4 ms·

>Steam is popular and has a loud following because it does not make unethical choices that annoy users. I don't think that's true. I think Steam is popular bec

>Steam is popular and has a loud following because it does not make unethical choices that annoy users. I don't think that's true. I think Steam is popular because they were in the right place at the right time. Before Steam, the alternative for most games was driving to the store--that's who they were competing with. Steam has done many things to annoy users--they allow their store to be filled with absolute garbage shovelware for one. They still thrive because of momentum. The games are there because the user base is there, the user base is there because the games are there.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
It's partly first-mover advantage, but also Valve has repeatedly made moves that demonstrate their relative good will towards gamers and developers. Aside from their own (vanishingly few) games, Valve has never enforced any kind of exclusivity. You can even sell Steam keys through other vendors and Valve doesn't even get a cut. They helped launch the indie explosion in the mid oughties with their cross promotional stunts. They have so many sales, with such outrageous discounts, that many of their customers have dozens if not hundreds of games they unlikely to ever play. Said discounts set a new bar for what a sale even looks like, with '40% off' often eliciting general consensus of 'meh'. They have more tools to try and help users find games they might like than anyone. They worked with HTC to develop new VR tech, again with no exclusivity (unlike their competition). And as every Linux gamer here should recognize: they've done more to make Linux gaming a realistic option than anyone ever, and they never charged a dime for it. As much flak as Valve gets for not curating games and letting games with questionable content slide until some internets make a fuss, Steam is actually, objectively, really great.
- learc83 8y ago
  >Valve has never enforced any kind of exclusivity Because they have no need to. Why deal with the backlash when they own the market? >They have so many sales, with such outrageous discounts How does this demonstrate goodwill towards anyone? The developers are the ones lowering the prices for those sales. And pushing down the price of games to app store level prices isn’t something we should be celebrating. There's a very good argument that encouraging deep discounts hurts the industry in the long run. >They have more tools to try and help users find games they might like than anyone. What do you mean “than anyone”. Versus itch.io and the brand new Epic store? That’s not really a high bar. They could have 1 tool and that would literally be more than anyone. >And as every Linux gamer here should recognize: they've done more to make Linux gaming a realistic option than anyone ever, and they never charged a dime for it. They never charged a dime for it because they were trying to expand their hold over the market. This is like praising Google giving away Android. Their interest in Steam is because they were worried Microsoft was going to use the Windows store to force them off of Windows. > Steam is actually, objectively, really great You definitely can’t say it’s objectively great because it could be a lot worse. A single player dominating the market is almost never great for anyone.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    > Because they have no need to. Why deal with the backlash when they own the market? They didn't always own the market. Steam was not embraced by PC gamers when it debuted, yet Valve never asked for exclusivity agreements while it was growing and still doesn't ask for them even as new competitors emerge. > What do you mean “than anyone”. I mean precisely that, more than literally anyone else selling games anywhere at all. The fact that no one else even bothers doesn't detract from the fact that they try. > They never charged a dime for it because they were trying to expand their hold over the market. Years ago, that was a worthwhile argument. A happy alignment of interests. But now, when it is incredibly unlikely they're going to close the OS and force everyone into a walled garden? Seems wasteful of them to expend as many resources as they do on things like Proton. > You definitely can’t say it’s objectively great because it could be a lot worse. Um... what? I can't say it is really great because hypothetically it could be worse? > A single player dominating the market is almost never great for anyone. I don't disagree at all with that sentiment, but lets give credit where credit is due here. Valve earned their position at the top for a variety of reasons, and notably they aren't trying to use that position anti-competitively. Isn't that exactly the kind of behavior we want to acknowledge and support? I'm not going to give Epic a free pass just because they're not Steam, especially when they pull the anti-gamer shit they pull. There's already GOG and itch.io, which I'm much happier to support if I want to support someone for not being Steam.
    - learc83 8y ago
      >They didn't always own the market. Before they owned the market they were new and trying to win customers. Exclusivity agreements tend to happen when a previously dominant player starts to lose market share, not when a company is still in a growth phase. >I mean precisely that, more than literally anyone else selling games anywhere at all. That's like praising Windows PCs for having the best Antivirus software in 1997. I mean yeah you're not wrong but... Most of Steam's competition are stores from publishers with small catalogs that don't need the kind of discovery mechanisms that Steam does. GOG is has a much smaller curated selection so they same thing applies. Itch has a large catalog, but they are so small that they can't even be considered a competitor because of the network effects in Steam's favor. >Um... what? I can't say it is really great because hypothetically it could be worse? That sentence should have said "just because". You can't say it's objectively great just because it could be worse. >I'm not going to give Epic a free pass just because they're not Steam Who wants to give them a free pass? They'd probably be worse if they had a completely dominant market position the way Steam does. I don't want anyone to be completely dominant. I want competition. Their 30% cut and refusal to filter shovelware harms the industry because for 99% of indie devs, they completely control the market.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Semaphor 8y ago
  > They have so many sales, with such outrageous discounts That was a long, long time ago. Nowadays Steam sales are pretty mediocre and almost never the cheapest discount you can get. If you want discounts, go to IsThereAnyDeal [0], if you only want Steam keys, you can check that option. That is not to say that I don't think Steam is the best launcher and storefront of all the options I've seen and used. Even if I buy a game somewhere else (including GoG [1]), for information about the game I go to steam because it has all the info I want (and that is excluding the reviews which, as the biggest store, are also the most useful) [0]: https://isthereanydeal.com/ https://isthereanydeal.com/ [1]: https://www.gog.com/ https://www.gog.com/
  - mattmanser 8y ago
    If you compare steam to the PlayStation Store, or the XBox marketplace, their sales are much bigger, much deeper, and much cheaper still.
    - Semaphor 8y ago
      Can you though? Console games have always been horrendously expensive and those are actual monopolies (I assume? Haven't had a console since the Nintendo 64) for their respective consoles.
      - mattmanser 8y ago
        Yes, I think you can, in the PC game market everyone is competing against steam now. They're still setting the standard, without their deep sales every winter/summer/etc. the market would change.
freddie_mercury 8y ago
> Steam has done many things to annoy users I think people forget how much people hated Steam when it came out. I'm not sure I'd really call it "right place at the right time" either, since that sort of implies wild success pretty easily. My impression is more that Steam was 2-3 years ahead of its time but Valve believed in it and stuck through the hard times. Here are some quotes from 2004, when Steam & Half-Life 2 were brand new: "no one I know likes Steam at all." "Steam is one of the worst programs I've seen in the last few years. Everyone seems to have trouble with it... why would ANYONE use it?" "Bugs or no bugs, Steam is unacceptable IMHO." "All hail Valve, our next Microsoft Product Activation-like overlord." "Glad to see that they have given me an excuse to not purchase the game" "Some ideas of Steam are nice, but I still don't like the idea of buying a product through it. Skipping the publishers is a bad thing." "Sorry Valve, but I have no intention of letting Steam ever tough my PC." https://games.slashdot.org/story/04/10/23/0812224/half-life-2-retail-to-require-steam-activation https://games.slashdot.org/story/04/10/23/0812224/half-life-... https://games.slashdot.org/story/04/09/20/2012208/no-half-life-2-on-steam https://games.slashdot.org/story/04/09/20/2012208/no-half-li...
- learc83 8y ago
  >"right place at the right time" By right place, right time I don't mean they started at exactly the right time, or that they achieved success quickly. I mean they were around when technology (broadband penetration, storage space etc..) finally reached the point where people were willing to buy most of their games online. Most "instant success" stories aren't really instant.
Mirioron 8y ago
>Steam has done many things to annoy users--they allow their store to be filled with absolute garbage shovelware for one. I consider this to be an advantage rather than annoyance.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

It's partly first-mover advantage, but also Valve has repeatedly made moves that demonstrate their relative good will towards gamers and developers. Aside from their own (vanishingly few) games, Valve has never enforced any kind of exclusivity. You can even sell Steam keys through other vendors and Valve doesn't even get a cut. They helped launch the indie explosion in the mid oughties with their cross promotional stunts. They have so many sales, with such outrageous discounts, that many of their customers have dozens if not hundreds of games they unlikely to ever play. Said discounts set a new bar for what a sale even looks like, with '40% off' often eliciting general consensus of 'meh'. They have more tools to try and help users find games they might like than anyone. They worked with HTC to develop new VR tech, again with no exclusivity (unlike their competition). And as every Linux gamer here should recognize: they've done more to make Linux gaming a realistic option than anyone ever, and they never charged a dime for it. As much flak as Valve gets for not curating games and letting games with questionable content slide until some internets make a fuss, Steam is actually, objectively, really great.

learc83 8y ago
>Valve has never enforced any kind of exclusivity Because they have no need to. Why deal with the backlash when they own the market? >They have so many sales, with such outrageous discounts How does this demonstrate goodwill towards anyone? The developers are the ones lowering the prices for those sales. And pushing down the price of games to app store level prices isn’t something we should be celebrating. There's a very good argument that encouraging deep discounts hurts the industry in the long run. >They have more tools to try and help users find games they might like than anyone. What do you mean “than anyone”. Versus itch.io and the brand new Epic store? That’s not really a high bar. They could have 1 tool and that would literally be more than anyone. >And as every Linux gamer here should recognize: they've done more to make Linux gaming a realistic option than anyone ever, and they never charged a dime for it. They never charged a dime for it because they were trying to expand their hold over the market. This is like praising Google giving away Android. Their interest in Steam is because they were worried Microsoft was going to use the Windows store to force them off of Windows. > Steam is actually, objectively, really great You definitely can’t say it’s objectively great because it could be a lot worse. A single player dominating the market is almost never great for anyone.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  > Because they have no need to. Why deal with the backlash when they own the market? They didn't always own the market. Steam was not embraced by PC gamers when it debuted, yet Valve never asked for exclusivity agreements while it was growing and still doesn't ask for them even as new competitors emerge. > What do you mean “than anyone”. I mean precisely that, more than literally anyone else selling games anywhere at all. The fact that no one else even bothers doesn't detract from the fact that they try. > They never charged a dime for it because they were trying to expand their hold over the market. Years ago, that was a worthwhile argument. A happy alignment of interests. But now, when it is incredibly unlikely they're going to close the OS and force everyone into a walled garden? Seems wasteful of them to expend as many resources as they do on things like Proton. > You definitely can’t say it’s objectively great because it could be a lot worse. Um... what? I can't say it is really great because hypothetically it could be worse? > A single player dominating the market is almost never great for anyone. I don't disagree at all with that sentiment, but lets give credit where credit is due here. Valve earned their position at the top for a variety of reasons, and notably they aren't trying to use that position anti-competitively. Isn't that exactly the kind of behavior we want to acknowledge and support? I'm not going to give Epic a free pass just because they're not Steam, especially when they pull the anti-gamer shit they pull. There's already GOG and itch.io, which I'm much happier to support if I want to support someone for not being Steam.
  - learc83 8y ago
    >They didn't always own the market. Before they owned the market they were new and trying to win customers. Exclusivity agreements tend to happen when a previously dominant player starts to lose market share, not when a company is still in a growth phase. >I mean precisely that, more than literally anyone else selling games anywhere at all. That's like praising Windows PCs for having the best Antivirus software in 1997. I mean yeah you're not wrong but... Most of Steam's competition are stores from publishers with small catalogs that don't need the kind of discovery mechanisms that Steam does. GOG is has a much smaller curated selection so they same thing applies. Itch has a large catalog, but they are so small that they can't even be considered a competitor because of the network effects in Steam's favor. >Um... what? I can't say it is really great because hypothetically it could be worse? That sentence should have said "just because". You can't say it's objectively great just because it could be worse. >I'm not going to give Epic a free pass just because they're not Steam Who wants to give them a free pass? They'd probably be worse if they had a completely dominant market position the way Steam does. I don't want anyone to be completely dominant. I want competition. Their 30% cut and refusal to filter shovelware harms the industry because for 99% of indie devs, they completely control the market.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Semaphor 8y ago
> They have so many sales, with such outrageous discounts That was a long, long time ago. Nowadays Steam sales are pretty mediocre and almost never the cheapest discount you can get. If you want discounts, go to IsThereAnyDeal [0], if you only want Steam keys, you can check that option. That is not to say that I don't think Steam is the best launcher and storefront of all the options I've seen and used. Even if I buy a game somewhere else (including GoG [1]), for information about the game I go to steam because it has all the info I want (and that is excluding the reviews which, as the biggest store, are also the most useful) [0]: https://isthereanydeal.com/ https://isthereanydeal.com/ [1]: https://www.gog.com/ https://www.gog.com/
- mattmanser 8y ago
  If you compare steam to the PlayStation Store, or the XBox marketplace, their sales are much bigger, much deeper, and much cheaper still.
  - Semaphor 8y ago
    Can you though? Console games have always been horrendously expensive and those are actual monopolies (I assume? Haven't had a console since the Nintendo 64) for their respective consoles.
    - mattmanser 8y ago
      Yes, I think you can, in the PC game market everyone is competing against steam now. They're still setting the standard, without their deep sales every winter/summer/etc. the market would change.

freddie_mercury 8y ago

> Steam has done many things to annoy users I think people forget how much people hated Steam when it came out. I'm not sure I'd really call it "right place at the right time" either, since that sort of implies wild success pretty easily. My impression is more that Steam was 2-3 years ahead of its time but Valve believed in it and stuck through the hard times. Here are some quotes from 2004, when Steam & Half-Life 2 were brand new: "no one I know likes Steam at all." "Steam is one of the worst programs I've seen in the last few years. Everyone seems to have trouble with it... why would ANYONE use it?" "Bugs or no bugs, Steam is unacceptable IMHO." "All hail Valve, our next Microsoft Product Activation-like overlord." "Glad to see that they have given me an excuse to not purchase the game" "Some ideas of Steam are nice, but I still don't like the idea of buying a product through it. Skipping the publishers is a bad thing." "Sorry Valve, but I have no intention of letting Steam ever tough my PC." https://games.slashdot.org/story/04/10/23/0812224/half-life-2-retail-to-require-steam-activation https://games.slashdot.org/story/04/10/23/0812224/half-life-... https://games.slashdot.org/story/04/09/20/2012208/no-half-life-2-on-steam https://games.slashdot.org/story/04/09/20/2012208/no-half-li...

learc83 8y ago
>"right place at the right time" By right place, right time I don't mean they started at exactly the right time, or that they achieved success quickly. I mean they were around when technology (broadband penetration, storage space etc..) finally reached the point where people were willing to buy most of their games online. Most "instant success" stories aren't really instant.

Mirioron 8y ago

>Steam has done many things to annoy users--they allow their store to be filled with absolute garbage shovelware for one. I consider this to be an advantage rather than annoyance.