4 ms·

This is the same argument Microsoft used ("we're just an OS, totally not a monopoly"). I think to anyone that spends any time doing any PC gaming, it's obvious

by dvt 5mo ago

This is the same argument Microsoft used ("we're just an OS, totally not a monopoly"). I think to anyone that spends any time doing any PC gaming, it's obvious that Steam is the only relevant storefront by a country mile.

eudamoniac 5mo ago
That a really silly comparison. An OS is a big deal, you can't just switch off. Steam is a video game store. You can install shit from anywhere. People stick to steam because it's good. It's not morally wrong to have the best product on the market.
- dvt 5mo ago
  If you want the audience as an indie developer, it would behoove you to launch on Steam (because they're a monopoly). Again, MS used all these cute arguments, and they don't really work. There's a reason Valve is always playing very nicely with regulators (especially w.r.t. the gambling stuff). They don't really want to rock the boat, but a benevolent monopoly is still a monopoly and I do think that a 30% cut for running a distribution platform is pretty predatory, especially as bandwidth has been commoditized.
  - eudamoniac 5mo ago
    Again, it is not wrong to make the best product. It behooves any manufacturer to sell to distributors with largest reach, especially if it is a non-exclusive agreement, and this is perfectly normal market activity. You seem unaware of the legal definition of monopoly; Valve is nowhere near it. The made up internet definition, having a majority of sales in a market, is just what happens when the product is good. Actually it would be a bit of a market failure for the best product to not have the most sales. Also please don't point to the failure of Epic or other stores; they're just bad products. Epic store didn't even have a shopping cart for years. No one competent is competing, and that's not Valve's problem.
  - throw10920 5mo ago
    > If you want the audience as an indie developer, it would behoove you to launch on Steam Correct, because they're a huge distribution channel, and literally anyone who has ever tangentially touched business knows this and accepts that it is fair to pay for this. > (because they're a monopoly) Factually incorrect. Nobody forces you to use Steam. You can create and launch and sell a Windows or Mac or Linux game without ever touching steam. You can self-publish and run your own game servers and CDN, or you can use the Epic Games Store, or you can use GOG, Humble Bundle, Xbox, Origin, Itch, or any of a dozen others. > Again, MS used all these cute arguments This is extremely dishonest. Microsoft controlled an operating system, only one of which can run at a time. If you are running Windows, you're not running Linux. And Microsoft entered into distribution deals with OEMs to pre-install Windows, leading to massive default-choice effects. Neither of these are true for Steam - you can install and run every single platform I listed above at the same time, and I've never seen a computer come pre-installed with Steam ever. > I do think that a 30% cut for running a distribution platform is pretty predatory, especially as bandwidth has been commoditized So, you have no idea what Steam actually does. Steam is, in addition to being one of the largest digital distribution platforms in the US (if not the world) - which is by itself worth paying a 30% cut for, a SDK and networking provider that gives you a social network, input (gamepad/keyboard/mouse) library, achievements, digital trading cards, update system and CDN, real-time voice comms, product key redemption, license tracking, DRM, anti-cheat, user forums, and many other things. If you only criticize things that you actually understand, you'll end up looking a lot less foolish, and undercutting your own points as a result.
fatal94 5mo ago
Relevance isnt anti competitive. Comparing them to Microsoft who not only monopolized but enforced it via product bundling is not the same at all. They simply have the best product and won the market.
- dvt 5mo ago
  Could say the same thing about AT&T, Bell Labs, etc. There’s a lot of precedent here, but most saliently, how you become a monopoly is not really relevant. They absolutely are one. But I’m being already aggressively downvoted with no counter arguments so the Gaben fanboys are here. (Defending a deca-billionaire is hard work, after all.)
  - throw10920 5mo ago
    > Could say the same thing about AT&T, Bell Labs, etc. No, you cannot. AT&T/Bell Labs was a monopoly - they physically controlled distribution networks that made it so you had to use them. Valve does not. There is nothing that prevents you from simply selling your game without Steam. And even if there wasn't, claims that Valve is a monopoly are factually false - there are many other storefronts that exist, and many games are published on more than one storefront at once. And, Steam does not gate an OS or platform like Microsoft and iOS do. > But I’m being already aggressively downvoted with no counter arguments Every one of your arguments is being countered (such as the claim that "relevance is anticompetitive" which isn't even false, it's nonsensical). Including this one. > Defending a deca-billionaire is hard work, after all. ...and there's the emotional manipulation. It's pretty clear you're just a propagandist who has a grudge against Steam (maybe you work for Epic?), given that you're going up and down the thread with emotional non-arguments that try to redefine words, pull at peoples' emotions (like the billionaire comment), or just flat-out lie.
    - testdelacc1 5mo ago
      I think you’re confusing 1. Being a monopoly 2. Abusing monopoly status. Steam does control the vast share of desktop gaming. But has no influence on console (Xbox, playstation, switch) or mobile (android, ios). They are a monopoly. But they don’t abuse their monopoly so they haven’t broken any laws.
atomicnumber3 5mo ago
What? You can literally just download an exe from any website and run it. If you're complaining that Valve owns a big list of games and a ton of eyeballs, and not being on that list means those eyeballs don't see you when they look at that list, idk what to tell you because they seem to have earned that part of their business pretty fairly.
mriet 5mo ago
And yet, Escape from Tarkov is not on Steam, which would seem 5o contradict what you're saying.
- gnabgib 5mo ago
  Hey - your bot is failing (presumably you read replies)
- esseph 5mo ago
  > And yet, Escape from Tarkov is not on Steam, which would seem 5o contradict what you're saying. https://store.steampowered.com/app/3932890/Escape_from_Tarkov/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/3932890/Escape_from_Tarko...
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]

by dvt 5mo ago

eudamoniac 5mo ago

That a really silly comparison. An OS is a big deal, you can't just switch off. Steam is a video game store. You can install shit from anywhere. People stick to steam because it's good. It's not morally wrong to have the best product on the market.

dvt 5mo ago
If you want the audience as an indie developer, it would behoove you to launch on Steam (because they're a monopoly). Again, MS used all these cute arguments, and they don't really work. There's a reason Valve is always playing very nicely with regulators (especially w.r.t. the gambling stuff). They don't really want to rock the boat, but a benevolent monopoly is still a monopoly and I do think that a 30% cut for running a distribution platform is pretty predatory, especially as bandwidth has been commoditized.
- eudamoniac 5mo ago
  Again, it is not wrong to make the best product. It behooves any manufacturer to sell to distributors with largest reach, especially if it is a non-exclusive agreement, and this is perfectly normal market activity. You seem unaware of the legal definition of monopoly; Valve is nowhere near it. The made up internet definition, having a majority of sales in a market, is just what happens when the product is good. Actually it would be a bit of a market failure for the best product to not have the most sales. Also please don't point to the failure of Epic or other stores; they're just bad products. Epic store didn't even have a shopping cart for years. No one competent is competing, and that's not Valve's problem.
- throw10920 5mo ago
  > If you want the audience as an indie developer, it would behoove you to launch on Steam Correct, because they're a huge distribution channel, and literally anyone who has ever tangentially touched business knows this and accepts that it is fair to pay for this. > (because they're a monopoly) Factually incorrect. Nobody forces you to use Steam. You can create and launch and sell a Windows or Mac or Linux game without ever touching steam. You can self-publish and run your own game servers and CDN, or you can use the Epic Games Store, or you can use GOG, Humble Bundle, Xbox, Origin, Itch, or any of a dozen others. > Again, MS used all these cute arguments This is extremely dishonest. Microsoft controlled an operating system, only one of which can run at a time. If you are running Windows, you're not running Linux. And Microsoft entered into distribution deals with OEMs to pre-install Windows, leading to massive default-choice effects. Neither of these are true for Steam - you can install and run every single platform I listed above at the same time, and I've never seen a computer come pre-installed with Steam ever. > I do think that a 30% cut for running a distribution platform is pretty predatory, especially as bandwidth has been commoditized So, you have no idea what Steam actually does. Steam is, in addition to being one of the largest digital distribution platforms in the US (if not the world) - which is by itself worth paying a 30% cut for, a SDK and networking provider that gives you a social network, input (gamepad/keyboard/mouse) library, achievements, digital trading cards, update system and CDN, real-time voice comms, product key redemption, license tracking, DRM, anti-cheat, user forums, and many other things. If you only criticize things that you actually understand, you'll end up looking a lot less foolish, and undercutting your own points as a result.

fatal94 5mo ago

Relevance isnt anti competitive. Comparing them to Microsoft who not only monopolized but enforced it via product bundling is not the same at all. They simply have the best product and won the market.

dvt 5mo ago
Could say the same thing about AT&T, Bell Labs, etc. There’s a lot of precedent here, but most saliently, how you become a monopoly is not really relevant. They absolutely are one. But I’m being already aggressively downvoted with no counter arguments so the Gaben fanboys are here. (Defending a deca-billionaire is hard work, after all.)
- throw10920 5mo ago
  > Could say the same thing about AT&T, Bell Labs, etc. No, you cannot. AT&T/Bell Labs was a monopoly - they physically controlled distribution networks that made it so you had to use them. Valve does not. There is nothing that prevents you from simply selling your game without Steam. And even if there wasn't, claims that Valve is a monopoly are factually false - there are many other storefronts that exist, and many games are published on more than one storefront at once. And, Steam does not gate an OS or platform like Microsoft and iOS do. > But I’m being already aggressively downvoted with no counter arguments Every one of your arguments is being countered (such as the claim that "relevance is anticompetitive" which isn't even false, it's nonsensical). Including this one. > Defending a deca-billionaire is hard work, after all. ...and there's the emotional manipulation. It's pretty clear you're just a propagandist who has a grudge against Steam (maybe you work for Epic?), given that you're going up and down the thread with emotional non-arguments that try to redefine words, pull at peoples' emotions (like the billionaire comment), or just flat-out lie.
  - testdelacc1 5mo ago
    I think you’re confusing 1. Being a monopoly 2. Abusing monopoly status. Steam does control the vast share of desktop gaming. But has no influence on console (Xbox, playstation, switch) or mobile (android, ios). They are a monopoly. But they don’t abuse their monopoly so they haven’t broken any laws.

atomicnumber3 5mo ago

What? You can literally just download an exe from any website and run it. If you're complaining that Valve owns a big list of games and a ton of eyeballs, and not being on that list means those eyeballs don't see you when they look at that list, idk what to tell you because they seem to have earned that part of their business pretty fairly.

mriet 5mo ago

And yet, Escape from Tarkov is not on Steam, which would seem 5o contradict what you're saying.

gnabgib 5mo ago
Hey - your bot is failing (presumably you read replies)
esseph 5mo ago
> And yet, Escape from Tarkov is not on Steam, which would seem 5o contradict what you're saying. https://store.steampowered.com/app/3932890/Escape_from_Tarkov/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/3932890/Escape_from_Tarko...
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]