4 ms·

And I'm asking you how exclusivity deals are more anti-consumer than exclusivity without deals. I'm not saying they have exclusivity deals with Steam and I'm no

And I'm asking you how exclusivity deals are more anti-consumer than exclusivity without deals. I'm not saying they have exclusivity deals with Steam and I'm not blaming Steam for anything, but that doesn't change the fact that as a consumer I'm forced to use Steam to purchase those games. In the same way I'm forced to used EGS to purchase their exclusive games. So why does a deal between a publisher and Valve or EGS make a difference to me, the consumer? Why aren't all exclusives anti-consumer regardless of a deal that might or might not exist? > I don't think you understand how many would-be pirates instead have gigantic Steam libraries. I don't understand your point though. Are you saying no one should compete with Steam because users will pirate the games? I don't think that's a good reason to give Steam a monopoly.

soulofmischief 3y ago
> And I'm asking you how exclusivity deals are more anti-consumer than exclusivity without deals. The former are in Valve's control, the latter are not. Valve can't help it if they're the best in town and no one else is able to compete at their level. > I don't understand your point though. Are you saying no one should compete with Steam because users will pirate the games? My point is that Steam offers a better service than piracy, which is very hard for a digital storefront to compete with. They achieve this by being more than a storefront. The way they conduct business is reasonably open and any funded competitor could emulate their success over time with careful design and engineering. Part of that is being consumer-friendly and having an open culture. > I don't think that's a good reason to give Steam a monopoly. No one gives them a monopoly. I don't follow your argument here, because you seem to be suggesting that we should handicap Steam in some kind of Harrison Bergeron scenario.
- ThatPlayer 3y ago
  Well let's stick with the exclusive discussion because I'm not sure where the other is going either. >The former are in Valve's control, the latter are not. Why does this distinction make a difference in how anti-consumer it is? The store owner or Valve's (lack of) control doesn't make it any better for me as a consumer. To summarize my position here to avoid more confusion: Exclusives deals don't make exclusive games any more anti-consumer. Because the deal or lack thereof doesn't effect me as a consumer. So my original reply is that all of these exclusive games are the same level of anti-consumer. But you only notice when it's not Steam exclusives, because that's your platform of choice. I'm not blaming Valve for anything, I'm just using games on their store as an example of games you don't think of as exclusives or anti-consumer.
  - soulofmischief 3y ago
    Valve doesn't do exclusive deals. Even some of their best first-party titles made it to consoles. I don't know how you can blame them for not having more competitors.
    - ThatPlayer 3y ago
      I don't know how you keep thinking I'm blaming Valve for anything when I've reiterated that I'm not multiple times. I'm just using games on their store as an example of games you don't think of as exclusives or anti-consumer.
      - soulofmischief 3y ago
        Your argument just makes no sense. Exclusive deals are extremely different from a game simply releasing on one store out of convenience.
        ThatPlayer 3y ago
        I'm not arguing about the differences, just that they're the same in one aspect. You're saying one is bad because it is anti-consumer. I'm pointing out that the other is the same level of anti-consumer, and that you have just not noticed. Deal or no deal is not relevant to the consumer so it doesn't change how anti-consumer it is.

soulofmischief 3y ago

> And I'm asking you how exclusivity deals are more anti-consumer than exclusivity without deals. The former are in Valve's control, the latter are not. Valve can't help it if they're the best in town and no one else is able to compete at their level. > I don't understand your point though. Are you saying no one should compete with Steam because users will pirate the games? My point is that Steam offers a better service than piracy, which is very hard for a digital storefront to compete with. They achieve this by being more than a storefront. The way they conduct business is reasonably open and any funded competitor could emulate their success over time with careful design and engineering. Part of that is being consumer-friendly and having an open culture. > I don't think that's a good reason to give Steam a monopoly. No one gives them a monopoly. I don't follow your argument here, because you seem to be suggesting that we should handicap Steam in some kind of Harrison Bergeron scenario.

ThatPlayer 3y ago
Well let's stick with the exclusive discussion because I'm not sure where the other is going either. >The former are in Valve's control, the latter are not. Why does this distinction make a difference in how anti-consumer it is? The store owner or Valve's (lack of) control doesn't make it any better for me as a consumer. To summarize my position here to avoid more confusion: Exclusives deals don't make exclusive games any more anti-consumer. Because the deal or lack thereof doesn't effect me as a consumer. So my original reply is that all of these exclusive games are the same level of anti-consumer. But you only notice when it's not Steam exclusives, because that's your platform of choice. I'm not blaming Valve for anything, I'm just using games on their store as an example of games you don't think of as exclusives or anti-consumer.
- soulofmischief 3y ago
  Valve doesn't do exclusive deals. Even some of their best first-party titles made it to consoles. I don't know how you can blame them for not having more competitors.
  - ThatPlayer 3y ago
    I don't know how you keep thinking I'm blaming Valve for anything when I've reiterated that I'm not multiple times. I'm just using games on their store as an example of games you don't think of as exclusives or anti-consumer.
    - soulofmischief 3y ago
      Your argument just makes no sense. Exclusive deals are extremely different from a game simply releasing on one store out of convenience.
      - ThatPlayer 3y ago
        I'm not arguing about the differences, just that they're the same in one aspect. You're saying one is bad because it is anti-consumer. I'm pointing out that the other is the same level of anti-consumer, and that you have just not noticed. Deal or no deal is not relevant to the consumer so it doesn't change how anti-consumer it is.