Support NeoGAF

[Bonfires Down]

Honestly, it's up to the pubs and devs at this point if they want a change. With the lower cut they can offer a 10-15% discount on EGS as compared to Steam. But I don't see them doing that. Granted, many gamers would stick with Steam either way. But for some, lower prices would be enough to switch.

 

[llien]

To me the difference is that Alphabet invests gigantic resources into ensuring Google remains the dominant search engine.
They literally pay out tens of BILLIONS a year to other companies like Apple for them to keep Google as the default search engine on their devices
They've also had history of buying up competition.

From my understanding Valve has done none of this.

So, monopolist being so freaking dominant that it seemengly needs no investment to keep it proves it is not a monopolist.

Impressive reasoning. Try to apply it to Standard Oil please.

Their advantage is simply that they offer a better service...

Their key advantage is specifically dominant market position.

 

[SmokedMeat]

The customers decide, not the publishers/developers. I'm about who's friendly to me and my wallet. I don't give a shit about a store hooking up developers that release broken games and apologies.

 

[Holammer]

To me the difference is that Alphabet invests gigantic resources into ensuring Google remains the dominant search engine.
They literally pay out tens of BILLIONS a year to other companies like Apple for them to keep Google as the default search engine on their devices
They've also had history of buying up competition.

From my understanding Valve has done none of this.
They don't pay anyone to put their games exclusively on Steam, they don't pay hardware manufacturers to put Steam on their devices by default, they haven't bought up any competitors, etc

Their advantage is simply that they offer a better service than their competitor and they believed in PC gaming and digital distribution before any of them, which has allowed them to develop a big userbase who has built their library on their platform and hasn't been given an reason to go look for an alternative. Now

Valve is also in such a position that if they bring out the big guns and start securing exclusives, courting publishers like EA for the sports games, a myriad of other tricks or even offering free games regularly like Epic did, they simply throw away money needlessly and become a target for legislators.
Remaining passive shields them.

 

[Robot Carnival]

So, monopolist being so freaking dominant that it seemengly needs no investment to keep it proves it is not a monopolist.

Impressive reasoning. Try to apply it to Standard Oil please.


Their key advantage is specifically dominant market position.

so, if I'm understanding you correctly, in a free market, you think the leading service provider who had spent their own money improving and prefecting what they do in the last 21 years to turn themselves into the number one in their field without any public investments from shareholders, who also had not done anything to stop others from providing a better service, should have an obligation to push some of their customers away to other services that had not invest or done as much as them? if not, what is it that you want them to do? or rather yet, please tell us what do you think is the reason EGS or other PC platforms had not been able to chip into Valve's share so far?

 

[AJUMP23]

I like the part about steam being a dying platform.

 

[HogIsland]

Epic is one of the few companies who actually could make a worthy Steam competitor. That's why it's so shocking they completely dropped the ball. The thing is, even if it was markedly better than Steam as software, they'd still have to keep doing right by customers for many years to build an audience.

A lot of people who aren't long time PC players act like a PC store is just a store and in the end you're just clicking an icon on your desktop. This isn't the case. Steam is really building something more comparable to Xbox and Playstation. It would be completely insane if some PS5 games had the features of PS5 and others had the features of PS3. If you had the option you'd never buy the one with PS3 features. That's what Epic and Randy Pitchford thought we'd go for. And they thought we'd do it so that publishers can get more money. Give me a damn break. Getting us to go from retail to full digital is already a massive coup for them.

 

[March Climber]

Funny how Valve apparently does fuck all and yet not a single competitor can put a dent in them.

This is why Phil Spencer said that storefronts and ecosystems are much stronger and scarier than any exclusives. Once someone has locked themselves into a digital ecosystem you would have to move the heavens and earth to convince them to go to a competitor.

Steam has been going for almost 2 decades at this point so it can't be moved. If any of these storefronts had appeared back when they first started, there would have been competition, but they are way too late at this point.

 

[Nydius]

Their key advantage is specifically dominant market position.

Whenever the topic of monopolies come up, people just default to black and white thinking. The legal reality is a whole lot of gray. Simply being a dominant player that offers more advantages for people to use the service isn't going to reach the standard for any anti-trust regulation.

Think of it this way: In the late 1990s, had Internet Explorer organically become the leading browser and people chose it without coercion over its competitors (and there were several), there would have been no case against Microsoft. However, because Microsoft was behind the scenes manipulating people into using it surreptitiously via their marketshare and OEM contract leverage, they suddenly found themselves on the wrong side of "monopolistic practices" anti-trust litigation. It wasn't that they had become dominant, it was how they had become dominant.

To my knowledge, Steam/Valve hasn't leveraged their market position to force others to use it over any other marketplace, or to force others out of the market entirely. But that's a legal topic for someone more well versed in law. Maybe there's a case to be had, but I think it would be a tough one to prove.

 

[Azure Crystal Gaming]

.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

I don't know what the feck you guys are doing on puny software stores. The only feature I've ever missed on ANY non steam game store, was Deck integration.

Every time I run into a problem with a videogame and do a Google search it leads me to the Steam forums.
Meanwhile Epic can't be arsed to have one.

Reality is that at this point the only thing Epic is doing is trying to undercut Valve and I think we can all agree that's not exactly sustainable.

 

[ArtHands]

Epic is one of the few companies who actually could make a worthy Steam competitor. That's why it's so shocking they completely dropped the ball. The thing is, even if it was markedly better than Steam as software, they'd still have to keep doing right by customers for many years to build an audience.

A lot of people who aren't long time PC players act like a PC store is just a store and in the end you're just clicking an icon on your desktop. This isn't the case. Steam is really building something more comparable to Xbox and Playstation. It would be completely insane if some PS5 games had the features of PS5 and others had the features of PS3. If you had the option you'd never buy the one with PS3 features. That's what Epic and Randy Pitchford thought we'd go for. And they thought we'd do it so that publishers can get more money. Give me a damn break. Getting us to go from retail to full digital is already a massive coup for them.

Personally I don't see why that's so shocking. It is not a scenario where simply throwing more money blindly will attracts the paying customers.

They are utilizing the console strategy approach on PC while massively misunderstand what establish Steam as the leading platform; a great suite of features and games. Thing is exclusivity works on console due to lack of games there. On PC you have dozens of releases every day.

Their strategy doesn't nudge Steam into improving the store (not that Steam needs nudging) but threaten to turn things into exclusivity war. So the whole "competition is good" doesn't apply here.

At least the free games are great for pirates and people who can't afford the hobby at all

 

[HogIsland]

Personally I don't see why that's so shocking. It is not a scenario where simply throwing more money blindly will attracts the paying customers.

They are utilizing the console strategy approach on PC while massively misunderstand what establish Steam as the leading platform; a great suite of features and games. Thing is exclusivity works on console due to lack of games there. On PC you have dozens of releases every day.

Their strategy doesn't nudge Steam into improving the store (not that Steam needs nudging) but threaten to turn things into exclusivity war. So the whole "competition is good" doesn't apply here.

At least the free games are great for pirates and people who can't afford the hobby at all

What's shocking is they have the technical competence to produce Unreal Engine, but can't make a PC experience that's halfway passable as a Steam competitor. Epic does throw blind money in the form of free games and exclusivity, but not investment in their platform.

Valve isn't just making a store that takes 30%. They're taking on all the hassles that make people buy consoles over PC.

I think we're saying the same thing here, but that's what I meant.

 

[mhirano]

Can't say I disagree with him. The amount of money Steam collects compared to what they invest and return to the gaming world is obscene. All that money just goes in a black hole for no reason, and every 10 years a GAAS game from Valve pops out, at best.

The Store and app just works.
The revolutionized PC gaming once again with the Steam Deck, contributing imensely with making Linux gaming viable and shaking the true PC monopoly (Windows OS)

 

[LavitzSlambert]

Valve is the best example of a benevolent dictatorship we have today. Most people would run that kind of arrangement into the ground looking to increase earnings constantly. Valve is being kept afloat as a growing company, but it also seems like they simply just aren't as greedy and it's not a public company. So there's no real pressure to make line go up every year, so long as they remain in business and people are employed, it doesn't really matter. They can continue putting their focus into being the best PC platform.

 

[BWJinxing]

The steam forum and workshop is worth its weight in gold. It will be there until the end of time.

Steam QoL features I will pay for, like adding controller support to games that may not natively have it, are worth way more then a fat discount on epic games.

I have no issues paying for convenience. Epic has no shits to give on the QoL front.

I keep seeing this monopoly word, but steam built an honest store front that actually has the end user in mind

 

[Interfectum]

So, monopolist being so freaking dominant that it seemengly needs no investment to keep it proves it is not a monopolist.

Impressive reasoning. Try to apply it to Standard Oil please.


Their key advantage is specifically dominant market position.

No offense, but you strike me as the type who gets a hard-on unlocking an Epic Games Store achievement, thinking you're sticking it to Valve—like scoring points in a game only you're playing.

 

[Gamezone]

Epic didn't pay for Borderlands 4 exclusivity, so now it's a different tone. Or Borderlands 3 sold like garbage on EGS. But pretty much every publisher who tried this bullshit didn't do it a second time. Ubisoft is still using their 6 months deal though.

 

[recursive]

Typical person hates monopolies and wants government anti trust them immediately, but they always make exception for valve/steam. It's bizarre but never ask for logic in gamers discussions.

What measures is steam taking to prevent entry of other storefronts and remove competition?

 

[A.Romero]

So, famously, Steam does very little to earn the massive cut they take and continues its effective monopoly in the West while would-be competitors with much more developer friendly models continue to shoot themselves in the foot. I am a Steam customer and Steam developer that will continue to root for and support competition.

Borderlands 3 and Wonderlands demonstrated clearly that the customers show up for the games, not the store front. But the industry gives Steam their monopoly because publishers are afraid to take the risk to support more developer and publisher friendly stores. It's all very interesting and there is a huge amount of opportunity in the PC gaming space for retail disruption, but no one seems to be able to make it happen.

What a way to miss the point. They either really didn't learn anything or they are just playing dumb.

If it was so easy to maintain all the infrastructure and keep the services running with a lower cut then why the fuck is EGS so damn behind Steam? It should be pretty easy, even when taking a lower cut.

Also, if customers showed for the games only they would have migrated to EGS thanks to all the money spent on exclusivities. Customers do show up for the games but they have showed they care about many other things that apparently Steam offers them and other stores don't.

 

[CuckooBananaNuts]

What a way to miss the point. They either really didn't learn anything or they are just playing dumb.

If it was so easy to maintain all the infrastructure and keep the services running with a lower cut then why the fuck is EGS so damn behind Steam? It should be pretty easy, even when taking a lower cut.

Also, if customers showed for the games only they would have migrated to EGS thanks to all the money spent on exclusivities. Customers do show up for the games but they have showed they care about many other things that apparently Steam offers them and other stores don't.

It's also because of something money can't buy. Loyalty.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Putting a store on the map is respectable steam is just used the most.

 

[StereoVsn]

Can't say I disagree with him. The amount of money Steam collects compared to what they invest and return to the gaming world is obscene. All that money just goes in a black hole for no reason, and every 10 years a GAAS game from Valve pops out, at best.

No reason, no reason at all? I guess industry standard VR support, huge Linux push, by far best input support, great dev tools, best discovery store interface, BPM, and so much more is nothing.

I am sure Gaben just jumps into a pool filled with money in his NZ estate every morning.

This is the same tired and stupid argument that has been going on for a while.

Edit: Forgot forums, which much like VR, Epic's exclusives utilize.

 

[elbourreau]

 

[HogIsland]

Can't say I disagree with him. The amount of money Steam collects compared to what they invest and return to the gaming world is obscene. All that money just goes in a black hole for no reason, and every 10 years a GAAS game from Valve pops out, at best.

Off the top of my head, we've had Battle.net, Uplay, Origin, 2k/Shift, Bethesda Launcher, EGS, and Xbox PC attempt to compete with Steam. They're all beyond garbage, and they've all had at least 5 years to work at it. Some have had 10 years. If it's easy to do what Valve has done, why is everyone else so awful at it?

 

[StereoVsn]

Off the top of my head, we've had Battle.net, Uplay, Origin, 2k/Shift, Bethesda Launcher, EGS, and Xbox PC attempt to compete with Steam. They're all beyond garbage, and they've all had at least 5 years to work at it. Some have had 10 years. If it's easy to do what Valve has done, why is everyone else so awful at it?

GoG is really the only other legit good PC storefront due to its no DRM policies. I normally buy older titles there and sometimes rebuy games I really like once they get all the patches.

 

[HogIsland]

GoG is really the only other legit good PC storefront due to its no DRM policies. I normally buy older titles there and sometimes rebuy games I really like once they get all the patches.

GoG is commitment to DRM-free is nice and I'm glad theyre out there. But their aspirations as a platform are very small. In terms of features they're no better than Origin, but they make up for it with consumer-friendliness. I wouldnt buy the GoG-minded console, but I'm ready to go all in on a Steam hardware ecosystem.

 

[Gamezone]

Help me understand the laws on monopoly. How can Valve be in a monopoly position with Steam if developers and gamers are free to use whatever launcher or store they want?
They've done nothing except become popular. They don't go out to publishers and devs to pay for exclusivity. Publishers, Microsoft, Sony come to them. Indie devs come to them. Gamers come to them.

How can Steam be a monopoly when there are ten other launchers?

 

[StereoVsn]

GoG is commitment to DRM-free is nice and I'm glad theyre out there. But their aspirations as a platform are very small. In terms of features they're no better than Origin, but they make up for it with consumer-friendliness. I wouldnt buy the GoG-minded console, but I'm ready to go all in on a Steam hardware ecosystem.

There is no reason to buy a Steam console. That's what a PC is for. You can put one of the Linux variants they integrate SteamIS enhancements even.

GoG is great because it offers good reasons to buy there, namely DRM free games. No other launcher/platform has a point vs Steam unless we are talking exclusives.

 

[StereoVsn]

How can Steam be a monopoly when there are ten other launchers?

Yep, and that doesn't even count massive games like League of Legends, Crossfire and many more.

 

[DGrayson]

The Borderlands 3 deal basically killed my interest in the series. I have 1000s of hours in BL2 and I was really looking forward to 3. The exclusivity thing just turned me off and although I bought the game when it came out on Steam 6 months later it wasnt the same and I never got very far.