4 ms·

First up, monopoly is a false argument here. Consumers have choice, and Steam doesn't prevent games from launching on other platforms. Compare this to Epic, wh

by esyir 6y ago

First up, monopoly is a false argument here. Consumers have choice, and Steam doesn't prevent games from launching on other platforms. Compare this to Epic, which directly impacts consumers by limiting their choice of platform. Epic's work here is a reduction in consumer agency, not an increase. Furthermore, Epic has shown direct anti-consumer activity, with interference in games explicitly available for the Steam audience. As such, from their previous and current behavior, I can see the Epic store only as a long-term negative, with the worsening of user experience and the introduction of even more "store exclusives" into the ecosystem. Add in the permissionless acquisition of private user steam data files, and we now get security issues in the mix. I'm more amenable to origin. They make the games, they can have it on their own platform. They don't go out targeting games with multiple distribution platforms to buy exclusivity.

BoorishBears 6y ago
You seem confused on the definition of a monopoly. In the real-world, it doesn't mean you actively break the knee caps of anyone who tries to do what you're doing. It means you have singular control over the industry though, and that's exactly what Steam had, to the point no one has been able to compete with them. EA wanted to have their own platform with Origin and Steam is so big and so immovable they were forced to come crawling back.. You're free to be upset that someone had the audacity to play hardball with them, but Steam's very existence is what reduces choice of game storefronts, not Epic, it's hilarious to pretend otherwise. Epic games has stated repeatedly said the moment Steam goes to 88% cut for devs, they will stop exclusives. It was the reason they've given from the start. Thats about as far from anti-consumer as you get
- esyir 6y ago
  You say monopoly over and over as though I made that argument. Rather I think it's fairly irrelevant here. Rather the actual consumer experience, and consumer agency is to me far more important. This has been explicitly degraded by Epic, unless exclusivity is now good for consumers. You celebrate this as "playing hardball" at the cost of consumers, but probably would outraged if steam were return fire. As for their claims on we're just trying to help the devs get better cuts, I'll believe them when I see an explicit legally binding document. Right now, I trust Epic about as much as I trust tencent.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    There has been no customer agency as Steam had a monopoly what are you not getting? A multi billion dollar publisher can't avoid being on Steam after years of struggling in what universe do you think that means devs have agency to not be on Steam. > You celebrate this as "playing hardball" at the cost of consumers, but probably would outraged if steam were return fire. You realize the return fire from the people with their finger around the throat of an industry isn't the same right? - It's kind of annoying replying with the same thing to both your comments. You clearly know nothing about this industry past playing video games. As someone who worked in it and worked on launched titles, please hush up until you actually do some research and learn about what role publishers and store fronts and value adds all play here. This isn't Reddit, there's a slightly higher expectation of knowing what you're talking about.

by esyir 6y ago

BoorishBears 6y ago

You seem confused on the definition of a monopoly. In the real-world, it doesn't mean you actively break the knee caps of anyone who tries to do what you're doing. It means you have singular control over the industry though, and that's exactly what Steam had, to the point no one has been able to compete with them. EA wanted to have their own platform with Origin and Steam is so big and so immovable they were forced to come crawling back.. You're free to be upset that someone had the audacity to play hardball with them, but Steam's very existence is what reduces choice of game storefronts, not Epic, it's hilarious to pretend otherwise. Epic games has stated repeatedly said the moment Steam goes to 88% cut for devs, they will stop exclusives. It was the reason they've given from the start. Thats about as far from anti-consumer as you get

esyir 6y ago
You say monopoly over and over as though I made that argument. Rather I think it's fairly irrelevant here. Rather the actual consumer experience, and consumer agency is to me far more important. This has been explicitly degraded by Epic, unless exclusivity is now good for consumers. You celebrate this as "playing hardball" at the cost of consumers, but probably would outraged if steam were return fire. As for their claims on we're just trying to help the devs get better cuts, I'll believe them when I see an explicit legally binding document. Right now, I trust Epic about as much as I trust tencent.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  There has been no customer agency as Steam had a monopoly what are you not getting? A multi billion dollar publisher can't avoid being on Steam after years of struggling in what universe do you think that means devs have agency to not be on Steam. > You celebrate this as "playing hardball" at the cost of consumers, but probably would outraged if steam were return fire. You realize the return fire from the people with their finger around the throat of an industry isn't the same right? - It's kind of annoying replying with the same thing to both your comments. You clearly know nothing about this industry past playing video games. As someone who worked in it and worked on launched titles, please hush up until you actually do some research and learn about what role publishers and store fronts and value adds all play here. This isn't Reddit, there's a slightly higher expectation of knowing what you're talking about.