• conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    But they do give you an advantage. If steam didn’t exist at all, without a comparable replacement, it would not be possible for you to move a real quantity of units at all. The market they provide has massive value, and their market share is a product of genuinely being far and away better than any alternative.

    People don’t refuse to buy games on Epic or Origin or Uplay just because they need everything in one place. It’s because all of those platforms are so much worse that they degrade the experience of games purchased through them.

    • SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      That’s highly speculative. But again, I like valve and think steam is beyond a net good. We need to be asking these questions though. Market dominance is a risk in any hands.

      You can’t discount the fact that if you are not on Steam then your game basically didn’t release on computer. You can’t just hand wave away that factor. It’s baked in.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Again, that’s because every other way to distribute games is terrible.

        And it doesn’t really matter, because any sales you actually drive yourself you can give them 0% of, with free steam keys. Sales through their storefront are inherently partly driven by their value add.

        • SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I didn’t say their success wasn’t due to offering a great product over a sea of bad ones. That isn’t relevant nor am I contesting it.

            • SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              I am not arguing about why the market is the way it is, it’s not relevant.

              I am saying regardless of how we got here, valve controls the PC game market, and that will always be a liability no matter who is in control. We have to be sober about this.

              • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Valve controls the PC market because they created the PC market and are responsible for the overwhelming majority of its progress. And they have done nothing remotely abusive with it.

                They’ve justified their cut and are fully entitled to it.

                • SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  I agree they have not been abusive, but no they are not entitled to anything. That is a ridiculous outlook. You’re talking about a for-profit company dude. Stop letting your worship of Gabe cloud your judgment. Again, I like valve/steam a lot. I use it practically every day and I am happy to. The service is fantastic and they have earned their place at the top. But I really do not understand how you can’t see the potential issue with such overwhelming dominance. You seriously think there is nothing to worry about ever?

                  How they got to the top is not relevant.

      • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        This is an anecdote, but it is also absolutely not speculation. I won’t install Epic, I avoid most AAA launchers/required accounts, prefer GOG, and get most of my games on Steam. Epic and many other studio launcher apps are hostile to the consumers or just a royal pain to use. I have a couple Sony games. Why should I have to be online to play a 20-year-old single-player game that I bought through Steam? So now I check if they have that garbage before I buy them through Steam.

        I think Steam could afford to charge less, but I don’t think most smaller companies could get a basic store up for less than they charge (and the big companies have the tools to determine if thos is saving them money), and that still doesn’t get you everything Steam brings to the table, consumer confidence being the most important.