6 ms·

They’re not saints, especially with the games distribution platform monopoly they’re sitting on top of, but... I really think Valve have become the de-facto ow

They’re not saints, especially with the games distribution platform monopoly they’re sitting on top of, but... I really think Valve have become the de-facto owners of the “don’t be evil” motto nowadays, even if they don’t advertise themselves as such.

dagurp 2y ago
By the low standards set by other companies in similar positions I think they're doing quite well.
phoronixrly 2y ago
I hope Gabe Newell outlives me, because I don't want to see Valve go down the road of other game studios...
- Brybry 2y ago
  My main long term worry with Steam is that Gaben will die and then Valve will IPO.
  - tjpnz 2y ago
    The spectre of a post-IPO Half Life 3 is something which fills me with dread.
- butlike 2y ago
  [flagged]
ziddoap 2y ago
How do you qualify them as a monopoly? I have 3 different non-Steam game stores and another 3 or 4 non-Steam game-specific launchers on my PC.
- FirmwareBurner 2y ago
  >How do you qualify them as a monopoly? If you're a game dev, small or big it doesn't matter, and your game isn't on Steam, it might as well not exist. The sales and exposure of a game on Steam dwarf all other alternate PC storefronts. Even Ubisoft caved in and released their games on Steam. Monopoly doesn't mean being the only game in town, you can have 100 other competitors, but if your competitors have <10% market share and you have >90% then you're basically a monopoly.
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    >If you're a game dev, small or big it doesn't matter, and your game isn't on Steam, it might as well not exist That's an exaggeration. World of Warcraft, COD, League of Legends, all exist just fine. For brand new games, The Bazaar is doing very well and they're using their own launcher. (Slightly off-topic, but The Bazaar is really good, for anyone who likes card-based auto-battler games! Highly recommend.)
    - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
      Those games are the exceptions that prove the rule. There's some major gaming franchises out there that basically have their own gravity field at this point and can drive people to different storefronts(Fortnite, Minecraft, etc), but outside of those games, forget it, if your new game isn't a AAAA blockbuster and isn't on Steam, most people won't really carea bout it.
      - DrillShopper 2y ago
        That's hyperbole at best, especially given that places like itch.io and GoG exist. CDPR also puts all of their games DRM free from release on GoG - including The Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk 2077.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        As long as Steam's pricing parity rule of thumb exists, there's only so much those others can do to compete. The only real reason people use alternative stores is to save money, and Valve put a silent hand on that.
dpatterbee 2y ago
Steam isn't really a monopoly though, everyone is free to use whatever marketplace they choose on PC. Steam's just the best one.
- butlike 2y ago
  It's economies of scale. I strongly feel "just grab it on steam," which my friends say, is colloquially equivalent to "grab a band-aid". Both Steam and Band-Aid are brand names.
- TiredOfLife 2y ago
  Same with Microsoft in 90's
  - dpatterbee 2y ago
    Microsoft used its influence over OEMs to stifle their competition in the browser market. This blog post is about how Valve are very much not doing that.
    - tomnipotent 2y ago
      Valve used its influence over game publishers to stifle their competition in the digital distribution market. I'm a happy Valve customer, and I'd still likely buy with them even if other platform's offered lower prices, but that doesn't change that they've leveraged their market domination to force concessions from publishers that benefit their business at the cost of competitors and customers.
      - SXX 2y ago
        I'm game developer, co-founder of my own company and I hate Valve 30% cut. Yet Valve did nothing to stiffle competition. Their only major requirement for games published on Steam was that games suppose to get same efficient discounts as they get on other storefronts. E.g you cannot constantly sell your game on Epic Games store for $10 while Steam version cost never drops below $12. Also game developers are allowed to request sane amount of Steam keys for free and sell them elsewhere while pocketing all the profit while Valve covers all the distribution costs. Epic Games stiffled itself. Their store is shitty and dont even have player reviews. No surprise they have no customers except those who come to play Fortnite or get free games.
sneak 2y ago
Not only is Steam not a monopoly, TFA mentions how it’s possible to easily install alternative app stores on the Steam Deck. It’s not just factually wrong to call them a monopoly, it’s uncharitable given that they are not engaging in anticompetitive practices despite being in a position (and arguably having the right) to do so.
- forrestthewoods 2y ago
  They have an implicit most favored nation clause which is by definition anti-competitive. Valve takes 30%. You can’t, in practice, sell your game on Steam and on another store at a lower price. That’s anticompetitive. Downvote me if you want. But I recommend reading the transcripts from the Wolfire Games antitrust lawsuit against Valve before you do! They’re not a good look for Valve to say the least.
  - oarsinsync 2y ago
    > Valve takes 30%. You can’t, in practice, sell your game on Steam and on another store at a lower price. Note the use of ‘store’ here. You can sell your game on your own website for a lower price. One example is Factorio, that is cheaper on factorio.com than it is on Steam, Gog, or Humble. Steam, Gog, and Humble all sell at the same price, however.
    - forrestthewoods 2y ago
      > Note the use of ‘store’ here No. It’s an implicit rule. You don’t get to language lawyer. > One example is Factorio, that is cheaper on factorio.com Just checked, $35 on both. Valve would only allow a dev to sell a game on their website for a lower price so long as the game sales numbers were not a threat to Steam. If Factorio sold very less on its website and suddenly 90% of sales were direct Valve would not be pleased and there would be consequences.
      - cma 2y ago
        Isn't that only true for selling steam keys, not the whole game? Bigger problem with the monopoly is less sales on steam means less visibility in steam's algorithm, so you get punished for having people buy off steam. Same if you want a video on your site: if you don't YouTube embed and instead host yourself, you get less amplified by youtube even if people want to watch it just as much. YouTube ends up getting to plaster ads interrupting your website trailer as much as they do on YouTube. If you spread your marketing to a steam competitor with better cut you get the same problem, less amplification on Steam. Steam is today stone soup, Valve used to put in more of the meat and veggies but now that's more and more up to the captive devs. For a time Valve was the most profitable major company per employee in the US from this stone soup arrangement, but they did eventually have to drop their rates on the biggest devs, announced either a few days before or after the Epic Games Store launched.
giancarlostoro 2y ago
I find it funny that every time other publishers try to recreate Steam with their own catalogues, a good chunk of gamers (myself included) just refuse to buy "exclusives" on other platforms, to the point they eventually crawl back to Steam. EA held out for a LONG time. I broke my reluctance only once because I wanted to play the latest FarCry game, but otherwise, I've kept all my games on Steam. They eventually caved too. What's also interesting is some games will unlock for you if you buy them from their own stores, like the Elder Scrolls Online MMO will unlock on Steam for you if you just link your Steam account. My only annoyance with them is with Valve for not making new games / franchises. They clearly have a good talent pool, but they're so much slower than Nintendo it feels like in this regard. They're finally adding a new game, but its just a Team Fortress spiritual successor.
- mazork 2y ago
  Deadlock is absolutely not a Team Fortress spiritual successor, it has much much more in common with Dota 2 than TF2, and is really full of interesting features and polish for where it's at in its development.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  In some ways, it's because valve caved and did the equivalent of tax cuts for the rich. You have revenue more than like, 25 million/yr as a publisher and you reduce your infamous 30% cut to 20%. Im sure at thst point it's more worth considering.
lolinder 2y ago
> They’re not saints, especially with the games distribution platform monopoly they’re sitting on top of They got and have maintained that monopoly (I'll let others debate the merits of that wording) by being very very good to their users, which doesn't make the existence of the monopoly evidence that they aren't saints. If they were maintaining it through anticompetitive means, sure, but I've never seen anyone claim that they are, even Epic (who would definitely be making noise if they thought they could get anyone to listen). The desktop video gaming ecosystem is in perhaps the best shape possible: there's one clear winner at the moment who makes all customers very happy, with a few runners up hedging against that winner becoming abusive after all. If Steam became worse than Epic it wouldn't take long for Epic to overtake them, but as long as it's not worse it's nice that everyone has agreed on a standard platform.
- nottorp 2y ago
  > by being very very good to their users For example, I still don't use Epic. And I've probably even paid on Steam for games that Epic gave away for free. What's worrying is Steam has enough mass to preclude me from buying games on GoG to a point. Linux support, for one. Frictionless playing on a Deck if i choose to get one in the future, for two. Steam built in streaming, for three. I bought GoG first for a couple years, but now I'm agnostic again. Esp with games that have Linux versions. ------------ Still, the only games you really own are those you've downloaded the crack for. Unless they're from GoG and DRM free. And only if you have a good backup strategy :)
- dividuum 2y ago
  > [...] by being very very good to their users [...] Helps that they don't have to be very very good to shareholders that don't give a fuck about games and just want money. I'm not really looking forward to find out what happens once Gabe passes on control of the company.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Yeah, when you wanna be evil, be evil to devs. They are stuck on two fronts and gamers are already pre-disposed to blame them for any problems anyway. >If they were maintaining it through anticompetitive Well we know they are now thanks to the lawsuits shedding light in the long known pricing parity clauses. Anyone asking "why isn't this game cheaper on Epic if take take a smaller cut" now has their answer. Without risking any dev's NDA.
kranke155 2y ago
Gabe Newell became a Microsoft millionaire decided to have a company who did things his way. Turns out he’s quite an ethical guy.
butlike 2y ago
Isn't it kind of a bloodsport to get into the midweek madness or seasonal sales? It's like curated playlists in the music apps but for games. Anecdotally I've heard it really does help to get on those Steam lists.
haunter 2y ago
My bigger problem with Valve is their unregulated underage gambling platform that they could shutdown in a second but they don't because $ $ $
Shacklz 2y ago
Unlike other corporations, they actually didn't really do all that much to make it a monopoly though. It's kind of an organic monopoly simply by being better than everything else, by a wide margin. There's not much "lock-in" apart from the games one owns on the platform; and the social aspects of steam are mostly negligible or niche - sure there's the friendlist, but no gamer I know uses steam voice-chat so the friendlist is mostly replicated in discord and similar anyway.
- piyuv 2y ago
  The library one amasses is a huge lock-in though, you’re downplaying it
  - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
    I don't see it as lock-in as you don't have to keep buying games from Steam - you can just buy games from other places if you want and then have multiple libraries.
mrighele 2y ago
> They’re not saints, especially with the games distribution platform monopoly they’re sitting on top of They are a monopoly, but it doesn't look to me that they are taking particular advantage of the position. I buy mostly indie games, so I may be out of the loop, but what are they doing that makes them "not saints" ? (Expecially in relation to their market share)
- whytevuhuni 2y ago
  I believe saints would implement some sort of distributed platform that others could interoperate with, by sharing the launcher’s list of games (e.g. have Epic games automatically appear on the list), share the list of friends and achievements between platforms, and so on. Break the network effect, and incentivise things that work against it. Implement open protocols rather than walled gardens. Allow other platforms to truly have a chance. Saints sadly have no place in the capitalistic world we live in though. If they exist, they are quickly outcompeted.
  - piyuv 2y ago
    Saints wouldn’t have DRM, a-la GOG
vel0city 2y ago
They profit off getting kids addicted to gambling. Is that not evil?
- ZeroTalent 2y ago
  Right. There is 1 good thing about Steam (it can be summarized to the point of openness), and the rest is evil. I don't get the article. They have no morals with how they make money. No morals in politics. They are running a monopoly with a 30% cut. How is that a "do no evil" company? Because you can install an app from Epic? Give me a break...
- Rohansi 2y ago
  While I don't disagree with you I also don't think Valve is particularly bad in this area. Valve's games are not made for younger kids and Steam's parental controls are excellent. Mobile games, especially Roblox, are a lot worse because they target much younger children with less parental control.
dartharva 2y ago
They have done absolutely nothing to be a monopoly. The only reason they are at the top is that their competition consistently keeps shooting themselves in the foot.

dagurp 2y ago

By the low standards set by other companies in similar positions I think they're doing quite well.

phoronixrly 2y ago

I hope Gabe Newell outlives me, because I don't want to see Valve go down the road of other game studios...

Brybry 2y ago
My main long term worry with Steam is that Gaben will die and then Valve will IPO.
- tjpnz 2y ago
  The spectre of a post-IPO Half Life 3 is something which fills me with dread.
butlike 2y ago
[flagged]

ziddoap 2y ago

How do you qualify them as a monopoly? I have 3 different non-Steam game stores and another 3 or 4 non-Steam game-specific launchers on my PC.

FirmwareBurner 2y ago
>How do you qualify them as a monopoly? If you're a game dev, small or big it doesn't matter, and your game isn't on Steam, it might as well not exist. The sales and exposure of a game on Steam dwarf all other alternate PC storefronts. Even Ubisoft caved in and released their games on Steam. Monopoly doesn't mean being the only game in town, you can have 100 other competitors, but if your competitors have <10% market share and you have >90% then you're basically a monopoly.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  >If you're a game dev, small or big it doesn't matter, and your game isn't on Steam, it might as well not exist That's an exaggeration. World of Warcraft, COD, League of Legends, all exist just fine. For brand new games, The Bazaar is doing very well and they're using their own launcher. (Slightly off-topic, but The Bazaar is really good, for anyone who likes card-based auto-battler games! Highly recommend.)
  - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
    Those games are the exceptions that prove the rule. There's some major gaming franchises out there that basically have their own gravity field at this point and can drive people to different storefronts(Fortnite, Minecraft, etc), but outside of those games, forget it, if your new game isn't a AAAA blockbuster and isn't on Steam, most people won't really carea bout it.
    - DrillShopper 2y ago
      That's hyperbole at best, especially given that places like itch.io and GoG exist. CDPR also puts all of their games DRM free from release on GoG - including The Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk 2077.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        As long as Steam's pricing parity rule of thumb exists, there's only so much those others can do to compete. The only real reason people use alternative stores is to save money, and Valve put a silent hand on that.

dpatterbee 2y ago

Steam isn't really a monopoly though, everyone is free to use whatever marketplace they choose on PC. Steam's just the best one.

butlike 2y ago
It's economies of scale. I strongly feel "just grab it on steam," which my friends say, is colloquially equivalent to "grab a band-aid". Both Steam and Band-Aid are brand names.
TiredOfLife 2y ago
Same with Microsoft in 90's
- dpatterbee 2y ago
  Microsoft used its influence over OEMs to stifle their competition in the browser market. This blog post is about how Valve are very much not doing that.
  - tomnipotent 2y ago
    Valve used its influence over game publishers to stifle their competition in the digital distribution market. I'm a happy Valve customer, and I'd still likely buy with them even if other platform's offered lower prices, but that doesn't change that they've leveraged their market domination to force concessions from publishers that benefit their business at the cost of competitors and customers.
    - SXX 2y ago
      I'm game developer, co-founder of my own company and I hate Valve 30% cut. Yet Valve did nothing to stiffle competition. Their only major requirement for games published on Steam was that games suppose to get same efficient discounts as they get on other storefronts. E.g you cannot constantly sell your game on Epic Games store for $10 while Steam version cost never drops below $12. Also game developers are allowed to request sane amount of Steam keys for free and sell them elsewhere while pocketing all the profit while Valve covers all the distribution costs. Epic Games stiffled itself. Their store is shitty and dont even have player reviews. No surprise they have no customers except those who come to play Fortnite or get free games.

sneak 2y ago

Not only is Steam not a monopoly, TFA mentions how it’s possible to easily install alternative app stores on the Steam Deck. It’s not just factually wrong to call them a monopoly, it’s uncharitable given that they are not engaging in anticompetitive practices despite being in a position (and arguably having the right) to do so.

forrestthewoods 2y ago
They have an implicit most favored nation clause which is by definition anti-competitive. Valve takes 30%. You can’t, in practice, sell your game on Steam and on another store at a lower price. That’s anticompetitive. Downvote me if you want. But I recommend reading the transcripts from the Wolfire Games antitrust lawsuit against Valve before you do! They’re not a good look for Valve to say the least.
- oarsinsync 2y ago
  > Valve takes 30%. You can’t, in practice, sell your game on Steam and on another store at a lower price. Note the use of ‘store’ here. You can sell your game on your own website for a lower price. One example is Factorio, that is cheaper on factorio.com than it is on Steam, Gog, or Humble. Steam, Gog, and Humble all sell at the same price, however.
  - forrestthewoods 2y ago
    > Note the use of ‘store’ here No. It’s an implicit rule. You don’t get to language lawyer. > One example is Factorio, that is cheaper on factorio.com Just checked, $35 on both. Valve would only allow a dev to sell a game on their website for a lower price so long as the game sales numbers were not a threat to Steam. If Factorio sold very less on its website and suddenly 90% of sales were direct Valve would not be pleased and there would be consequences.
    - cma 2y ago
      Isn't that only true for selling steam keys, not the whole game? Bigger problem with the monopoly is less sales on steam means less visibility in steam's algorithm, so you get punished for having people buy off steam. Same if you want a video on your site: if you don't YouTube embed and instead host yourself, you get less amplified by youtube even if people want to watch it just as much. YouTube ends up getting to plaster ads interrupting your website trailer as much as they do on YouTube. If you spread your marketing to a steam competitor with better cut you get the same problem, less amplification on Steam. Steam is today stone soup, Valve used to put in more of the meat and veggies but now that's more and more up to the captive devs. For a time Valve was the most profitable major company per employee in the US from this stone soup arrangement, but they did eventually have to drop their rates on the biggest devs, announced either a few days before or after the Epic Games Store launched.

giancarlostoro 2y ago

I find it funny that every time other publishers try to recreate Steam with their own catalogues, a good chunk of gamers (myself included) just refuse to buy "exclusives" on other platforms, to the point they eventually crawl back to Steam. EA held out for a LONG time. I broke my reluctance only once because I wanted to play the latest FarCry game, but otherwise, I've kept all my games on Steam. They eventually caved too. What's also interesting is some games will unlock for you if you buy them from their own stores, like the Elder Scrolls Online MMO will unlock on Steam for you if you just link your Steam account. My only annoyance with them is with Valve for not making new games / franchises. They clearly have a good talent pool, but they're so much slower than Nintendo it feels like in this regard. They're finally adding a new game, but its just a Team Fortress spiritual successor.

mazork 2y ago
Deadlock is absolutely not a Team Fortress spiritual successor, it has much much more in common with Dota 2 than TF2, and is really full of interesting features and polish for where it's at in its development.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
In some ways, it's because valve caved and did the equivalent of tax cuts for the rich. You have revenue more than like, 25 million/yr as a publisher and you reduce your infamous 30% cut to 20%. Im sure at thst point it's more worth considering.

lolinder 2y ago

> They’re not saints, especially with the games distribution platform monopoly they’re sitting on top of They got and have maintained that monopoly (I'll let others debate the merits of that wording) by being very very good to their users, which doesn't make the existence of the monopoly evidence that they aren't saints. If they were maintaining it through anticompetitive means, sure, but I've never seen anyone claim that they are, even Epic (who would definitely be making noise if they thought they could get anyone to listen). The desktop video gaming ecosystem is in perhaps the best shape possible: there's one clear winner at the moment who makes all customers very happy, with a few runners up hedging against that winner becoming abusive after all. If Steam became worse than Epic it wouldn't take long for Epic to overtake them, but as long as it's not worse it's nice that everyone has agreed on a standard platform.

nottorp 2y ago
> by being very very good to their users For example, I still don't use Epic. And I've probably even paid on Steam for games that Epic gave away for free. What's worrying is Steam has enough mass to preclude me from buying games on GoG to a point. Linux support, for one. Frictionless playing on a Deck if i choose to get one in the future, for two. Steam built in streaming, for three. I bought GoG first for a couple years, but now I'm agnostic again. Esp with games that have Linux versions. ------------ Still, the only games you really own are those you've downloaded the crack for. Unless they're from GoG and DRM free. And only if you have a good backup strategy :)
dividuum 2y ago
> [...] by being very very good to their users [...] Helps that they don't have to be very very good to shareholders that don't give a fuck about games and just want money. I'm not really looking forward to find out what happens once Gabe passes on control of the company.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
Yeah, when you wanna be evil, be evil to devs. They are stuck on two fronts and gamers are already pre-disposed to blame them for any problems anyway. >If they were maintaining it through anticompetitive Well we know they are now thanks to the lawsuits shedding light in the long known pricing parity clauses. Anyone asking "why isn't this game cheaper on Epic if take take a smaller cut" now has their answer. Without risking any dev's NDA.

kranke155 2y ago

Gabe Newell became a Microsoft millionaire decided to have a company who did things his way. Turns out he’s quite an ethical guy.

butlike 2y ago

Isn't it kind of a bloodsport to get into the midweek madness or seasonal sales? It's like curated playlists in the music apps but for games. Anecdotally I've heard it really does help to get on those Steam lists.

haunter 2y ago

My bigger problem with Valve is their unregulated underage gambling platform that they could shutdown in a second but they don't because $ $ $

Shacklz 2y ago

Unlike other corporations, they actually didn't really do all that much to make it a monopoly though. It's kind of an organic monopoly simply by being better than everything else, by a wide margin. There's not much "lock-in" apart from the games one owns on the platform; and the social aspects of steam are mostly negligible or niche - sure there's the friendlist, but no gamer I know uses steam voice-chat so the friendlist is mostly replicated in discord and similar anyway.

piyuv 2y ago
The library one amasses is a huge lock-in though, you’re downplaying it
- ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
  I don't see it as lock-in as you don't have to keep buying games from Steam - you can just buy games from other places if you want and then have multiple libraries.

mrighele 2y ago

> They’re not saints, especially with the games distribution platform monopoly they’re sitting on top of They are a monopoly, but it doesn't look to me that they are taking particular advantage of the position. I buy mostly indie games, so I may be out of the loop, but what are they doing that makes them "not saints" ? (Expecially in relation to their market share)

whytevuhuni 2y ago
I believe saints would implement some sort of distributed platform that others could interoperate with, by sharing the launcher’s list of games (e.g. have Epic games automatically appear on the list), share the list of friends and achievements between platforms, and so on. Break the network effect, and incentivise things that work against it. Implement open protocols rather than walled gardens. Allow other platforms to truly have a chance. Saints sadly have no place in the capitalistic world we live in though. If they exist, they are quickly outcompeted.
- piyuv 2y ago
  Saints wouldn’t have DRM, a-la GOG

vel0city 2y ago

They profit off getting kids addicted to gambling. Is that not evil?

ZeroTalent 2y ago
Right. There is 1 good thing about Steam (it can be summarized to the point of openness), and the rest is evil. I don't get the article. They have no morals with how they make money. No morals in politics. They are running a monopoly with a 30% cut. How is that a "do no evil" company? Because you can install an app from Epic? Give me a break...
Rohansi 2y ago
While I don't disagree with you I also don't think Valve is particularly bad in this area. Valve's games are not made for younger kids and Steam's parental controls are excellent. Mobile games, especially Roblox, are a lot worse because they target much younger children with less parental control.

dartharva 2y ago

They have done absolutely nothing to be a monopoly. The only reason they are at the top is that their competition consistently keeps shooting themselves in the foot.