doesn’t do that, which is a big reason they won their monopoly suit. They just provide a better model than anyone else is willing to, and they rake in the cash because of it.
Compare this situation to books-a-million in the states. Books-a-million doesn’t have a monopoly on books, they just have created a better environment for selling them. They aren’t stopping other book stores from opening or buying chains to shut them down, they just sell you a cup of coffee and give you a place to sit while you browse their massive selection.
That’s not a monopoly, that’s just better business.
Valve isn’t dominating an essential industry. They could control 100% of the game market and it would make no difference to anything important.
Neither is Tiktok. But the US Congress is still freaking out about it.
But social media is an essential industry in how opinions are formed.
The US congress is freaking out about TikTok because of national security concerns about china potentially harvesting data on americans and influencing politics, not because TikTok is a monopoly.
This is not at all the same thing.
If they want to harvest data and influence politics they will have to pay an American billionaire to do so, like Russia and everyone else does. Good work, Congress.
Since when did it matter if an industry was “essential” or not? And how can you trivialize the largest media industry, larger than Hollywood/TV/music combined, to such a degree and say this doesn’t matter?
It matters if people are captive consumers of the product. It does not matter if they can simply stop using the product with no ill consequences.
The same goes for movies, TV, music. You can simply stop buying these commercially with no ill effect.
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
I don’t like Valve. I don’t like the non-ownership model of game distribution.
Users aren’t captured at all, since none of them need to purchase video games. Game developers may be captured by Valve, but game developers aren’t producing anything of importance.
I’m for legal restrictions on industry practice that are predatory towards the users, but there’s no need to protect the industry itself from control by Valve, since nothing important is being controlled.
Valve also can’t control the gaming industry if they don’t control the OS gamers use. They may be trying to control the OS, but they haven’t done it yet. Until then, they can’t prevent users from installing games outside of Steam. If Developers are locked in to Steam, it’s because users buy games in Steam and refuse to buy games outside of Steam. The users behave this way because Steam provides lots of value to them.
If Steam starts to abuse users instead of serving them, there’s nothing stopping them from purchasing games some other way.
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf
I’m not arguing none of this matters.
This is what I’m arguing: if Valve had control of the gaming industry, which it doesn’t yet but might later, it would matter so little that we’d need no public policy to address it. Anyone who isn’t in the industry needn’t concern themselves about it.
We worry about companies that aren’t anywhere near as dominant as valve. Just because their interests align with ours today doesn’t mean they will tomorrow.
Valve is dominant because they treat users well. Is your argument here seriously “Yes, Valve is a better platform that treats you well, but you shouldn’t use it because other people already do! You should use a platform that’s not as good because competition!”
A competitor in any industry needs to do more than “exist” to be worth using. If Valve starts acting shitty I will stop using it, much like how I have stopped purchasing or playing Blizzard games.
Do you know why steam is dominating? There are no better alternatives. They actively work on projects that benefit everyone, including their competition.
For the time being, there’s nothing to be said other than other companies need to stop being so shitty.
Yea, steam actually earned their market share through being a solid storefront and game distribution center and not because of exclusive releases from third parties or shady practices beyond promoting games.
Sure, they are the only place for valve games, but that is because those are their games. Yes, some of their games have loot boxes and that is all terrible, but that is the games and not inherent to steam.
It’s as if the recipe for success is not fucking over your customers and provide good product. Huh, weird
Did they tho? Steam was absolutely terrible in the beginning, the only reason people used it back in the early days is because you needed it for super popular valve games. It had nothing to do with them being a solid storefront or anything of sorts.
And then look what happened after steam of companies saying PC is dead and not wanting to invest in it. It’s not like the market wasn’t open for anyone to enter. All the other companies didn’t care including Microsoft in their own platform. Even look at how barebones the launchers are compared to Steam and how all the companies didn’t care about Linux.
It’s not like these opportunities were never around and Steam just happened to get good will. Companies still are putting in the bare minimum and have more trouble or maybe disinterest in matching the features of Steam than a new company making a smartphone. How ridiculous is that. That companies making a smartphone did a better job of trying to be modern than a companies attempt at a launcher.
I have used it since a few days after release (Sept 13, 2003) because I was playing Counterstrike. It made updates and finding play servers so easy even though it did have a rough start with connectivity. Honestly, it was better than whatever we had to use prior even with the issues.
Once they sorted out the server issues and started adding non-valve games it became even more useful and we end up where we are now.
They are currently still on top because of being a solid storefront and the other things I listed.
Valve forever more have my support just because of proton. Letting me get off windows to game has been revolutionary for me.
I don’t understand this mentality. It has no loyalty to you, why be loyal to it?
Be loyal to people, not to organizations.
By your logic, it makes sense to be loyal to Gabe, who has long thought to be the driving force behind steam remaining what they are and not falling down the capitalistic hole of exploiting their users for every red cent.
Gabe doesn’t know you, you don’t know him, Gabe represents a concept to you all. To be loyal to him is at best a parasocial relationship. He is not your dad, he’s not your professor, he’s not any kind of mentor to you, he’s just someone who doesn’t speak much publicly, and gets good PR because his capitalist interests happen to align with consumers right now. 15 years ago, Elon Musk fell into the same boat.
Look, I enjoy gaming on Linux as much as the next person, but I’ve also seen gamers make this completely unnecessary fanboy move over and over for decades.
not falling down the capitalistic hole of exploiting their users for every red cent.
The concept of a “hat shop” was literally invented by TF2 and every other game copied them. And they’re arguably exploiting small devs for every “red” cent while cutting breaks to the billionaire publishers. They also make devs eat the full cost of a refund. You’re not going to defend that behavior, you can only say “doesn’t affect me specifically” and ignore it.
But what if we didn’t ignore it? What if instead we praised their good behaviors AND rebuked the bad? What if we just behaved like responsible consumers? Imagine…
I don’t think that taking a cut for the sheer exposure of the platform is the same as exploitation. Even small devs make more money by an order of magnitude through steam than they would if they did not.
Steam costs money to operate. I really don’t understand why people think steam should just be valorous and noble and not make any money. Labeling them the middleman implies they don’t do anything. They provide a service in the same way a grocery store is there to make sure you don’t have to drive to a different farm every time you want a different kind of vegetable.
That’s really the only problem I have with what you said. Of course people shouldn’t be loyal to companies, I’m just pointing out the flaw in your logic that people should be loyal to people instead. Any type of figure that you don’t personally know is primarily a concept.
But also, “Behaving like a responsible consumer” is an idealistic fantasy that mostly fails because of the prisoner dilemma. If not enough people do it, the only people who suffer are the ones doing it. That base mindset might be overcame on an individual basis, but it’s rarely popular enough to gain the traction required for actual change, and it becomes more and more difficult the more people are content with the service.
It doesn’t help that steam is essentially the only game launcher that isn’t tiny or garbage.
Steam costs money to operate. I really don’t understand why people think steam should just be valorous and noble and not make any money.
This is exactly the point I’m making. Or rather, I really don’t understand why people think steam IS valorous and noble and not just making money.
I’m just pointing out the flaw in your logic that people should be loyal to people instead. Any type of figure that you don’t personally know is primarily a concept.
Agreed. I don’t follow why that means you should have loyalty for them.
“Behaving like a responsible consumer” is an idealistic fantasy that mostly fails because of the prisoner dilemma.
Totally agree.
It doesn’t help that steam is essentially the only game launcher that isn’t tiny or garbage.
I agree with basically everything you said. I just think the rational implication is to be reservedly greatful for the parts that benefit you, and readily critical of the parts that don’t. And I don’t understand why people instead reach the conclusion that one or two random alignments in interests means they should swear their allegiance to a corporation that cannot possibly do the same for them.
Being loyal to people can be pretty bad actually (see, idk, Darth Vader’s biopics).
I’m obviously not saying “be unquestioningly loyal to anyone with a pulse”. My point is that, if you’re going to have loyalty, direct it toward a fellow human being, not an ephemeral hive mind whose only “loyalties” are legally required. (And a picture of a person you’ve never met and who doesn’t know you doesn’t count as a person, for obvious reasons).
Support is not the same thing as loyalty.
my problem is people conflate pro develper and pro consumer actions as the same thing, when they arent. what epic does is very pro developer(better cut, money in advance if exclusive), but the platform is far from being pro consumer(removes consumer choice in platform to buy it on, lower competiuon, inconplete community, store, workshop, and os functionality). I’m in open arms for competition, but it actively is a worse consumer experience, then its very hard to support.
Epic is really only pro-dev in that way though, steam has a lot of perks through its steamworks api
I said this in another place, but the single only reason that Epic is pro developer is because they have miniscule market share.
If they gain significant market share, they will 100% absolutely guaranteed, no doubt, double their cut from developers.
It is the exact scum tactic that has been done dozens of times before like amazon.
While you may have a point that we can’t know what any company will do in the future, the fact remains that Valve has earned their place by 2 factors alone:
1.- Constant innovation to make their platform a place where everyone wants to be, without crippling the competition, despite having the means to do it. 2.- years of building trust with their users and providers alike by being transparent and clear on what they offer, while adding value which costs money that they absorb.
Yes, 30% of so much money is a shitload of money, but I have yet to see one good reason why that’s a bad thing other than the usual “it’s too much” bullshit argument.
Unity, Reddit, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, these companies have 1 common denominator: they have gone out of their way to destroy anything that would present a risk to 10 cents of their revenue, including, but not limited to, absorbing any potential competition, regardless of if they represent a risk to their dominance or not.
Do not compare valve to these assholes. Valve is making tons of money? Unless you can show me, with evidence, how this is detrimental to anyone else, other than the fact that you are not making as much, all you have is bullshit and a fucking tantrum.
Their criticism of Steam seems pretty valid
How so?
I mean it’s not like Epic does anything to help sales, they just give devs slightly more of the money. Or at least it cannot prove that. Their store is so badly organized that the reduction in discovery and the Sweeney-created (and in fact at this point seemingly deliberate) negative association of the epic store and in particular exclusivity on it, it’s impossible for a company to judge whether the 25.7% increased money (70%->88%) is not easily eaten up by the loss in sales compared to other stores.
Valve can also trivially point to all the stuff Steam provides like forums, mod integration and streaming to justify higher cost, and Sweeney suspiciously never talks about that. I bet if he had to, he’d have to admit that he actually provides less value with his baby store considering how little devs get for the 12% taken compared to what Valve provides for the 30% they take.
Is it cool that stores take 30%? No.
Can I, as a gamer, judge whether it’s a valid amount of even one worthy of critique in particular comparing brick&mortar supply chains (his 75%-loss-criticism is a false equivalence, as the extra costs he adds existed with physical stores, too)? No, I cannot.
Does it feel to me as a gamer that I get “more” buying a game on Steam than on Epic? For sure! Sometimes I can get it cheaper on Epic, which might be worth it compared to having stuff like workshop integration or prompt updates on Steam. Or it might not be, that’s something everyone has to judge.
For me personally, my takeaway from Sweeney’s baby trantrum antics and aggressive exclusivity has been this:
- I window-shop on all digital store fronts.
- I select where to buy based on isthereanydeal, with no particular weight given to any store except a little one towards GOG because I get actual installers for offline storage there.
- However, Epic is explicitly excluded. I browse there, I take the freebies, I don’t buy there. The only money Swine-y ever got from my was the 7€ when that bug around Death Stranding happened and I didn’t realize my free game actually cost me money instead of being free.
His criticism might be valid. Or not. I cannot judge that. Regardless, he’s an asshole and his shop is terrible for me as a customer comparing the alternatives.
How so
Well
Then Sweeney adjusts his flight goggles and gets ready for takeoff on one of his pet peeves: the 30% platform fee on Steam. “There was a good case for [such fees] in the early days,” writes Sweeney, “but the scale is now high and operating costs have been driven down, while the churn of new game releases is so fast that the brief marketing or UA value the storefront provides is far disproportionate to the fee.”
Sweeney opines that, if you were to strip away the top 25 selling games on Steam, “I bet Valve made more profit from most of the next 1000 than the developer themselves made.” The maths to get there is 30% to Valve, 30% on marketing, and 15% on servers / engine costs, so “the system takes 75% and that leaves 25% for actually creating the game, worse than the retail distribution economics of the 1990s.”
Sounds valid, it’s a really high cut
“Right now, you assholes are telling the world that the strong and powerful get special terms, while 30% is for the little people,” writes Sweeney. “We’re all in for a prolonged battle if Apple tries to keep their monopoly and 30% by cutting backroom deals with big publishers to keep them quiet. Why not give ALL developers a better deal? What better way is there to convince Apple quickly that their model is now totally untenable?”
Sounds valid, making deals with the big publishers for smaller cut and taking the big cut from smaller publishers. Sounds pretty shit
Yeah but OTOH I can easily see this be discussed away. Economy of scale is very much a thing in physical distribution (so smaller board games have to set aside significantly higher percentages to manufacturing, logistics and marketing), and I lack the business knowledge to know how this does or does not translates to digital distribution.
In other words I cannot judge that, but I have two indicators to suggest it might be a thing:
- Physical distribution mirrors it.
- Sweeney is an absolutely untrustworthy source, and him so vehemently poking at it suggests it’s a false narrative.
(Plus let’s not forget that Sweeney would take a 105% cut if he could get away with, he himself is a money-greedy bastard)
I think their claims seem credible. I think Steam lowering their take shows that 30% was indeed higher than necessary. And lowering it for those selling shitloads of copies and keeping it high for smaller sellers does sound a bit backwards and scummy.
But both Epic and Valve are businesses. Of course they’re going to be greedy and scummy. I wouldn’t really expect anything else. I just think in this case the specific arguments towards Steam seem valid.
people use ‘u mad bro’ like it’s some great insult. people get mad. it’s a human emotion. it exists for a reason. it’s not a glitch. anger is a motivator, and a damn good one. get mad, folks. use that energy. most people aren’t mad enough these days.
u sound mad
you sound 12
See https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/u-mad, in particular the “Due to the agitating nature of the phrase, it is often considered a form of trolling.”
u mad bro?
maybe. whacha gonna do about?
Cry :(
The “you mad bro” is found among internal Valve communication, and was not sent as a response to Sweeney. Another outlet already got tripped over this and had to make a correction: https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2024/03/valve-coo-on-epics-tim-sweeney-you-mad-bro-when-launching-the-epic-store/
This is not quite as sensational as some people are framing it.
Steam community or not, the glib defense of rent-seeking behavior on lemmy.ml is wild.
It looks like most of the comments are from other instances.
The 30% cut is an obscene standard that needs to be reduced on PC, console, and mobile. Taking an entire third off-the-top as nothing but a middleman and file-server is indefensible. Valve doesn’t even control their platform - they shoved their way onto computers via HL2 and now perpetuate an overwhelming market share. Then as now, it is a problem that games require any online DRM launcher.
Tim can still get bent.
EGS by all accounts does fuck-all to attract users or sellers, beyond adjusting that cut, and it is still a project that exists primarily as rent-seeking for that cut.
Same deal for Fortnite on iOS: their excuses are pretense for taking 30% of everything spent on an app or IN an app, on every iPhone. They once strongarmed Facebook out of even mentioning that. Furthermore, people must have software freedom. It is intolerable that Apple ever restricted what you install on your own goddamn phone.
Fortnite should be unavailable because Fortnite should be illegal.
Nothing inside a video game should cost money. Real-money charges make games objectively less enjoyable. Maximum revenue comes from addiction to manufactured discontent. It is infecting every platform, genre, and price point. It is in single-player games. if we allow this to continue there will be nothing else.
I dont understand. Doesnt Epic give devs a better cut of the profits? Why is Sweeney mad?
Weekly reminder for everyone to go get their free epic store game of the week…
And never install the launcher or play any of said games.
Not a lot of people know the troll face is used by pedo rings to identify each other. It was true back then but its common use muddied the water and gave them a lot of plausible deniability, but nowadays that it’s fallen off from common use it’s almost exclusively used as a symbol.
Is epics cut still 12%?
Yes
If the percentage was the most important part, why isn’t every game on Epic?
discord i believe when they sold games only took like 10% cut. turns out, thats not all it takes to sell games, and its not like no one uses discord, so you couldn’t even say people were avoiding the software as it is a popular platform.
Did anyone get games on discord?
i personally don’t know anyone in my circle who did.
12% of 0 is still 0.
Also wouldn’t be surprised if to get such a low rate requires exclusivity…
That’s probably a big part of why Tim is angry
Yes. Since nobody else seems to want to answer. Also, they waive the Unreal Engine revenue share from sales on the Epic Store.
I appreciate Epics pro developer stance, but the need a better consumer experience and innovation in that space if they want to be serious about the store.
Valve has spen’t much of the last 25 years pushing the industry forwards in distribution. That’s why there’s so much loyalty to them.
They are only pro developer because they aren’t breaking into the market well at all.
I guarantee that if they ever have a breakthrough and start approaching 40% sales or more, they will double their cut for sure.
Their cut is literally only to draw in developers and operate at a loss, subsidized by other income or investors, to gain as much market share as possible before jacking up prices.
It is the exact scummy playbook that amazon went by to drown their competition with their bare hands. The only difference is that Epic doesn’t understand the market at all and won’t commit resources to improving their store.
And in the same court case - it was discovered it was not profitable despite their more limited offerings.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘despite’ here.
Maybe he meant in the sense that they filtered out the shovelware and asset flips from Epic Games Store (at least until recently) so to make the store look good. That way they’re providing hosting only for the games that actually will be downloaded a decent amount of times, avoiding wasting storage on bad/forgotten games.
But hosting is basically a rounding error in the equation of selling games on an online store. The actually significant cost is going to be in developing and maintaining the software powering the online store, and that cost is fixed. This in turn means that having less games in the store is an obvious disadvantage, not an advantage.
I quite doubt that, infrastructure to provide Terabytes of bandwidth per second isn’t cheap, and employing people who are on watch 24/7 and maintain it all, aren’t cheap either.
You need to employ relatively fewer people to maintain and remain on-call for a service as you grow it - this is part of the point I’m trying to make. Having fewer games is a disadvantage for Epic, not an advantage.
Hosting is so easy that most companies who do it fail at some point…
…I don’t mean to be rude, but you shouldn’t speak to things you do not understand or know about. Cloud hosting costs for a large e-commerce site are rather large, definitely variable and not cheap.
Cost of developing software is also not fixed over any meaningful period.
I don’t mean to be rude either, but you shouldn’t assume that someone doesn’t know what they are talking about or understand.
From professional experience I can speak pretty confidently on the subject that staffing opex is almost universally going to supersede cloud opex.
EDIT: I noticed that I was being a bit unclear when saying fixed. What I mean by fixed in this context is that you need to develop the whole e-commerce infrastructure regardless of if you have 1 game or 1000 games - a simplification as you do need to take care to scale well when growing, but it is good enough for the purposes of demonstration. The more games sharing the same e-commerce infrastructure, the less the e-commerce infrastructure costs on a per-transaction basis.
It’s also an indefinite cost. It’s not like Valve decides to stop hosting a game they’ve sold after a while. Generally speaking, they store and host it forever even if they never get revenue from sales of it ever again. Of course, I’m sure if the revenue wanes that much that downloads will too, but there’s definitely a crossover point where maintenance will start being a permanent negative cashflow. Now multiply that across tens to hundreds of thousands of games and counting. Forever. You kind of have to consider that for the long term when setting your pricing for today since sales cuts are the only revenue you get.
Human rights principles? Tim needs to quit sniffing his own farts. He’s trying to sell digital video games on iPhones, not end human trafficking.
I’ll never understand the absolute cock worship of steam. They’re just a huge, near monopolistic gaming store that apparently requires daily fellatio on this platform. Apparently, I’m supposed to agree or get smashed with the typical vitriol one gets with disagreeing with the hive. You Assholes
They did a lot for pc gaming and I like them, but they really should lower the % cut imho.
Agreed, but as long as there is no real competitor they have simply no incentive to do that
Competitors are out there, it’s just that not enough people care about how much of their money goes to the developer/publisher.
real competitors, there are ofcourse the niche stores like GOG, but the ones with more money like Epic, EA whatever en Ubisoft Connect just suck
There is nothing wrong with gog or epic. Even xbox is fine.
It’s because of their backend tech. Steam has some of the most efficient CDN usage in the world. How do you think you’re able to download a 60Gb game in 10 min?
It surprises me too. I suppose gamers do really like their proprietary DRM with monopolistic practices.
DRM is up to the game developers, it’s not enforced by Steam.
You’ve posted this exact same message letter for letter in two threads, reported as a bot.
True, only bots can copy and paste
Do you even bother to read what you write or nah?
I mean, aside from the lack of a period at the end of the sentence, the post looks grammatically correct to me. Why do you think I didn’t proofread my own post? What a silly goose
I’ll never understand why some people look at the fact that steam is popular because of their policies, and can’t help but make a comment like this equating that popularity to cock worship.
Like, we get it bro. You’re thinking about cocks and you’re mad about a half decent game store. What compelled you to combine those thoughts on a public forum?
The weird thing is that this isn’t even the first comment I’ve seen like this. Dudes that are mad about steam want everyone else to know about steam’s massive, throbbing cock for some reason. This guy alone has posted 3 of these.
People hated Steam and were very skeptical initially. Respect was earned over time
I miss Won network and kali…
Lol I used to be on Kali, and IFrag before that… college days
They were literally selling physical game boxes with a code and an installer for Steam in it instead of the game.
Steams initial tactics are as scummy as Epic’s. The reason they don’t need them anymore is because of their semi monopoly.
Those DVDs usually had the game backup files on it too, so you didn’t even need to download most physical copies you purchased. And I can still download the original CS game I bought like 20 years ago. Seems like a good deal since that game cost me like $40 in store.
Steam is just perfect at keeping the gamers behind them as they are only assholes behind doors to the Devs on their platform.
30% is an absurd cut for a store that has such a monopoly that if you don’t release there your game is pretty much cancelled even if you release at your own store without DRM and with additional goodies (Looking at GOG and The Witcher - they released the Gwent standalone like a year later on steam because it didn’t sell at all on GOG and then it apparently outsold the GOG version without a week)
People are just too lazy and Steam is keeping them happy enough to not bother looking another way.
Epic isn’t a good guy in any case but the exclusive deals on AAA Games they do is probably the only way to get someone to buy the game there instead of Steam
300+ library on Steam over more than a decade with them. I’m not moving to Epic regardless of how shitty Steam gets because I’m not maintaining multiple accounts for multiple launchers just 'cause Tim fucking Sweeney decided it was mandatory I split my library so he could stack a couple more zeros in his bank account.
The exclusive on epic game store is a cancer that should not exist. And epic should remove their parody of launcher from existence because they somehow managed to make this a cancer too.
Correct! Minecraft would never have been successful if not for Steam!
An outlier makes systemic problems disappear.
Or league, or WOW, or BF4, BF1, overwatch, fortnite, genshin…
A short list of the biggest fucking games in half a dozen genres. Do you know what an outlier is? There’s not just the one.
As a direct comparison: Fortnite probably installed a lot of Android copies outside the Play Store. But surely 99.9% of Android games are still installed through the Play Store. No matter how hard any particular ultra-popular game could have gone, the reality for an overwhelming majority of cases is that being outside that one store is death.
People are just too lazy and Steam is keeping them happy enough to not bother looking another way.
You say that like we are making any kind of sacrifice by using steam. I used Epic and Xbox Gamepass or whatever on PC for like a year or two but stopped using either because the steam experience is just better and the exclusives weren’t worth changing.
30% is the cut only if the sale happens on Steam itself. Devs can sell keys through other means and Valve gets 0%.
An offer made generously because they know it won’t matter. They’re basically a monopoly.
It definitely does matter. Some games effectively pay Valve about 15%, which basically nullifies Sweeneys whining since it’s roughly the same they’d pay on the Epic store.
You’re right about Steam being the dominant game store, but the narrative around it is all wrong. Steam offers far more functionality for their cut than any other competitor could even come close to.
75% is not “basically a monopoly”, especially not when there are so many other ways to buy and sell games. Plenty of games have been incredibly successful without ever being on Steam.
They have an overwhelming majority that makes assorted competitors individually irrelevant. Jesus, do I hate having to say “they have an overwhelming majority that makes assorted competitors individually irrelevant,” just because people get in a snit about the word “monopoly.”
You know Standard Oil didn’t own all the oil - right? They peaked around 85% of sales. They had many competitors. Those competitors did not matter.
For every game that’s done well outside Steam, there’s ten that eventually came to Steam and sold massively better than before. That jump is the power Steam wields. That is why we regulate competition, beyond ‘do competitors exist.’
The barrier to entry is a huge concern on whether something should be considered a monopoly or not. Extracting and refining oil is nowhere near the same as selling your videogame online. Today the barrier of entry for digital distribution incredibly low.
The epic games store user experience is awful. Exclusives are awful. I have zero reason to ever use it except for if I’d been taking advantage of the countless free games they’ve been giving away.
Steam offers a service, hosting downloads and all the backend for friends/multiplayer connectivity/etc isn’t free. If you’re big enough to not need that(minecraft), good for you! Otherwise, it’s clearly difficult to make a launcher/game platform that doesn’t suck ass(uplay/origin/etc) - sorry that steam is just better than any alternative right now.
I will buy from other storefronts if the deal is good, I have bought plenty from GOG. Epic are just anti-consumer and I refuse to support that store.
Steam just offers peace of mind with refunds and the feature set they provide is next to none, I haven’t been given a reason to look elsewhere primarily.
I know we happen to be a minority, but given how much valve has done for linux gaming, I’m happy to vote and support them with my wallet.
For reference, before they started giving a good linux experience I didn’t buy games for more than 15 years, so is not like the game developers were going to get 100% of the money I’m paying for games now, the choice is to get 70% or nothing because I wouldn’t play their games. Not only that, if the proton compatibility layer fails, I’m very confident that steam’s refund policy has my back, again, without this policy I wouldn’t buy games.
Remember, not everyone is you, and not everyone plays games the way you do.
I recently moved my main desktop to Linux (everything else has been for a long time), and - aside from some problems with Wayland (due to NVidia) - everything has just worked. Every game I’ve played has been working flawlessly. They’ve been doing an amazing job with Proton.
This is me too. I’d moved away from PC gaming completely when I dropped Windows from my PCs back during the XP era. The Steam Deck has brought me back though. I really like the experience, and I get a kickass Linux handheld PC for a great price.
I’ve stayed with Windows just because of that, but I can’t think of any games I regularly play that haven’t worked on my steam deck.
It seems you think some of that is valve’s fault.
The 30% is.
30% is an absurd cut for a store that has such a monopoly that if you don’t release there your game is pretty much cancelled
That’s exactly why they take 30%. Because having your game on Steam is a huge deal. Because Steam is very popular and lucrative. Because it’s well-made and useful. Little Timmy wants to skip to having a popular and lucrative platform without first doing the step of making it well-made and useful.
Removed by mod
👑
Lmao common steam W
