A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.
Debunking the grey market beyond Steam
-
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 personallyGreat! 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
> 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.Is there a monopoly though? Other store fronts exist. They are usable and often sell the same games. It's not Nestle owning half the food options in every food store, this is whole foods, vs all the other grocery stores. You can get game pass and stream your games and never own them past your subscription lasts. Or the Microsoft game store which isn't great but exists. GOG gives you installers and has big games on it. Fanatical, GMG, Humble Bundle, are all store fronts. You could even consider Nintendo and PlayStation to have their own game storefronts while needing their hardware. Is Steam a monopoly?
-
I dunno about those lame features, I use Steam because AAA mostly gets exclusively released there on PC. It kinda sucks.That's most likely just cause they enjoy the auto downloader, patch tools and antichrist software that they can bundle in. GOG has installers for AAA games like Witcher and Baldurs Gate 3 because the developers were better about giving the option. Heck lots of AAA games on epic. We don't complain about PlayStation and Nintendo exclusives. Blame the developers for liking the easy features to only be on Steam. Ask them to change not Valve.
-
Earth is round.Off topic
-
That's most likely just cause they enjoy the auto downloader, patch tools and antichrist software that they can bundle in. GOG has installers for AAA games like Witcher and Baldurs Gate 3 because the developers were better about giving the option. Heck lots of AAA games on epic. We don't complain about PlayStation and Nintendo exclusives. Blame the developers for liking the easy features to only be on Steam. Ask them to change not Valve.
-
Epic pays handsome sums for exclusives, can’t blame the devs for taking it. They go to Valve to not miss out on the gigantic market share cause it’s a monopoly. And I *do* complain about Nintendo and PlayStation exclusives
But they could release their own installer like CD project Red and other studios do. They don't want to miss out on the ease of the installer that enables a larger market share. That's not a monopoly. Literally. -
But they could release their own installer like CD project Red and other studios do. They don't want to miss out on the ease of the installer that enables a larger market share. That's not a monopoly. Literally.
-
> Despite facing increased competition in the space, not least from the Epic Games Store, Valve's platform is synonymous with PC gaming. The service is estimated to have made $10.8 billion in revenue during 2024, a new record for the Half-Life giant. Since it entered the PC distribution space back in 2018, the rival Epic Games Store has been making headway – and $1.09 billion last year – but Steam is still undeniably dominant within the space. > Valve earns a large part of its money from taking a 20-30% cut of sales revenue from developers and publishers. Despite other storefronts opening with lower overheads, Steam has stuck with taking this slice of sales revenue, and in doing so, it has been argued that Valve is unfairly taking a decent chunk of the profits of developers and publishers. > This might change, depending on how an ongoing [class-action lawsuit initiated by Wolfire Games](https://www.gamesindustry.biz/wolfire-and-dark-catts-antitrust-lawsuit-against-valve-granted-class-action-status) goes, but for the time being, Valve is making money hand over fist selling games on Steam. The platform boasts over 132 million users, so it's perfectly reasonable that developers and publishers feel they have to use Steam – and give away a slice of their revenue – in order to reach the largest audience possible.
-
No. The vast majority of potential customer will only buy if it’s on Steam. This is not about features, it’s about market access.Right but that's an ease of purchase thing. They could buy elsewhere. The option exists, there is no lack of viable options and people still take it. Not by definition a monopoly. So you are angry that people are lazy and don't shop around too much. Your issue is with the consumer so you want someone to step in and force them different because you don't like their actions?
-
Right but that's an ease of purchase thing. They could buy elsewhere. The option exists, there is no lack of viable options and people still take it. Not by definition a monopoly. So you are angry that people are lazy and don't shop around too much. Your issue is with the consumer so you want someone to step in and force them different because you don't like their actions?If a monopoly exists because the competition is incompetent it is still a monopoly. If someone offers a teleport service and it is the only one on the market because no one else can figure out how to do it, it is still a monopoly. I don’t want anyone to step in, I want customers/users to not defend the monopoly like it’s their favourite football club, to think about what can happen if they rely on the services of a monopoly too much and yes, to „shop around more“.
