Debunking the grey market beyond Steam
-
It’s easy to do that when you employ couple of hundred people while taking 30% cut of 90% of PC game sales.
Steam should be broken up as a monopoly that it is. Decouple infrastructure from the store, allow others to pay fair price for access to it and game prices would go down in an instant. That’s how telecom monopolies were broken up where I live with wonderful results. Console makers should allow alternative stores too now that they don’t subsidise hardware.
Sorry, they didn't gobble up existing infrastructure. Comparing them to telcos is just a bad argument.
-
My view is if you don't like a distribution platform taking 20-30% of the sale then don't use that distribution platform. It's a free market and a free internet. Use Epic, GOG, or host it yourself
If I don't like what Comcast charges I don't do a class action lawsuit.
If you lose access to a vast majority of the market if you don‘t use a service, it’s a monopoly. Don’t defend monopolists.
-
Nah mate, Steam is just the best game platform on PC. A game has access to so many features like cloud saves, community, workshop, matchmaking when it comes out on Steam, while the users have access to user reviews, curators, guides, sales, bundles etc etc. Epic doesn't have most of those features. And yes, a game dev can go out of their way to create those features for their game, on Steam they don't have to. Epic had all the time in the world to implement even half of them, but they still haven't. GOG is an alternative because it offers something Steam won't, and it's been going great for them. Epic is just a bootleg version of Steam. Their only claim to fame is their free game giveaways, but even then you're stuck playing the game without the features Steam users have.
I dunno about those lame features, I use Steam because AAA mostly gets exclusively released there on PC. It kinda sucks.
-
Maybe it's just a bad take. Just a hurdurr big tech bad sticker on an argument doesn't win it for you if your argument is crap.
A monopoly isn‘t good if the product is good. It‘s still bad.
-
Sorry, they didn't gobble up existing infrastructure. Comparing them to telcos is just a bad argument.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Why? They lucked their way to owning the infrastructure and got paid handsomely for that already. What are the negative aspects of breaking up Steam that way? I can’t think of any. I provided plenty of benefits both to consumers and developers.
-
A monopoly isn‘t good if the product is good. It‘s still bad.
Now we're just making things up to justify a bad take?
-
Now we're just making things up to justify a bad take?
What‘s made up?
-
My view is if you don't like a distribution platform taking 20-30% of the sale then don't use that distribution platform. It's a free market and a free internet. Use Epic, GOG, or host it yourself
If I don't like what Comcast charges I don't do a class action lawsuit.
wrote last edited by [email protected]if you don't like a distribution platform taking 20-30% of the sale then don't use that distribution platform
Excuse my frank speech but that's absolute bollocks and lacks any understanding at all of how a monopoly works.
E: It's so hilarious to watch the Lemmy idiots be like "lEaVe ThE mUlTiBiLlIoN dOlLaR cOmPaNy AlOnE!" when it comes to Nintentdo but when it's Valve, then it's totally cool for some reason.
-
What‘s made up?
Calling it a monopoly. They didn't lobby to have the market share. They have competitors who can't make a product as good. Just calling it a monopoly because you think it's an easy win in an argument doesn't just make it a monopoly.
-
Calling it a monopoly. They didn't lobby to have the market share. They have competitors who can't make a product as good. Just calling it a monopoly because you think it's an easy win in an argument doesn't just make it a monopoly.
This is not how a monopoly is defined in any civilised country.
-
This is not how a monopoly is defined in any civilised country.
If a dev loses substantial access to the market if they don‘t use a service, this service is a quasi monopoly. They are forced to use Steam, customers are then forced to use Steam if they want the game. Steam charges astronomical fees, that is their monopoly exploit.
-
It is where it is because it was the first.
If tomorrow someone made a better Steam you’d still buy everything there because that’s where all your games are. Be honest with yourself.
Brother I already buy things on GoG lol.
Steam is great and all but ownership is far more important to me personally
-
Brother I already buy things on GoG lol.
Steam is great and all but ownership is far more important to me personally
Great! Not everything’s available there unfortunately. Some games release on Steam only even. So you probably are affected either way.
90% of people buy on Steam. And they do that because their entire libraries are on Steam.
-
This is not how a monopoly is defined in any civilised country.
You are straight up just using your opinion to justify a point and i won't have any further part of the conversation.
-
It is where it is because it was the first.
If tomorrow someone made a better Steam you’d still buy everything there because that’s where all your games are. Be honest with yourself.
Translation: agree with me or you are wrong.
-
Translation: agree with me or you are wrong.
Earth is round.
-
You are straight up just using your opinion to justify a point and i won't have any further part of the conversation.
What he’s saying is so blatantly wrong and easily verifiable that now you’re the contrarian.
-
If you lose access to a vast majority of the market if you don‘t use a service, it’s a monopoly. Don’t defend monopolists.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Steam does nothing to prevent running non-steam games on any platform. Charge 20-30% extra on Steam and call it done.
-
Steam does nothing to prevent running non-steam games on any platform. Charge 20-30% extra on Steam and call it done.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It‘s not about platform compatibility or difference in fees. It‘s about the necessity to go through Steam (at competitive prices) and bow to whatever they may come up with in the future. The generic danger of a monopoly.
-
Steam does nothing to prevent running non-steam games on any platform. Charge 20-30% extra on Steam and call it done.
Charge 20-30% extra on Steam and call it done.
Steam doesn't let you do that. This is literally what the lawsuit is about.
