From the article, “Atomik Research, surveyed 306 industry executives across the UK and USA” Executives are likely removed from the opinions of the actual developers, are they not?
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
Being the most attractive platform doesn’t make them a monopoly. It does however irritate me anytime I have to use a different platform that often functions much worse, like EA or Blizzard.
antitrust for thee but not for me
wish that would be true, then all thess games would be not windows exclusive anymore. And i could like get like an linux game console to play fortnite.
I mean, provide evidence that it doesn’t? Why would we have to seek dev opinions to prove this?
I’m just waiting for the day Steam makes Proton proprietary after outcompeting all the indie open source Linux gaming solutions. And watch as gamers promptly not give a shit and be as uncritically worshipping of this giant profit oriented corporation as they are now. The speed at which people abandoned and outright started hating on other Linux gaming compatibility layers developed by individual people for “sucking” is insane. This is so on the nose Embrace Extend Extinguish but god forbid you call that out and spoil the vibe for people.
“Every other corporation of this size has proven to be my worst enemy but Steam is definitely my friend and has zero ulterior motives. In fact fuck you for daring to speak ill of them.”
Wouldn’t it just get forked?
Sure, once it happens they can add more features, but there’s already proton forks today that are recommended for some games, such as https://github.com/GloriousEggroll/proton-ge-custom
Sure, the company is for profit, but I don’t really see a mechanism where a rugpull is possible here.
You think the company facilitating DRM and micro transactions won’t ban your account the instant it detects you’re not using their approved proprietary version of Proton? You don’t think they’ll implement breaking changes to make the open source version useless?
have we seen examples of such behaviour from valve yet? i don’t think they’re without fault, but worrying about shutting down their open source developments has no basis imo
I don’t trust any corporation to keep their open source projects completely open forever. As soon as profits dip they’ll start looking at open source as a missed opportunity to squeeze more money out of users. Look at, oh I don’t know, Reddit, Android, VSCode, Redis, MongoDB, Sentry, Draw.io, Elastic, Hashi, CentOS, and especially OpenAI. Remember, they own the IPs, they can switch licenses at will and take all the community contributions with it. And it’s not always as overt as making the whole thing proprietary all at once. They’ll slowly start introducing proprietary components until the open source part is basically useless without them.
maybe if they go public, the shareholders would pressure them, but until then, they are doing well enough, by any standard, to just keep going as they were
But steam would never do that!
🥺 <-- see? It’s just a lil guy!I’m not sure that’s how that shakes out, you can’t exactly extinguish open source projects, they may go dormant but they are still there, and there would be the last open source proton build to start from too.
It would also annoy the very people who are most likely to make their own compatibility tools and inconvenience themselves to spite bad business practice. Maybe in some future world where everyone is on Linux/proton, the people who just blindly use windows today because they always have would just keep using the now proprietary proton, but that’s far from the way it is today.
Honestly I just use what is easiest to get working, used to do every game manually, then used Lutris, now I use Steam, probably will use something else that’s easier in the future, especially if/when my library disappears. Til then I’ll support the company that made it much easier to leave Microsoft behind. Nice bonus: valve is one of the least bad large companies in the US at time of writing, so it feels less awful to give them money.
Usually steam is mostly praised for being a decent company. But what are the devs saying about the 30% cut. Do they think it’s reasonable or is there any discontent among the devs?
That was the main argument for the Epic Games store. They told devs that they can keep the first million dollars earned and then they will only take 12%. The problem was they kept paying devs to be “Epic Exclusive” causing a lot of resentment.
Also, blocked games from being released on GOG too.
It was important to me to give players what they wanted: options. A lot of people requested that DARQ be made available on GOG. I was happy to work with GOG to bring the game to their platform. I wish the Epic Store would allow indie games to be sold there non-exclusively, as they do with larger, still unreleased games (Cyberpunk 2077), so players can enjoy what they want: a choice.
Also the fact that Valve will drop games from their store should the dev/publisher sell it somewhere else cheaper.
That’s only for steam keys.
That is wrong.
Recent example is ARC Raiders. https://isthereanydeal.com/game/arc-raiders/info/
Current best price is 15% off for $34.17 versus $39.99 on Steam. And all time low was $31.92.
Don’t assume because a game is for example $39.99 on Steam that it is the lowest prices and paying more for the exact same game tied to the same launcher. Search before buying. Don’t overpay.
What does that have to do with my comment?
Previous comment you replied to said
Also the fact that Valve will drop games from their store should the dev/publisher sell it somewhere else cheaper.
And based on your response assumed you meant Valve will drop games from their store if they sell steam keys for lower than on Valve. Which is why I gave a recent example of Steam key being sold lower than on Steam.
Unless you meant different.
So you’re saying even in the case of steam keys valve is cool with it?
Must be since as a long time user of /r/gamedeals and isthereanydeals most of my games on steam are from steam keys sold from other storefronts because they have been cheaper and have sales much more frequently.
My approach to buying games is to check isthereanydeals or ggdeals to see if the price has been cheaper. Then buy from whatever storefront is cheaper for the launcher of my preference if its at a price I’m willing to bite on. I don’t buy from keystores, so I disable those when checking ggdeals.
Is that really true? Saw others in this thread debunking that.
They “debunked” it by citing Steam terms of service regarding Steam Keys, which is about as relevant as citing Harry Potter.
As long as Steam keeps giving me a great platform that doesn’t suck, as long as they continue to push Linux gaming forward, I’ll keep sending them money.
It’s weird because normally having a monopoly is really bad but all the competition pales in comparison to Steam and they actually provide a good platform. Maybe after Gaben dies Steam will go to shit but for now they’re not just the best but also doing way more than just being a place to buy games.
I’m expecting that to be the case, so I hedge my bets by also buying from GOG and praying for Gabe to have a long life.
Thats the thing about gaming specifically. Like there will always be piracy for steam to compete with, and opensource technology like proton, wine. I thank steam for contributing to linux gaming, steamdeck etc, but will drop them in an instant if they go bad.
You don’t say.
Yo guys it’s my cake day! happy birthday me!!!
They don’t have a monopoly. They just have the best platform. It offers a lot of quality of life features along with the games and rarely causes issues. I can’t even recall them ever doing anything anticompetitive. There are other platforms available to purchase from if you don’t like steam. GoG for instance. Or Epic if you want to support assholes.
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.
That’s incredible that’s even a thing. Saving this for a listen, thanks.
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.
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.
Steam has so many features built-in like steam input, remote play [together], the forums with guides and stuff while most other platfors are relatively barebones, I’m not sure all stores have regional pricing either, they say Steam is a monopoly but they have done a lot to gain their market share for better or for worse
Steam remains on top because they remain the best. Can’t say I’d happily switch to a different platform given the games in my library but I’m open to it if the store provides a better experience
Came here to rant similarly. Just because they’re the biggest in the market does not mean they have a monopoly. There are plenty of options available, no one is locked into using or selling on steam.
“Lock-in” doesn’t make it a monopoly; market share does, and Steam dominates there. So much so that EA gave up on offering things exclusively on Origin.
Yeah other than gog and itch every other platform is terrible. Epic gives a bigger share to devs and gives away a lot of free games, but they’re a publicly traded company trying to buy their way into the market so they can enshittify.
Basically, there isn’t a moat around pc game stores, but competitors aren’t even trying to be as nice as steam, and many publishers don’t publish to the best alternative because they want you use DRM (gog)
Epic gives a bigger share to devs and gives away a lot of free games, but they’re a publicly traded company trying to buy their way into the market so they can enshittify.
220+ free games in the library. One paid game that was an exclusive that wasn’t worth it in the end. No other transactions. Haven’t done the math, but in retail prices, that’s a lot of money to piss away hoping I’ll spend anything more.
Sure is! Didn’t say their strategy was working lol
They’re not giving away retail price games. They’re paying dev teams single payouts to make a game limited-time-claimable. Your copy of a $60 game didn’t cost Epic $60, it cost them “$400k divided by number of downloads within the promo period”. And the devs take the payout because they know it’s coming in addition to all the paying customers on Steam. Basically a guaranteed return on investment.
Whoa, that’s really neat information. Thanks for sharing!
MS Gamepass uses the same model. Some percentage of a customer’s $30/mo doesn’t go to Sandfall Studios for “selling” Expedition 33 on Gamepass, Sandfall got a fat lump sum from MS in exchange for MS being allowed to distribute their game to subscribers.
They have the largest share and can direct the market/development
That means they’re a monopoly. Having some small fry competitors doesn’t make you not a monopoly.
Look up the case of Standard Oil, against which an antitrust suit was filed, charging it with abusive monopolistic practices. The case was won, and Standard Oil was broken up - at a time when it had less than 70% market share.
I buy games on GOG when they’re available, but it seems like their market share is getting smaller as time goes on.
That said, the barrier to entry for a Steam competitor is non-existent, so they may never really be able to have a true monopoly. They can still have problematic levels of influence, though. I’m sincerely worried about what direction Valve will take after Gaben retires or dies.
72% of devs meaning 72% of developers = people or 72% of developer studios = a bunch of suits?
75% of respondents were senior managers of C-suite level.
Ah ok, so pointless people. They could ask an AI…
Note the survey is also posted by a company whose service is to help people publish on multiple storefronts at once.
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.
