they do, and it’s all going to shit the moment gaben dies and is replaced by investor vultures.
72% of devs work for some giant corp or doesn’t know what monopoly means. Gotcha.
Do you know what monopoly means?
I find it fascinating that Lemmings suddenly turn off their critical thinking skills when it comes to Valve. We really need to study this.
What criticism of Valve do you have?
Aside from fostering and enabling a gambling addiction in millions of children?
Well they are being criticized for this in every relevant thread so I wonder if there’s something else for your critical thinking claim.
If only this was true.
But they’re my favorite treat seller 🙁
I mean, provide evidence that it doesn’t? Why would we have to seek dev opinions to prove this?
This isn’t a scientific study, which is what most people will assume when they read that.
75% of respondents were senior managers of C-suite level
And from the “white paper”:
All respondents are managers
There is no evidence that any respondents are game developers. Working as a manager in the same building where people actually develop games doesn’t mean you are a “dev”.
Here’s the actual “white paper”, btw: https://cdn.rokky.com/products-content/docs/TheStateofPCGameDistribution_rokky_com.pdf
Thanks for pointing this out. That is hilarious. I immediately assume bros who have tried to make their own launchers popular
Unlike Google or Apple, I don’t think steam will remove your game for putting it on GOG or Epic, how is it even a monopoly? you’re not forced to sell there
It is a functional monopoly. I would be shocked if wasnt also a monopsony effect going on here where many devs are disproportionately getting their revenue from Steam and as such are functionally mandated a Steam release.
72% of devs have no clue what the word monopoly means. That would mean that Steam is the only store selling PC games on the market, but that’s not the case. Hell, the article itself mentions several:
However, it also noted that developers have started utilising other platforms including the Epic Game Store and the Xbox PC Games store.
Almost half of those surveyed (48%) have distributed a title to both stores, while 10% have used GOG and 8% have used Itch.io.
So, a monopoly? Most definitely not. A market leader or holder of a vast majority? Yes.
Do you also think Google isn’t a search monopoly because Bing exists? This is a very bad argument that completely ignores market power.
Well, yes? According to Merriam-Webster:
1: exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2: exclusive possession or control <no country has a monopoly on morality or truth—Helen M. Lynd>
3: a commodity controlled by one party <had a monopoly on flint from their quarries—Barbara A. Leitch>
4: one that has a monopoly < The government passed laws intended to break up monopolies.:>
I’m not arguing that Steam doesn’t have overwhelming market power, it most certainly does. But key words here are “exclusive” and “one party” and Steam does not control the PC market exclusively, nor are they the only party on the market.
The question isn’t so much whether a company is a monopoly, or part of a duopoly, or oligopoly, but whether their market power lets them coerce their rivals, suppliers, customers, etc. It’s a common misconception that a company needs 100% of a market before they can exert monopoly power (as a seller), and the threshold is even lower for monopsony power (as a buyer), which is common in labor markets with powerful employers, for example.
Legal thresholds for application of anti-monopoly laws have historically been quite low as well. For example, in Brown Shoe Co. v. United States in 1962, the US Supreme Court approved blocking a merger between Brown, a company that manufactured less than 6% of shoes in the US, and Kinney, a company that sold only 2% of shoes! And that actually seems like the right approach, since the Clayton Act, for example, doesn’t only prohibit acquiring 100% of a market (which would render it worthless), but blocks any acquisition when “the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition.”
That’s not what that word means. Zero competition is virtually impossible unless government is strongly enforcing it
deleted by creator
Sure, but it’s well earned. The rest doesn’t do shit. When Microsoft dominated, they made things worse.
To me, the amount of excusing from the gamer community is incredible. Stuff like “they’re not a monopoly because they’re ethical and I like Steam.”
They are, in fact, a growing pseudo monopoly. They take anticompetitive measures, with their APIs and storefront policies (like dictating pricing on other stores). Set aside the 30% cut, and no, it’s mostly not enshittified on the consumer side…
Yet.
How can people type that out on Reddit + Windows 11, or on their phones, with spam and ads in their face, without seeing the future danger? The irony is tremendous.
Don’t mistake me, I like Valve and the storefront they’ve run so far. I happily use it. But I don’t trust them as far as I can throw them, and am waiting for the shoe to drop.
The difference is that Steam is not a public company. While they have done some problematic things, everything they have done has been to benefit the customers.
Plenty of stores dictate the price on other stores. The idea is just to keep pricing consistent across the board. Why would one store list a product and help advertise it when they know they aren’t going to sell much of because it’s cheaper elsewhere.
Physical items have some leeway in that as stores can mark things down, but digital items are the same regardless of where you get it from, and when it comes to steam if a store is selling a steam key Valve does not take the 30%, meaning they get nothing out of a key sold elsewhere and will sell less copies themselves if the other keys are cheaper.
On that 30%, I remember articles coming out when steam was gaining traction that showed how little it was compared to physical stores. When you combined creating the physical game, shipping, and store cut developers were lucky to get 50% of the game cost. And that didn’t count GameStop pushing preowned for $2 less that the dev didn’t get any cut of.
They have reversed a lot of things that the customers pushed back on as well.
As long as GabeN is in charge I don’t think they will go public and become shit. Apparently his son is poised to take over when he retires or passes and is in the same mindset of this father, but time will tell.
Valve got to where it is specifically by playing the long game and looking forward while putting the customer first. The efforts they made for VR and the Steam Deck would not have happened in any other company.
They aren’t buying small studios to crush them like all the rest are.
Plenty of stores dictate the price on other stores.
…How is this okay?!
Let’s put it another way. What if Walmart upcharged for some product, and told the manufacturer “if you don’t raise prices at every other store, we might pull your brand.”
They have no choice if Walmart is the majority of their marketshare.
What if Amazon did this? Or EGS, if they had 75% market share?
…Yes, it’s a massive improvement over physical retail. Does that mean 30% across the board is okay? And what about the factor of most devs getting crowded out by a much larger selection, now?
…And plenty of private companies are anti consumer. Some get worse going private. That’s no guarantee.
Look, Steam is incredible in many ways. One massively understated thing is Valve’s attempts to keep the store tagged an organized, which is a enormous boon to “niche” games and gamers, as opposed to spammy, unsorted messes like the iOS/Android App Stores or Amazon. It’s clear they actually care about their consumers and sellers, and their long term experience, and the actual quality of their store.
…But I still do not trust one company with an entire sector. I want GoG, or Itch, or hell, even EGS to still have some market share in whatever niches work for them, in case Steam starts to enshittify.
Reward corporations for good behavior. Don’t trust them.
Amazon does do that, and people hate it for it. Lemmings just seem to suddenly go blind when dealing with Valve’s shitty practices.
Who said anything resembling “they’re not a monopoly because they’re ethical and I like Steam.”?
The comment threads above mine?
I typed this out before I saw them, not expecting much of that on Lemmy (being a enshittification refuge and all).
The comment threads above mine?
No they don’t
They have the largest share and can direct the market/development, no question, but they not a monopoly. I think GOG has a good shot to complete as time carries on. At least while Gabe is still alive, they’ve been relatively ethical. If the choice of largest developer platform is between Steam and companies like Epic, EA, or Microsoft, Steam still looks like a better alternative.
There’s a difference between being feature-rich and popular and being a monopoly. Call me when Steam is buying competing stores to shut them down. Now, in terms of PC gaming monopolies, let me introduce you to “Microsoft”.
Seriously. Part of the reason they’re even so popular is because they aren’t actively pursuing profit maxxing/enshittification business practices to corner the market and consolidate market share like every other one of these blood sucking cretins. They really are one of the extremely short list of corporations that ACTUALLY win in the marketplace because their product really is just that good. Running the steam deck with Linux, contributing to the development of Wine/Proton, and telling Microsoft to kick rocks has made me a Gaben fanboy for life. If Steam was the ONLY way you could purchase PC games, I’d honestly be fine with that, as long as Valve remains a private company under the iron fist of Mister Newell.
Not a single one of those are saying anything close to what you claimed…
Who said anything resembling “they’re not a monopoly because they’re ethical and I like Steam.”?
…but they not a monopoly… At least while Gabe is still alive, they’ve been relatively ethical.
Friend, I don’t know what more you could want. That’s… pretty similar.
They didn’t say they don’t have a monopoly because they are ethical. They said they don’t have a monopoly and also that they are ethical.
The fact that you have to cherry pick and misrepresent context to try and save face is pretty pathetic TBH.
Like half the comments on this thread are absolutely in that vein.
No they aren’t.
Wow stunning argument. I was going to sit here and trust my eyes. But the depths of rhetorical Flair you have just expressed have rendered me powerless to argue.
Yeah, it’s about as stunning as yours.
As far as I am aware, they only dictate the pricing of Steam keys on other stores. That seems fair to me, because they are doing the distribution in that case. Games that are on Steam can be cheaper elsewhere if they’re distributed separately.
That being said, I totally agree that they’re a monopoly based on their market power.
What I’ve read is that devs can’t price games lower than Steam on a non-Steam storefront that doesn’t use Steam keys.
For instance, if a dev has their own little DRM free store page where they sell DRM free downloads, they can’t take the 30% fee off their own store (reflecting what they’d actually make) without risking being delisted.
Maybe it’s an OCD thing, but this bothers me as a consumer. I could pay the same price for, say, Rimworld from Ludeon or from Steam, but Ludeon would get significantly less from the Steam sale.
It’s also anti competitive. For example, it means some other storefront with a lower fee can’t use that as a pricing advantage.
…It’s not a massive issue now. In practice, most little devs just sell Steam keys, and most publishers want to maintain pricing parity (outside of sales) for consistency.
I don’t know what you’re expecting. Publishers don’t put every game on GoG and all the publisher run stores are very anti consumer, or they’re EGS which will definitely turn anti consumer the second they think they’ve got the market share. Where are you wanting people to buy their games?
I want them available and Itch and GoG or publisher stores or elsewhere, basically anything but one store unless they need Steam for API features.
I want Steam to not have so much marketshare they can dictate prices to other stores.
The status quo right now is okay, but I don’t like the direction it’s heading, where other stores may not even keep their heads above water.
I want them available and Itch and GoG or publisher stores or elsewhere, basically anything but one store unless
This seems to be suggesting that a large portion of games is only published to steam, which I don’t think is the case?
Except it literally is, per the article?
Well, this is publishers complaining. Maybe they should publish on other platforms. I don’t know what they expect to happen lol
In this one case, I’m okay with its monopoly as long as Gabe is in charge. I have bought tens of thousands of dollars in games on the platform and it’s crazy I can still hit download on games over 20 years old in my library AND have my save game data imported from that time.
So far, Valve has been fair to their users. Hell, they heard concerns over gambling and just took a sledgehammer to the CS2 skin market. I don’t think any other company would devalue their digital assets to a tune of -3 BILLION dollars. Valve is the GOAT.
Libraries should host a digital store front for the people’s games.
Monopolies are just an effect of capitalism in its current form.
I’m more concerned with the games companies who aren’t even monopolies, and are already seen as shit services run by shitty people (unless anyone actually likes Ubisoft, EA, and their launchers???)Gamers have respect for Gaben, and I’ve heard more faith and less worry about his son taking over than practically the entire team of owners from Valve’s competitors. They have a monopoly because it’s a good service, and the fact that it’s has a user base as big as it does shouldn’t surprise anyone: they seem to be doing things right enough to not be a bother. That’s what matters more than the inevitability of a business getting big - there’s a lot more Nuance and that doesn’t just magically happen, nor is just pointing it out helpful in sensible critique.
I’d say it’s more of a ‘de facto’ monopoly, as every other storefront sucks so bad.
It’s ironic that Valve doesn’t have shareholders forcing horrible decisions that make people hate a platform to maximize short term profits, yet they reap in crazy amounts of money per year in comparison to public companies with dogshit monetization. Funny how that goes huh?
The number of people in this thread claiming that Steam is not a monopoly is too damn high. If actually you’re interested in the evidence, the Organized Money podcast recently had a great interview with pair of lawyers whose full time job is suing Valve as a monopolist on antitrust grounds, and winning over and over on behalf of their clients.
Where is that evidence? (That is not a podcast with one of the involved parties in it)
I quickly looked into it and there is zero public indication that Bucher Law PLLC ever won a single lawsuit against Valve. One lawsuit of Valve against Bucher Law PLLC (in response to their arbitrations) was dismissed.
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10620119/valve-corporation-v-bucher-law-pllc-et-ano/
The only thing they do is file arbitrations, which they are apparently “winning” but they did not provide any further proof of that.
All the “grand victories” are celebrated exclusively on their own website. Mostly you find people on Reddit claiming that they are a scam and a really weird Youtube commercial.
They also claim multiple times that Federal Judge John C. Coughenour ruled that Valve is an “illegal monopoloy”. Which I cannot find any records for. Unrelated to Bucher Law, Coughenour was the judge in Wolfire vs Valve and he threw Wolfire’s case against Valve out in 2021 but allowed them to proceed in 2022. Coughenour then resigned from the case.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59859024/wolfire-games-llc-v-valve-corporation/
The case is now a class action lawsuit against Valve and still ongoing.
You’ve only highlighted what’s so fucked up about binding arbitration: it’s secretive. It forces plaintiffs to retain individual counsel, with arbitration clauses in contracts typically blocking class actions in public court and requiring you to waive your right to a trial by a jury of your peers. This means there is no precedent that is set or that binds future decisions by the arbitrator, there is no public record that gets reported on and embarrasses companies, and there are no large payouts to be recovered when a million people get nickel-and-dimed for a few bucks each and can sue as a class.
I only worked with what you provided, alleged evidence of Valve being a monopoly. The US legal system being… questionable has nothing to do with it.
Bucher Law could provide proof of their arbitation successes on their own at any time at least but they didn’t even do that. And even if, that does not proof that Valve is a monopoly because there is no judge and no ruling.
Until the Wolfire case (that is an actual case) gets a verdict by an actual judge, these are just a few law firms trying to make a quick buck.
That’s just begging the question, isn’t it, requiring a conviction as a monopolist as the only acceptable form of evidence of monopolization? If someone said the same thing about Google when Epic sued them in 2020, would you have waited the 3 years it took to get a trial verdict before making up your mind?
Also, many arbitration settlements include NDAs as a condition of getting a payout, so it’s disingenuous to say they could provide evidence that might require their clients to forfeit their settlements or risk them getting disbarred.
I agree the venue is unfortunate, but why are you insisting on giving the giant for-profit corporation the benefit of the doubt rather than the consumers who are trying to hold them accountable?
requiring a conviction as a monopolist as the only acceptable form of evidence of monopolization?
Legally speaking, yes.
Ethically speaking, I have not seen sufficient evidence to call Valve a monopoly yet. Obviously everyone can call Valve a monopoly, or not, I don’t really care either way. Actual evidence would have to come in the form of documents proofing Valve manipulates prices, hinders competition or anything similar.
Unfortunately most documents in the Wolfire vs Valve case are not publicly available. The point Wolfire makes in their statement about not being able to sell their keys cheaper than on Steam, has some merit but I will leave it to the judge to decide on that one. It’s not enough for me personally to call that anti-competitive.
If someone said the same thing about Google when Epic sued them in 2020, would you have waited the 3 years it took to get a trial verdict before making up your mind?
I did make up my mind, but there was no evidence until the ruling.
Also, many arbitration settlements include NDAs as a condition of getting a payout, so it’s disingenuous to say they could provide evidence that might require their clients to forfeit their settlements or risk them getting disbarred.
Fair point, many do. They could mention it though.
but why are you insisting on giving the giant for-profit corporation the benefit of the doubt rather than the consumers who are trying to hold them accountable?
Because I am the consumer in this case and I don’t see any wrongdoing by Valve in this case. There are other store fronts on PC, Valve doesn’t force any prices, they don’t force exclusivity, they don’t buy competition up and they don’t prevent the competing stores from functioning in any way.
People simply flock to Steam because it’s the best service and until Valve engages in (proven) anti-competitive behaviour, there is no reason to change anything about that.
Is the 30% cut they demand too much? Yes. Are they engaging in unethical gambling? Yes. Are they a monopoly? Not in my opinion.
That’s incredible that’s even a thing. Saving this for a listen, thanks.
