>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 previo

>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.