6 ms·

For anyone who seeks to emulate Valves internal structure you have to ask yourself one question - do you already have a core product with a near-unimpeachable m

For anyone who seeks to emulate Valves internal structure you have to ask yourself one question - do you already have a core product with a near-unimpeachable monopoly which consistently brings in enough money to keep the entire company afloat, with enough left over to bankroll moonshot R&D projects on top? If not, you can't afford to operate like Valve. They cancel 10 projects for every one they ship, if not for Steam bringing in endless billions of dollars they would have gone out of business a decade ago.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
So did they have a different structure before Steam existed? And then post-Steam, now there is total freedom to organize however they want? You're saying that this organization doesn't lead to success, but because they accidentally have a successful money maker, now they can run like this? I think there is disconnect here. There are successful companies that can operate like this, because this is a good way to get to success.
- jsheard 2y ago
  Early Valve coasted on the money Gabe Newell personally made as a senior Microsoft executive, so if you want to emulate that Valve then you'll need to find 8 or 9 figures in your bank account without taking any outside investments, in order to keep the company completely untainted by shareholder influence. That's not a template most founders can follow either. There's a timeline where startup Valve went through the standard publisher funding model instead and got pressured into releasing the "finished but not very fun" 1997 cut of Half Life, rather than taking an entire extra year (an eternity in game development cycles of that era) to overhaul the whole game at their leisure. Things could have gone very differently right from the start.
ric2b 2y ago
Steam isn't an unimpeachable monopoly, their competition is just so much worse.
- nerdjon 2y ago
  I disagree, many of the competitors do what is necessary just fine. There is a strong sentiment with many gamers of just not wanting to use an alternative and it is basically a non starter for many other stores. Many complain about the very idea of not all of their games being in the same place. This isn't necessarily anything monopolistic done on Valve's side. But it would be very hard for another store to make any meaningful impact regardless of how they are.
  - Systemmanic 2y ago
    I agree. I’ve met countless gamers who will simply not buy or play a game if it isn’t available on Steam. Myself included, and all of my gamer friends.
    - nerdjon 2y ago
      I never really understood this mentality, especially when on the console side people seem just fine with the idea of buying multiple consoles for exclusives. (not that I am agreeing with that either). There isn't a cost to having multiple stores, you don't even need to keep them running at all time. I get the concerns over the Epic app, but Heroic exists. Personally I have games on Steam, Xbox (cross buy between xbox and PC), Epic, and EA. Plus Game Pass. The only annoying part is when I go to install or buy a game, finding where I have it or making sure I don't already own it somewhere. But there are launchers like Playnite to address that. But it does feel like I am in the minority with this opinion.
      - Systemmanic 2y ago
        One reason I’ve heard is the stats and Achievements consolidation. Cross play solves this somewhat but it’s not consistent. PC is my main platform but I also have an Xbox (NHL games not available on PC), everything else is on Steam. I wouldn’t buy a PS5 for an exclusive. TBH exclusivity is annoying and I don’t want to reward it.
        2y ago
Cyph0n 2y ago
How is Steam a monopoly? The platform it runs on (Windows) is open, unlike the App Store. Competitors exist on said platform, including a store & game pass run by the platform owner. The fact that Steam still runs the show is a testament to their ability to just do things better than anyone else. Sure, there is a sort of network effect at play, but there is no other “moat” here - let alone a monopolistic one.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
  They are saying "Steam is a monopoly because they're so big", you are saying "Steam is not a monopoly because they're not anti-competitive", you're not disagreeing
  - Cyph0n 2y ago
    I am saying it’s not a monopoly at all because it’s a) not the only player in the PC games store market and b) has no mechanism in place to be able to enforce such a position even if it was.
    - Shekelphile 2y ago
      You can go back in history and apply that logic to any company and claim they weren't monopolies as a result. Standard oil and AT&T had plenty of competitors, none were able to grow beyond extremely small scale.
      - AlexCoventry 2y ago
        The key question is whether an antitrust target is engaging in uncompetitive practices. I haven't noticed any claims of Steam/Valve using uncompetitive practices (but I could have simply missed them.)
        j_maffe 2y ago
        Whether something is a monopoly and whether they've abused it in such a way that they should be struck with an antitrust suit are two different things. I don't think many would argue that Steam abused its monopoly.
quohort 2y ago
Steam isn't a monopoly. I, and everyone I know who uses steam is familiar with GOG or Epic games or Battle.net or some other service. You can even distribute your game independently (e.g. in the case of minecraft and some of the most successful PC games of all time) or just distribute it as a web game (increasingly feasible as WebGL, WebGPU, WASM etc. continue to advance). Steam is successful because it has good user experience compared to alternatives, and has a lot of major titles.
mmanfrin 2y ago
> near-unimpeachable monopoly The failures of other companies trying to emulate or capture that market do not a monopoly make. There is no real moat for Steam beyond customer loyalty and the fact that nearly every competitor sought to gain market through anti-consumer moves (exclusivity) rather than value-adds, and almost universally with shittier software to boot. There are a few notable counterexamples (GoG is a good store, value add, respectful of customers; but just didn't have the juice to establish itself beyond indie/abandonware games; Itch.io is doing fine in its niche). Just because customers prefer a product does not mean it's got an unimpeachable moat.
kibibu 2y ago
They had this structure before Steam

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

So did they have a different structure before Steam existed? And then post-Steam, now there is total freedom to organize however they want? You're saying that this organization doesn't lead to success, but because they accidentally have a successful money maker, now they can run like this? I think there is disconnect here. There are successful companies that can operate like this, because this is a good way to get to success.

jsheard 2y ago
Early Valve coasted on the money Gabe Newell personally made as a senior Microsoft executive, so if you want to emulate that Valve then you'll need to find 8 or 9 figures in your bank account without taking any outside investments, in order to keep the company completely untainted by shareholder influence. That's not a template most founders can follow either. There's a timeline where startup Valve went through the standard publisher funding model instead and got pressured into releasing the "finished but not very fun" 1997 cut of Half Life, rather than taking an entire extra year (an eternity in game development cycles of that era) to overhaul the whole game at their leisure. Things could have gone very differently right from the start.

ric2b 2y ago

Steam isn't an unimpeachable monopoly, their competition is just so much worse.

nerdjon 2y ago
I disagree, many of the competitors do what is necessary just fine. There is a strong sentiment with many gamers of just not wanting to use an alternative and it is basically a non starter for many other stores. Many complain about the very idea of not all of their games being in the same place. This isn't necessarily anything monopolistic done on Valve's side. But it would be very hard for another store to make any meaningful impact regardless of how they are.
- Systemmanic 2y ago
  I agree. I’ve met countless gamers who will simply not buy or play a game if it isn’t available on Steam. Myself included, and all of my gamer friends.
  - nerdjon 2y ago
    I never really understood this mentality, especially when on the console side people seem just fine with the idea of buying multiple consoles for exclusives. (not that I am agreeing with that either). There isn't a cost to having multiple stores, you don't even need to keep them running at all time. I get the concerns over the Epic app, but Heroic exists. Personally I have games on Steam, Xbox (cross buy between xbox and PC), Epic, and EA. Plus Game Pass. The only annoying part is when I go to install or buy a game, finding where I have it or making sure I don't already own it somewhere. But there are launchers like Playnite to address that. But it does feel like I am in the minority with this opinion.
    - Systemmanic 2y ago
      One reason I’ve heard is the stats and Achievements consolidation. Cross play solves this somewhat but it’s not consistent. PC is my main platform but I also have an Xbox (NHL games not available on PC), everything else is on Steam. I wouldn’t buy a PS5 for an exclusive. TBH exclusivity is annoying and I don’t want to reward it.
      - 2y ago

Cyph0n 2y ago

How is Steam a monopoly? The platform it runs on (Windows) is open, unlike the App Store. Competitors exist on said platform, including a store & game pass run by the platform owner. The fact that Steam still runs the show is a testament to their ability to just do things better than anyone else. Sure, there is a sort of network effect at play, but there is no other “moat” here - let alone a monopolistic one.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
They are saying "Steam is a monopoly because they're so big", you are saying "Steam is not a monopoly because they're not anti-competitive", you're not disagreeing
- Cyph0n 2y ago
  I am saying it’s not a monopoly at all because it’s a) not the only player in the PC games store market and b) has no mechanism in place to be able to enforce such a position even if it was.
  - Shekelphile 2y ago
    You can go back in history and apply that logic to any company and claim they weren't monopolies as a result. Standard oil and AT&T had plenty of competitors, none were able to grow beyond extremely small scale.
    - AlexCoventry 2y ago
      The key question is whether an antitrust target is engaging in uncompetitive practices. I haven't noticed any claims of Steam/Valve using uncompetitive practices (but I could have simply missed them.)
      - j_maffe 2y ago
        Whether something is a monopoly and whether they've abused it in such a way that they should be struck with an antitrust suit are two different things. I don't think many would argue that Steam abused its monopoly.

quohort 2y ago

Steam isn't a monopoly. I, and everyone I know who uses steam is familiar with GOG or Epic games or Battle.net or some other service. You can even distribute your game independently (e.g. in the case of minecraft and some of the most successful PC games of all time) or just distribute it as a web game (increasingly feasible as WebGL, WebGPU, WASM etc. continue to advance). Steam is successful because it has good user experience compared to alternatives, and has a lot of major titles.

mmanfrin 2y ago

> near-unimpeachable monopoly The failures of other companies trying to emulate or capture that market do not a monopoly make. There is no real moat for Steam beyond customer loyalty and the fact that nearly every competitor sought to gain market through anti-consumer moves (exclusivity) rather than value-adds, and almost universally with shittier software to boot. There are a few notable counterexamples (GoG is a good store, value add, respectful of customers; but just didn't have the juice to establish itself beyond indie/abandonware games; Itch.io is doing fine in its niche). Just because customers prefer a product does not mean it's got an unimpeachable moat.

kibibu 2y ago

They had this structure before Steam