There’s not only one digital games platform out there, there’s just only one that’s really good. That’s the opposite of a monopoly, it’s just being better than the competition.
It’s important to differentiate between being a monopoly, and engaging in monopolistic behavior.
Valve, to the best of my knowledge, isn’t doing anything that prevents or stifles competition. As a monopoly it’s important to investigate them from time to time to ensure this remains true. But if they’re just putting out the best product and everyone is choosing to use them, then it’s not really a problem.
Forced price matching could be considered a abuse of their position. If a dev cannot sell on another store for less (even if that platform takes a smaller cut) then that makes reduces the need for others to use a different platform to get a cheaper deal. Devs cannot use pricing to save you some money while drawing you to a platform that gives them a larger margin. All of which means that there is less incentive for valve to reduce their cut of the sale to be more competitive. This is what some lawsuits against valve are arguing ATM I believe.
EDIT : Found it.
I’ve seen this being said mostly on reddit but haven’t seen any source/reference to this claim. Is this like an NDA that devs sign ? Has anyone reported on this/archived it ?
EDIT : Found it.
OK, where?
But that rule is only when using steam keys for distribution on other platforms no?
Yes (or at least it was how it used to be, don’t know if it has changed) if you were selling steam keys outside of steam you should price match the steam price. If you are distributing the game some other way you can set any price you want.
I think this is true, because I’ve definitely seen games on sale at Epic that have lower price than their Steam version.
But then I get into the quandry if I want to “own” it on Epic’s platform over Steam, and I usually don’t 🫤
There are some games tbat are sold on both steam and other platforms. Many of these games have external modding communities. Steam provides slick integration for “workshop” mods, which helps drive sales.
A few years back steam used to allow fairly open API access if you acquired the game elsewhere and just wanted the mods. And then they turned it off, but still allow direct anonymous downloads. A decision that only makes sense if they wanted to lock in any steam-adopted community to make going elsewhere difficult.
Turning off something people were using to avoid potential competitors is kinda exactly what would count as “monopolistic behavior” if Steam were to be ruled a monopoly by a court
This person is a billionare who own an entire fleet of mega yachts, his money mostly come from a proprietary third party software launcher where people don’t own their games. You shouldn’t trust this guy more than you trust facebook or amazon ceos.
I trust him more than Jeff or Zuck.
Same although that’s a truly low bar to clear.
I’m not Gabe #1 fan but neither his hater, but I think that this is a little different. Amazon and specially Facebook markets depends on your information, while Valve’s depends on what gamers buy (between other things that I don’t know) but I don’t really thing that Valve care that much about stealing or sharing your info, they really care about how many money they can suck from you.
https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/steam
they collect everything about you
Steam. Microsoft Store. PS Store. Epic Store. GoG.
To name a few.
Where the fuck is the monopoly supposed to be?
I can’t remember the last time I bought a game on Steam.
Yes, and I buy usually first on steam, second on gog. I buy on gog to own it. I buy on steam because its fucking easy to play on Linux with.
Valve does good work and they’ve never personally fucked me over. Until they do, I will continue to buy their shit and they are a company that supports Linux gaming and makes things easily repairable and provides docs to iFixIt
Try Heroic Launcher. It’s really good.
Using it on my deck. Pretty great.
they’ve never personally fucked me over. Until they do, I will continue to buy their shit
This mindset, while popularly-held, is precisely the reason Valve has such a monopolistic status in the first place.
they’ve never personally fucked me over.
Do you own any of the games you bought on steam?
No but they’ve never personally fucked me over. What’s your point?
my point it that they fucked you over, you paid for games you don’t own
I know that though. That’s why I buy on steam and gog
Multiple companies have tried to become the de facto games store and every last one of them has failed not because Steam uses its dominant position to crush them, but because not a single one of them has been willing to invest in the features, capabilities, and pro consumer policies that Steam has. Every single one of them thought that doing the bare minimum and then throwing cash at ads and publishers would be the path to victory. It wasn’t. Yeah, Steam may be effectively a monopoly, but it’s because nobody else really wants to compete with them at their level. The closest anyone has ever come is GOG.
No other company has invested more in trying to free our PC games from Microsoft either. On top of that, Valve’s investment still benefits the entire FOSS ecosystem.
I worry about what the company will look like when Gabe isn’t there anymore, but for now, I keep buying on Steam because I want to vote with my wallet, and I vote for Linux and FOSS.
That said,
Asked about this rule, Newell repeatedly denied it exists, even when shown internal communications seemingly showing Valve employees enforcing it: “Valve does not have a policy or practice of dictating prices to third-party software developers on other platforms.” When asked how Valve would react if it ever happened, Newell initially said he was confused by the question and then added, “Many of our partners and many of our customers are quite happy with the service that we’re providing.”
This isn’t the first time I’ve read this, and if Valve is using their position to keep prices higher, then that is bad behavior that needs correction.
if Valve is using their position to keep prices higher…
I can literally go and buy games on sale at 50-90% off during any of the multitude of sale events that are constantly happening.
But if it’s could have been on sale for even more through a different store that would have allowed the developer to get a bigger share of the sale, Valve won’t allow that.
It’s not about there being sales. It’s about abusing market power for illegal gain.
Isn’t that only if it activates on Steam? So an Epic, GOG, or old-fashioned game wouldn’t be affected
Maybe, but I’ve not read that.
It’s also worth noting that nothing has been proven in a courtroom yet.
No other company has invested more in trying to free our PC games from Microsoft either. On top of that, Valve’s investment still benefits the entire FOSS ecosystem.
valve main product is a proprietary third party software launcher, there’s nothing foss about it. They started seriously investing in linux only the moment microsoft become their direct competitor in the videogames industry.
Okay. So what? If Valve disappeared tomorrow, those FOSS contributions are still there.
Ideologically, gog is the winner for me… EXCEPT they refuse to have a native linux client, so i stick with steam
I find heroic games launcher works great as a gog launcher.
Wasn’t there some ado about them getting a native Linux client soonish? https://www.xda-developers.com/gog-has-already-started-working-on-linux-gaming-as-it-says-theyre-a-big-fan-of-the-os/
My issue is of course that I hate having two launchers but yeah gog does seem ideologically superior… for now.
Pretty late… there was a linux request on the gog forum almost 10 years ago. I gave up on gog shortly after their negative response to the idea of a linux client
I just download and install games.
and the problem is, that, as a developer, you can’t just go and release your stuff on gog
Yeah, Steam may be effectively a monopoly, but it’s because nobody else really wants to compete with them at their level.
Steam has two types of customers. Us the gamers where we can decide which platform to use. They have an effective monopoly on us because they provide a good service. But with a large game library we are locked into steam as well and cannot just switch to a different platform. If valve ever did decide to be evil then we are screwed.
But developers are also customers of valve. And this is arguably where valve makes their money. They take a cut from the developers sales. Devs cannot just use a different platform without cutting out a huge userbase. This gives valve a real monopolistic control over developers.
But developers are also customers of valve. And this is arguably where valve makes their money. They take a cut from the developers sales. Devs cannot just use a different platform without cutting out a huge userbase. This gives valve a real monopolistic control over developers.
Can they not? I was under the understanding that developers aren’t limited to steam. They can use any other platform in addition to it, the main restriction being that they can’t sell the game for cheaper on platforms other than Steam.
Sorry badly worded on my part. They can use other platforms alongside steam. I really meant they cannot use them instead of steam without losing a massive audience. And likely making their game unprofitable. At least if they are not a very large game studio already.
And then if steam is pushing restrictions on what they can do on other stores then that is edging into the relms of abusing their monopoly.
But looking at it from Steam’s side: why should they list a game, promote it through their recommendation algorithms, forums, friend lists, reviews, workshop, etc. when the developers can use it just as free advertisement and sell it in their store for half the price? What is in it for me? Servers and traffic are not free after all, quite the opposite thanks to today’s AI craziness.
“Locked in”? “Can’t”?
Huh?
Can’t people just use all of the stores if they want? Steam doesn’t lock you out of the xbox app, or the ubisoft store or whatever as far as I know.
You can choose to buy new things on other platforms. But you lose access to everything you bought on steam if you choose not to use them anymore. That is a form of locking to their platform. You cannot just move you library to another platform.
But is there an alternative where I can take my games where I want? Sure, there is GOG, but if they decided to shut down their servers right now I’d be screwed the same. I don’t have storage space to regularly back up installers just for sure… So technically it’s possible but in reality it mostly isn’t.
Devs cannot just use a different platform without cutting out a huge userbase.
Most gamers I know, don’t care that much about where they get their games from. Heck, they would buy it from a dubious guy with USB sticks who is travelling on a donkey, if they had to.
Make a good game and people will follow.
I suppose the issue is rather about discoverability and getting people to learn about a game they might like. But steam is not necessarily easier in that regard. You’d still need to do some marketing to get the word around. If you’re lucky by scratching the itch of a lot of people, steam can boost sales by its trending and discovery lists, sales highlights, etc. But that’s not easy to achieve just by choosing steam as a distribution platform.
Most people I know don’t look outside of steam for games. Might be a regional thing. But there are a lot of people that just don’t care about the other stores. At least not while steam offer a good experience.
pro consumer policies that Steam has
I would argue a proprietary third party launcher to play your games and DRMs are the opposite of pro consumer.
pro consumer policies
What pro-consumer policies does Steam have? They still have a lot of games with DRM, although I guess that’s the publisher’s choice, not theirs.
Their refund policies aren’t great. Not being able to get a refund if you encounter a game-breaking bug just because you’ve played the game for more than 2 hours isn’t a good policy. Thankfully it’s been ruled illegal in some countries like Australia - in those regions, you can get a refund for major issues regardless of how much you’ve played or how long you’ve had the game for.
I agree that they’re better than some of the competition, but at the end of the day they’re still giving you a license that they can revoke at any time. GOG gives you actual ownership.
The refund policy is that it is an automatic “no questions asked” refund if it qualifies by being under 2 hours played or 2 weeks owned. If it doesn’t qualify, you can still get a refund, there just are questions asked then. Their refund policy is pretty much the gold standard.
Valve lets them add DRM after launch, you buy a game and play it for months or even years and then BAM! you have online DRM or anti-tamper killing mods or a flippin rootkit for crappy cross platform multiplayer that never works, or adding a damn third party launcher along with the Ubislop levels of derp and Bamco/ATLUS inability to eveer patch anything that’s actually wrong but “fix” cracked DRM instantly…
Until I can count on Steam to let me keep what I flippin’ paid for they are beyond sus, and my (Crap, 1337, what a game count.) “Game Industry Guardian” becomes a “Meh, nah, I’ll use your forums to ask the dev if they plan a GOG release and maybe redeem some Humble keys if they’re cheap enough to consider it a demo for a GOG purchase later.”
Primarily their review system which is hands down the best in the industry, as well as the laundry list of shady practices they’ve banned companies from employing. They’re not perfect by any means but they’re still head and shoulders above the competition. They’re also at least somewhat responsive to the community with them either implementing new policies to protect consumers when major scandals happen and even occasionally being proactive and banning bad practices when companies start talking about implementing them.
As for GOG they’re a bit of a mixed bag recently. They started carrying games with DRM at some point so they’re no longer the DRM free zone they once were, although the majority of their catalog is still DRM free. I believe they do warn you when a game has DRM though. On the plus side though they recently committed to improving their support for Linux which many people will be happy to see.
Why do I feel like we could trace the IP of the comment back to Gabe’s yacht?
Probably because of unwarranted cynicism.
👌
Be a random developer and release a successful game without steam at all.
Dumb ass.
Chads in here love to axe billionaires until it’s this guy.
Why not mention WHY he’s successful (not because they act like a toxic monopoly).
The Steam libraries provide cloud backups, live streaming, remote play, transparent linux support, controller support, licencing. All this stuff is a few lines of developer code. Even multiplayer support over the internet they facilitate and is apparently a few lines of code. And, that excludes steam’s awesome handling of dependencies, so you don’t get weird DLL errors 10 years after buying a game. It’s because he gives people what he wants.
https://partner.steamgames.com/?ref=stebet.net
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features
This is the stuff nobody talks about… But, it provides the tools so small developers CAN compete with bigger ones.
Many of us with games we purchased 10 years ago, are finding they still work in Windows, and often also work in Linux now too (without any effort on their part), because Steam assists with dependencies, portability, linux-compatibility and libraries. Whereas, even Wii U stuff you need to re-buy for switch.
For me, Linux support was a huge draw card actually (GOG still don’t have an official one), and they’re one of the huge reasons why Linux is still competitive in the desktop market (whilst Wine has existed for a long time, Linux Steam made it seamless via Proton, and you can’t even tell which ones are running proton, and which are native anymore in most cases). Steam aren’t really competing against other game developers either (other than with Half life), and they’re not blocking any of their customers from using multiple platforms. They’re certainly not forcing exclusives
Also, provides free steam keys for devs they can sell or give out freely elsewhere.
Imagine if Apple allowed people to sell their apps on their own website, but you’d still get the license on the app store, without Apple getting their 30% cut? Valve literally does this.
Basically the only rule is that the prices should be the same on all platforms.This is the part that the “walled garden” arguments I see conveniently ignores so often. Humble games and key reselling, good and bad, exist because of this rule. That 30% otherwise covers Steam dealing with sales, key distribution, payment providers, and all the legal liabilities that comes with that for you. Unless you can securely and continuously run your own shopfront below that 30% margin, there’s not a whole lot of incentive to do so… But Steam isn’t stopping anyone, not even Epic in fact. The so-called wall is like a foot high.
The DRM isn’t even that deep either and has known tools to remove it if you want. It exists as a bare minimum requirement for copyright law and Steam friends but not much else, hence why publishers often use things like Denuvo still.
We don’t ‘defend’ Valve’s monopoly so much as they really aren’t doing anything special to maintain it besides making Steam libraries accessible on more hardware. They compete by merely existing in the same space.
Why not mention WHY he’s successful
Because he’s the ceo of a for profit american tech corporation that managed to hook up people into a proprietary walled garden that over the years developed into a close-like monopoly
That walled garden has a huge welcome mat and door.
Other stores can literally add an icon in steam and add their purchased games to the steam interface (like emudeck does)
And there is no attempt by steam to block you from the desktop to install other things, or even other stores (like ps5, switch or Xbox).
Finally, consoles are likely more popular these days. One of the prerequisites of a monopoly would be that you’ve got a majority of the share overall and can dictate the market… Steam can’t really
I wouldn’t say “enormous choice”.
Realistically it’s either Steam, or Epic.
Sure, GOG technically exists, but that’s a very niche audience. It’s amazing for what it is, but when new AAA games come out, you won’t see them on GOG. It’s great for retro games, and it’s basically a monopoly on getting DRM free exe files, but I wouldn’t say GOG is even trying to compete with Steam.
Epic IS trying to compete with Steam, but…they’re just SO bad at it. I’ve heard that Epic’s free games do little more than act as a consequence free way to be demos for people who later buy the game full price on Steam.
So, Epic is another option to Steam…but, is that it? That’s like saying Coke has plenty of competing colas, except Pepsi doesn’t exist, and RC Cola is technically competition that nobody chooses. That’s Epic. The RC Cola of gaming.
That’s Epic. The RC Cola of gaming
brutal.
(pretty accurate, but brutal)
That’s not really fair, though. Some people actively prefer the taste of RC Cola to other sodas.
And there are also people that prefer Epic game store for some reason. All five of them.
There’s GOG, but that’s a very niche audience
Contrary to the name, they also have good NEW games, too.
Yeah, but he’s got a point. The GOG new game library is much smaller than on Steam.
There is something to be said by the lack of what comes out on it may have to do with GOG’s adherence to providing DRM-free, offline installers. The same publishers and devs not putting stuff on GOG but release it everywhere else are often the ones most paranoid of piracy, going so far as to not even announce if they use Denuvu or some other wildly disliked, aggressive DRM until release day or the day before.
This is not against GOG, btw, but the developers and publishers that don’t release there, specifically, while releasing to most other platforms.
Epic could be a better competitor if instead of giving out free games they would invest that money in actually getting their client and store up to speed with the competition. They still don’t have reviews on their store.
But hey, they’ve got shopping cart in their store after like 5 years or…? Laughable.
i dunno if “realism” is an argument here. you’re talking about a specific market segment targeting a specific hardware configuration and distribution medium. developers still have the choice to target Nintendo or Sony hardware, to sell physical copies or codes through Walmart, Amazon, Target, Gamestop, your local game store, etc, to sell via mobile platforms like iOS or Android, etc etc.
honestly, if i sat here and listed them all out it would be an enormous comment.
i do see how Valve has a hegemony over a big part of the market, but they haven’t been anticompetitive or tried to push anyone out or buy up competition. at least that’s not what’s being claimed, as far as i can tell. Epic’s lawsuits against Apple and Google don’t even apply cuz you can install friggin Windows on their hardware if you had some sort of mental illness.
Xbox/Windows? EA? Ubisoft? Hell, Blizzard? A lot of publishers run their own launchers/stores. I agree they’re largely irrelevant, but they’re all still active so they must bring in some revenue.
…so you just didn’t even read the comment you’re replying to then.
So downvote and move on, instead of being an ass and cluttering up the discussion with shit that doesn’t matter.
“buy games” that’s the neat part: you don’t
Yeah….
Then you see they play this bullshit straight out of Jeffrey Bezos’ handbook:
Yep, Valve is pulling the exact same “most favored nation” move that Lina Khan and Rob Bonta sued Amazon for, and it has the exact same anticompetitive effects, hurting suppliers and and raising prices for consumers economy-wide
It’s rarely about literal monopoly. It’s more often about market power. Choice is one tool that consumers, and small scale producers have to ameliorate some of the consequences of market power.
Of course having market power, is not the same as abusing it to harm consumers - but if the profit margins are ‘abnormal’ and persistent and or uneven throughout the supply chain that’s sometimes a good indicator. If choice/competition isn’t whittling down excess profits in the long run, then there might be some distorted power relationships somewhere in the market or supply chain.
Proving/ disproving the alleged ‘unwritten rule’ might be quite interesting though. But competition investigations need to be quite wide ranging and it is notoriously difficult to prove anything.
