Semi-monopoly, not a true one like Apples store on the iPhone. Also no one is forced to use Steam, there are alternative shops. The PC platform is open. In fact the most successful games aren’t even on Steam. If Steam was a real monopoly, then this wouldn’t be possible. If you purchase a XBOX handheld that is based on PC hardware, you don’t have to install Steam, you can just use the XBOX shop. If you want you can install GOG and Epic shops too. Maybe the League of Legends launcher too.
And it goes a step further, because game keys for Steam can be purchased on other platforms and shops without paying Steam a single cut of the price. And yet, those games purchased with such a key are integrated into Steam and Valve provides “free” service to them. With all having said this, I don’t think one can Steam call a true monopoly.
Their 30% cut is egregious.
But its industry standard, not really egregious in the sense of abusing the market. Valve also provide services beyond just marketing their games on the platform, they host the games, provide features, do research and make it better and so on. Also the cut gets lower to 25% and then 20% if it sells better (which is not helping indie devs at all). Having all said this, I think 30% as the industry standard is way too high, but its not a fault of Steam only.
Standard Oil was not an absolute monopoly. Nobody was forced to buy from them. And yet.
An egregious standard is still egregious. The excuse has always been, well, Nintendo made the console, sold on thin margins, and they manufacture the carts, sooo an entire third must be reasonable. But Steam proves the only reason is that they can get away with it. They don’t need any force besides their existing dominance, to maintain that dominance.
It’s not a problem. But it easily could be. That’s all anyone’s talking about when they worry about the company after Gabe.
I don’t think that the Oil situation is comparable to the Open Standard PC. Everyone can decide to buy the next game on a different platform. You are not really locked to the Steam eco system. If your nation is based on Oil, then you are screwed. That is hugely different situation.
No, Steam is not a real monopoly. Steam also does not abuse the monopoly like Google does with their positioning and control of Android. That’s a real monopoly. And Nintendo is a monopoly too, regardless how you frame it.
You went straight from ‘they don’t have a monopoly’ to ‘they don’t abuse their monopoly’ in literally the next sentence. This topic is bewildering to discuss, because everyone not simply acknowledging ‘yes of course the one store with like ninety percent of sales is a monopoly’ is trying to juggle several conversations they’d rather be having. I often come to regret mentioning Epic or consoles because people pivot into criticism like I offered any form of defense.
Look: I have an NES homebrew that opens with the Yuzu logo and the words “never give Nintendo money.” I’ve been yelling about Apple’s enforced censorship since 2007. I’ve called for Google to be broken up for at least ten years. You do not need to tell me what an abusive monopoly looks like, in this thread where I am explicitly making the distinction between abusive monopolies and just plain having a monopoly.
There’s other subthreads saying Valve succeeds “despite capitalism.” People get so fucking weird about this company, because they refuse to believe that a corporation can do normal business and still be fine.
And yet, plainly capable of abusing their near total dominance of an open platform. Hence the concern about Gabe specifically. They have this power, but choose not to be dicks about it.
They still have this power. That’s what the word means.
Semi-monopoly, not a true one like Apples store on the iPhone. Also no one is forced to use Steam, there are alternative shops. The PC platform is open. In fact the most successful games aren’t even on Steam. If Steam was a real monopoly, then this wouldn’t be possible. If you purchase a XBOX handheld that is based on PC hardware, you don’t have to install Steam, you can just use the XBOX shop. If you want you can install GOG and Epic shops too. Maybe the League of Legends launcher too.
And it goes a step further, because game keys for Steam can be purchased on other platforms and shops without paying Steam a single cut of the price. And yet, those games purchased with such a key are integrated into Steam and Valve provides “free” service to them. With all having said this, I don’t think one can Steam call a true monopoly.
But its industry standard, not really egregious in the sense of abusing the market. Valve also provide services beyond just marketing their games on the platform, they host the games, provide features, do research and make it better and so on. Also the cut gets lower to 25% and then 20% if it sells better (which is not helping indie devs at all). Having all said this, I think 30% as the industry standard is way too high, but its not a fault of Steam only.
Standard Oil was not an absolute monopoly. Nobody was forced to buy from them. And yet.
An egregious standard is still egregious. The excuse has always been, well, Nintendo made the console, sold on thin margins, and they manufacture the carts, sooo an entire third must be reasonable. But Steam proves the only reason is that they can get away with it. They don’t need any force besides their existing dominance, to maintain that dominance.
It’s not a problem. But it easily could be. That’s all anyone’s talking about when they worry about the company after Gabe.
I don’t think that the Oil situation is comparable to the Open Standard PC. Everyone can decide to buy the next game on a different platform. You are not really locked to the Steam eco system. If your nation is based on Oil, then you are screwed. That is hugely different situation.
No, Steam is not a real monopoly. Steam also does not abuse the monopoly like Google does with their positioning and control of Android. That’s a real monopoly. And Nintendo is a monopoly too, regardless how you frame it.
Steam does not abuse their what?
I don’t understand the question.
You went straight from ‘they don’t have a monopoly’ to ‘they don’t abuse their monopoly’ in literally the next sentence. This topic is bewildering to discuss, because everyone not simply acknowledging ‘yes of course the one store with like ninety percent of sales is a monopoly’ is trying to juggle several conversations they’d rather be having. I often come to regret mentioning Epic or consoles because people pivot into criticism like I offered any form of defense.
Look: I have an NES homebrew that opens with the Yuzu logo and the words “never give Nintendo money.” I’ve been yelling about Apple’s enforced censorship since 2007. I’ve called for Google to be broken up for at least ten years. You do not need to tell me what an abusive monopoly looks like, in this thread where I am explicitly making the distinction between abusive monopolies and just plain having a monopoly.
There’s other subthreads saying Valve succeeds “despite capitalism.” People get so fucking weird about this company, because they refuse to believe that a corporation can do normal business and still be fine.
To quote myself:
And yet, plainly capable of abusing their near total dominance of an open platform. Hence the concern about Gabe specifically. They have this power, but choose not to be dicks about it.
They still have this power. That’s what the word means.
Valve does not abuse their market leader position. Being a market leader and a monopoly is a total different position.