this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
408 points (99.3% liked)

PC Gaming

9609 readers
1759 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 97 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I generally avoid liking any companies or brands, but it’s difficult to not appreciate some of the things Valve does.

They do things for their own benefit, but it benefits everyone because they don’t try and lock things down quite like other companies.

[–] orbit 29 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Agreed! They make it very difficult to dislike them. I suspect a time will come when they start losing touch, and I've always wondered how much of their general direction is associated with Gabe specifically.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Having seen some of the things Gabe has done, like personally delivering the first Steam Decks and constantly speaking at gaming conferences and doing panels, etc, I think a lot of it is him. I do worry about whether he has a succession plan in place.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I've heard that the company internally functions a lot like a co-op. That's your succession plan right there. Mondragon lights the way.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Well there was the whole dollarization for less wealthy countries that made them a no-fly-zone. A friend of mine was recently telling me about how he bought Deep Rock Galactic for 600 pesos and since the dollarization the same game now equates to 30 thousand pesos.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It hurts to do it because right now Valve is an amazing company, but I've started buying games where possible on GOG and archiving the installers for exactly this reason. If some horrific Valve-EA merger ever happens in the far future they won't be able to hold all of my library hostage

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Yeah, they've got a monopoly and it sucks, but they don't seem to have a desire to push it to the point of drawing attention. I know why Epic does what it does, because they have to compete with the near complete market dominance of Valve. However, it's not like Valve has used their position to increase prices or anything like that. They also invest in doing things that improve the experience rather than just trying to harm the competition.

I don't like the monopoly, but I do appreciate Valve as a company.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I keep seeing "Monopoly" repeated, but I'm having a hard time understanding the logic.

They haven't bought competitors. They don't do anything to hinder others progress in this market, sometime to the detriment of their customers (see: Steam launches another launcher, to launch the game). They haven't openly shown anything anti-competitive, in fact they have stuck to their guns (30% cut) when others have attempted to compete.

What they have done is cultivate the best platform that continues to evolve, add features, and maintain stability. Consumers continue to choose to use Steam overwhelmingly, but outside of Valve's own games, there is no threat of exclusivity or punishment.

It's the opposite of monopolistic behavior. Any company is free to compete, build their own platform, and offer software. It's expensive, and tricky to get right, but nothing is stopping them, Valve included.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's just a shame the competition kinda sucks. Epic is pulling some good moves with all the free games and some really competitive prices but their launcher sucks and GoG have an abysmal launcher while rarely having newer titles because of so many companies holding tight to DRM

[–] ashok36 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Valve doesn't set prices on the store in the first place. They are giving more margin for big sellers now too.

[–] Chobbes 1 points 1 year ago

More margin to big sellers seems sort of backwards to me, but I guess it makes it easier to convince large publishers to put games on steam? Personally I’m more interested in bigger margins for indies, but maybe I’m ignorant.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah yes, the monopoly, a business with competitors such as ea origin, Ubisoft dunno what they called it, epic store, gog. The word monopoly must break down like monopol-y as in like a monopole, a magnet with only one polarity that is separate from the other polarity.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The fact you can't even name the Ubisoft service shows it's isn't really competition. It exists, but it doesn't compete. Sure, you can choose to go somewhere else to purchase some games, but none of then threaten Steam.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

The Ubisoft one is just particularly shitty. The only reason steam remains unthreatened is because the rest of them have mentally crippled shareholders at the helm. If steam ever went that way or undermined customer ownership they would surely be fucked and everyone with a functioning brain would go GOG or sail the seas. It's also not like they chose to or actively pursue being the only game store. The only limiting factor in using other game sources on the steam deck for example is the lack of interest from any other sale platform to support any degree of Linux. Open source devs have already replaced most if not all of their functionality with easily installable frontends. If one was really so deranged, even windows can be installed on the damn thing. I've at least never heard of any valve enforced steam exclusive titles, but vaguely recall some developer advertising something as only on steam.

The only way I feel one could justify calling steam a monopoly is to totally shit on the utter ineptitude of the competition so far as to dismiss their very existence, using it more as an insult to the competition than a descriptor for valve/steam, which is valid in a way but I don't think it makes the terminology usage objectively true.

Even ignoring all that or if steam actually was a monopoly by my or anyone's standards, I'm more concerned about the things that technically are not monopolies yet collude (even unintentionally which is unlikely) to fuck everyone over. Such as food industry globally, Canadian telecom, the current state of tv/movie streaming, etc.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They mainly have a monopoly because everyone else's attempt to compete sucks. I haven't seen any launcher that has half the features or conveniences steam has. Most of them are slower too.

Steam offers actual value. Other launchers just feel like a lazy way to add drm.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, yeah. Steam has been around for a very long time and is the only real option. They have a ton of extra money to spend that a new competitor hard never expect to match. That's what makes it bad. Yeah, it's a great product, but what would we have if there was an actual competitor pushing them to be better? Would they take less of a cut or would they make Steam even better? Maybe they'd reduce prices of games for consumers even.

The fact of the matter is no one else really competes, so it's a monopoly.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

The hardest part is getting games on the platform, and epic and gog have already done that. Giving it features that steam has is just a matter of money and time, which other game companies definitely have.

I agree it's a monopoly and I'd love to see a good competitor. But it's different from something like at&t, where to even be a cell service provider you need a huge investment, time to build infrastructure, and government approval. All you need to make a good game launcher is a dev team, which is what these companies do all the time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well they kind of have used their position to indirectly increase prices... If they take a 30% cut then the games need to sell for more to make the same profit (and there's the geolock and anti price-competition thing too)

[–] Voyajer 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yet they also allow developers to sell generated keys with 0% cut either directly or to key sites if they desire.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

The only reason being that they loosely apply the agreement people sign with them, they still reserve the right to remove games from their store of they're sold at a lower price elsewhere. They're getting sued for that at the moment.