Valve has a monopoly at being the only online gaming storefront that doesn’t suck.
Yup, it’s why I am willing to argue for them, at least until Gabe dies. He’s proven to be far more fair and I know you wouldn’t get that deal anywhere else. These days it really does seem like there a coordinated push to attack valve for not being scum like the rest of the industry these last couple of months.
It’s because they actively fight for the consumer rather than the publishers.
It’s funny though because valve has so much fucking money because they are not chasing next quarters arbitrary gains…
Valve is proof that if you don’t try to screw over your customers somehow you end up with profits. Weird how that works, and instead of companies learning something from that we’ll… they do what capitalism does…
It does make me nervous though that one player has so much power.
But certainly in the here and now as a consumer, I use steam because it makes life easier. It makes it super easy to join and host multiplayer games, gives me access to convenient game recording stuff without having to have separate software, lets me share games with my found family, and most games have achievements, which my silly achievement-whore brain loves. I’m also grateful because if not for Steam’s work developing proton, I doubt my switch to Linux would have been as straightforward as it has been.
I agree that it does seem like a targeted attack on Steam by industry hacks who I trust infinitely less than Steam. Corporations are never our friends, merely our temporary allies. However, the hacks attacking Steam are definitely my enemies, and the enemy of my enemy is my temporary ally
The only one that lets me keep in my library, download and install at any time games that were delisted 10 or 15 years ago by their publishers.
For that reason alone, they deserve my money over any other storefront.
Gog and itch.io are decent. They’re different types of stores, but very usable.
Nah I think gog is fine, they’re just not the same size (and for linux also not plug & play)
I’m a bit surprised that someone hadn’t already posted this
GOG sails past the bottom of the screen on a skateboard sipping a juicebox with a straw
Gog doesn’t have regional pricing where as steam and even epic does. If a Game on steam will cost me 700rs the GOG will charge me 1400rs and since I am poor I just pirate the game. I ain’t paying 700rs for that.
Cheers mate, still not a monopoly
They used to have it but it cost them too much IIRC.
There was a funnier one with GOG enjoying itself in the corner and the complaining party being Epic lol
would be more fitting if epic was creepy guy trying to lure people in a van with candy
Close, but also include the accusation coming from the ones on the left!
Damn that’s a good point. I don’t hear a single consumer talk about it being a monopoly. Isn’t that who would decide such a thing?
Accurate
The lawyer should just be able to give this meme to the judge and have the case closed.
Valve is one of the less evil ones. But GOG didn’t need to be forced by court to have a no-questions-asked 30 days return policy.
The courts are going to force Valve to enshittify, because consumers arent allowed to have good options. That’s unfair competition, think of all the poor megacorps. How can they sell their garbage when you offer an actually good competitor
This is your weekly reminder at this point that Valve is a corporation and that corporations are not your friends nor your allies.
Once Gaben dies, hell breaks loose.
He is a billionaire and just like all billionaire he can rot. He’s not your friend.
No, what I mean is once he dies Valve has a very good chance of going pure profit mode. Good or bad for society, gaming is often too focused upon while things doing objective harm are neglected.
Oh yeah, sure.
But if I were to have a death note I’d only be able to use on the very wealthy, I don’t think he’d be any of the first names I thought about.
lol ok Mao calm down now, just a fyi, don’t cast such a broad stroke when counting your adversaries in life, even the best waste a lot of time living like that.
It’s true though. Even the most well-intentioned billionaire is merely the central point of a massive ball of capital, full of accountants, lawyers, shell companies, VCs, lobbyists and sycophants and sucking more and more wealth and power into itself like Daniel Plainview’s giant straw through sheer fucking gravity. It can’t help its nature, it is the scorpion.
Billionaires shouldn’t exist.
“Buy” games on Steam? Sure wish they let you own them.
Some are DRM free and can be backed up at your leisure. I’m pretty sure that’s up to the developer to implement or not.
It would be neat if steam let you sell a game back, but I’m not sure how to square that with “you have a drm free copy that’s trivial to copy”
deleted by creator
God forbid people want to own their shit.
deleted by creator
Buying on steam has allowed me to play the same game for a decade on three platforms.
It’s so clear that so many people here DIDN’T read the article, which is further compounded by the author not understanding the meaning of monopoly vs anti-competitive practices. Just so we are all on the same page:
This isn’t about steam being a better service, (even though it IS a better service,) or being a monopoly, (it isn’t.) The lawsuit is about anti-competitive practices.
The lawsuit pertains to steam allegedly disallowing devs to price games lower on other platforms. If this is true, it’s a move that prevents competition. Maybe other digital storefronts are shittier, but they might make up for it by taking a smaller cut from game devs, which allows them to sell at a lower price on GOG, or EPIC. If Steam is forcing devs to charge the same price on all platforms, or preventing them from offering discounts on those other platforms when they aren’t offered on Steam, then it doesn’t matter where I buy the game. This is a form of price fixing, except it isn’t an agreement being done between digital storefronts behind closed doors, the price fixing is allegedly happening by steam leveraging the developers
Imagine you are going to buy Tide laundry detergent. You can go to Walmart, Target, or your local grocery store. They all carry the same exact same 125 fl oz bottle. Walmart has it for the lowest price, Target is the next highest, and the local grocer has the highest price for the item. Does my local grocery store get to force Walmart to raise their prices to match their own?
My local grocery store might charge a little bit more, but I prefer to shop there because it’s closer to me, and the stores are better organized making it easier for me to find what I want. Personally I LOATHE shopping at Walmart. I happen to be willing to pay more for a better experience when buying the same product. Other people might not give a shit about the shopping experience and just want the lowest price, so they go to Walmart.
I refuse to touch EPIC game store. I think it’s a subpar product. But if my buddy is telling me about a game he got for free through their storefront and raves about what a good game it is, I’m gonna buy it off of steam, instead of getting it for free, because steam is a digital storefront I trust, and provides a good customer experience.
I realize laundry detergent isn’t the same as video game software, but I think my example demonstrates how competition can work and how fucked up it would be if the allegations against steam are true.
To be clear, the only time Valve requires prices match what’s on Steam is if you’re selling Steam keys. Games are sometimes cheaper on GOG and EA and Ubisoft regularly price their games a dollar or two cheaper on their own stores.
https://www.wolfire.com/blog/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-action/
This developer says that Valve threatened to remove their game because they were selling the game for cheaper on a non steam platform with non steam games. (This is the same company mentioned in the article)
It seems that most everyone would be fine with what you said as the steam agreement, but it seems like they are in fact acting monopolistically by requiring even non-steam DRM to have price parity. This is the only thing that needs to change, imo. I think this lawsuit is about showing that the “unwritten rule” actually does exist, and they are in fact being anti-competitive.
This makes perfect sense.
I remember I got Baldur’s Gate 3 (early access) cheaper on GoG than on steam ($40 on GoG and I think it was $50 on Steam, or maybe even full-price (60), but can’t be sure).
I swear I’ve bought things on sale on GOG that were cheaper on there than on steam on more than one occasion.
I am starting to believe that the whole accusation of valve threatening to remove a game from steam about price differences likely has to do with if steam keys are generated for games purchased through other vendors. That’s like the only scenario where it would be appropriate.
Honest question, is there any other store that directly supports seamlessly running games on Linux? Even games that do not natively build for Linux?
Edit: Because in that case, Steam does have a monopol on Linux, since it’s the only store that can seamlessly/without 3rd party tools run most games.
running gog games through heroic is pretty much as seamless as steam
It’s good that the community stepped up when CD Projekt didn’t.
I use Lutris myself to run GOG games and have the same experience.
Mind you, sometimes I do have problems and have to tweak things to get them to run (usually switching the runner to wine-ge instead of wine-staging).
It’s very rare to be totally unable to run a GOG game in Linux with Lutris.
I would say that my rate of success with Steam is roughly the same.
That said, in Lutris I can run my games sandboxed with networking disabled, which I cannot in Steam (even if I started Steam itself sandboxed with networking disabled, Steam itself needs Internet access).
Maybe Steam is a little more seamless for non-technically adept users (of which there are more and more running Linux nowadays), but at least Lutris (and, I expect, Heroic) are way much more configurable and hence give a lot more possibilities for power users to do things like sandboxing or even to solve problems with running some more obscure or AAA games from a certain DRM-heavy era (for example, there’s a game which no matter what I couldn’t get to run in Steam, but with a bit of tweaking I could get a pirate copy to run in Wine under Lutris - still now that game is listed in ProtonDB as not running in Linux)
I was just curious whether technically Steam is a monopol for Linux, as in being the only store where you can run games without using 3rd party tools.
Not that I mind, running games on Linux is super easy nowadays (My favorite is Faugus launcher), but technically it can be another hurdle for some people.
But when I need to play some Epic free game, Heroic is awesome.
I mean, they develop and maintain Proton yet they don’t even prohibit you from using it on other things. If literally any company did that, their shareholders would riot…
…so I don’t think it technically qualifies as a monopoly, but they probably could have had a legal monopoly using an exclusivity patent on the tech (although they technically can’t patent the whole thing because it’s based on Wine, but they could have done this in a way that they could have).
That is a fair point. I’m also not trying to discredit Steam, I don’t really think there’s any kind of a problem as of now (well, apart from the fact that it could go downhill very fast once Steam changes hands), and the services they provide are reasonable and for me worth the 30% cut, especially their Proton work.
If literally any company did that, their shareholders would riot…
If Valve were a publicly traded company, their shareholders would have rioted over it
Well, things like Lutris do the same automated configuring of the underlying tools to run Windows games under Linux and putting it all under a “press button to play” interface as Steam as well as letting you manage your collection.
Lutris (and I believe Heroic too) even integrated with game stores and will list your games there and download them directly from there to install them.
What they don’t have is the store part - you can’t actually BUY games from those tools.
People using for example Lutris to play GOG games in Linux, have pretty much the same experience as using Steam from a browser to buy the games and then Steam app to manage your games collection and launch the games.
Having both Steam and Lutris, I personally prefer the latter because it seamlessly integrates with multiple stores and even works fine with games from other sources (such as games I bought in physical format way back in the day or games I bought directly from the developer).
Sure, the open source apps doesn’t include a store, but as I see it that’s actually a good thing since I’m not interested in getting the sales push to buy more games everytime I want to play a game, same as I’m not interested in seeing ads when I’m browsing the web.
What they don’t have is the store part - you can’t actually BUY games from those tools.
Heroic does let you buy games through the app, but it seems like it’s just a browser that gives heroic an affiliate link when you make the purchase.
Sorry but I have to disagree.
Holy failed updates batman. After I update some games, I have to fully restart heroic or it is an endless loop of “installing update” -> “Update available, click to install”
‘pretty much’ is doing heavy lifting
idk about that problem but some games just fuck. sometimes the instructions from others in “check compatibility” help
Faugus Launcher works too
Given that Proton is open source, provides plenty of instructions and permits reproduction and distribution (BSD-3-Clause-Open-MPI), any other store could likewise include it or a fork of it. They may have a factual monopoly, but it’s not enforced legally in any way.
It’s just that nobody seems to compete meaningfully. Steam has a vested interest in being independent from Microsoft, maintaining their own SteamOS and making games run on it. Other companies just might not have the same commercial drive. And if there are easy to use 3rd party tools that people are content with, why would they bother investing in their own solution? They’re accessible to the Linux market through no work of their own.
Of course, there are some companies actively not wanting to work with Linux. Some just don’t trust the platform. Some require particular technology that might not work on Linux. For example, things like kernel-level-anticheat being confined to the wine environment defeats the point of spying on the whole OS. And some would require additional work to make it run smoothly, which obviously is an investment into a market they may feel doesn’t promise enough profit.
I was going to point out how heroic launcher is fine, but that’s not a store.
That’s not really Valve’s fault that all the other storefronts don’t care to support Linux, though.
No. You can use Lutris although it appears to be unmaintained. Native GOG games work fine. Even better than the Windows versions do on windows because you don’t need Admim privileges to install for whatever fucking reason
Oh, I know how to run my games, my point was more that in that case, Steam does have a literal monopol on being the only store that can run most games on Linux without using any 3rd party tools.
Not that I mind at all, and it’s not a real problem, but I was just wondering if that’s technically the case.
There are plenty of frontend alternatives out there that work fairly seamlessly and, at this point, I don’t think work on compatibility tools like Proton would be too affected even if Valve decided to stop working on it tomorrow.
The Epic store sucks ass, the EA store sucks ass, Nintendo hates it’s fans more than Trump hates women.
As a counter example, Mincraft is a stand alone game, it came out long after Steam was established and it runs on Linux as well at it does on Windows.
If independent games came with a launcher/update experience as good as Minecraft I would have no problem buying outside of the Steam ecosystem.
An earned monopoly is still a monopoly. Anyone who feels that the power that Steam wields in the gaming market is not an issue, I urge you to think or learn about why monopolies are harmful – not in relation to steam. Think about a manufacturer of gizmos completely cornering the gizmo market and what that would mean for the people wanting to buy gizmos, as time passes. Don’t think in terms of the laws or definitions of some specific country, just think about the effect it would have on society. Worst case scenario you lose some time and gain some insight on monopolies
Of course it’s bad. For decades Valve has shown others why gamers value their game store yet most game stores still do stupid shit that drives gamers away.
The only one making an honest attempt is GOG. And their only issue is low purchasing volume which means they are slow to develop and improve their platform.
And a launcher that makes epic look good.
Think about a manufacturer of gizmos completely cornering the gizmo market
If your monopoly in the Gizmo market is because you’ve actively fought other companies, lobbied governments, filed frivilous patent suits, etc… in order to KEEP people from competing with you, than you’re a piece of shit.
If your monopoly in the Gizmo market is because despite there being no hinderance to them doing so, no competitor has been able to match your quality, than kudos.
In your example, you’re effectively saying that governments should force people to use shittier services just to avoid a monopoly, even if that monopoly is earned.
If people want to buy Gizmos, and that first company is losing their trust, another company will come in and compete successfully because that first company isn’t preventing them from doing so. If that second company does it better, great.
An earned monopoly and a forced monopoly are not nearly the same thing, precisely because an earned monopoly is on the whim of the consumers. If your product turns to shit, a replacement will make itself known. Whereas a forced monopoly is on the whim of the government and lobbyists.
But other stores exist, they just don’t offer what steam does (which includes Play on Linux).
It like if you bought an amazing vacuum that does everything (hardwood, carpet, car attachments, air filtration), and the competitor offers a vacuum that only does carpeted floors…its not a true monopoly, its the competitor not understanding what sellsThis gizmo maker is making the best gizmo that everyone loves, best delivery and best support for people that buys the gizmo. Why would you fault that company for delivering what majority of people wanted. They didn’t corner the gizmo market by buying out smaller gizmo makers, they didn’t block smaller gizmo maker by undercutting them, they didn’t even advertise to cut into other’s profit share. They win the capitalist market by making the best gizmo plus the best experience of buying and owning the gizmo.
Oh no. They’ve made gaming accessible on Linux, games still run you purchased 20 years ago on the latest hardware and they’re not a bloated pile of garbage
If anything, they’ve actually made things better for everyone
In contrast, if you purchased wii u games, you need to re buy for switch. Ps5, wii u and Xbox all basically are limited to what publishers can sell
I’d even argue they’re not a real monopoly because they Don’t control the hardware, and there are other platforms
Somebody needs to make a better gizmo than I guess 😉. Americans seem to love capitalism…so than, capitalize.
Yes, but before Valve you had a lot more choice, because you could buy things in actual shops. I didn’t have to wait until the handful of predetermined “sale weeks” a year to actually get games at budget prices.
And it’s not just Valve, but if they ever go public or bust, you’ll all wonder how you were ever fooled for so long.
they aren’t going public or bust. there is no incentive for them to go public and they are sitting on a dragon hoard of cash with relatively few employees who are all multi millionaires. they’re the most successful private company there is, so there’s no reason why anyone there would want to change things just to get shareholder money. they don’t need shareholder money.
Has he inherited the David Jones curse? Is there any photo from him in the last 10 years that is not on a yatch?
Dude likes his yachts so much that he literally bought the company.
Fuck billionaires. Yes, even this guy.
His hobby is yachts, which tells you how well Steam is doing for him.
His hobby is marine biology, which in turn necessitates yachts.
He’s actually made quite a few discoveries working with his team.
I thought that was James Cameron?
…Yknow, now that you mention him, I wonder if Zuckerberg would become less… Zuckerberg, if we somehow got him into marine biology.
Nuance doesnt exists in the minds of the dim
I get it but its not like they are buying up competition or doing bad practices to win unless doing what your customers want is being unfare. In this case I blame the competition.
Around the 2010’s, both MS and Google were seen as “noble monopolies”. Even if Steam is the better video game distributors, always stand on more than one leg when it comes to buying games.
MS was anything but lol, they had a swarm of lawsuit dramas over by then. Only Apple glazed MS because they quite literally saved them from bankruptcy which they only did as insurance against a proper antitrust case.
Google was newer but they also weren’t a private company, they were riding silicon valley money to the moon.
Regardless, Steam is a monopoly but their immediate competitors are the only ones chucking anti competitve measures around like crappy DRM and price lockins.
Other gaming platforms are fully capable of competing with Steam. It’s only real edge is that it treats game developers better than any other platform.
And at least both gog and itchdotio are the better ones. If only Epic got its shit together…
It’s only real edge is that it treats game developers better than any other platform.
I think you meant customers
Asked about this rule, Newell repeatedly denied it exists, even when shown internal communications seemingly showing Valve employees enforcing it: “Valve does not have a policy or practice of dictating prices to third-party software developers on other platforms.” When asked how Valve would react if it ever happened, Newell initially said he was confused by the question and then added, “Many of our partners and many of our customers are quite happy with the service that we’re providing.”
It would be interesting to see what happens if some of the larger publishers did this.
Someone few weeks ago posted a link where there were few emails that were exchanged with Valve and puglishers(?) with redacted pieces here and there. Their point was that Valve tells devs/publishers to match prices of their games on their own stores to prices on Steam.
I may be not a great english speaker, but in reality it did read that if a company wants to make discount somewhere else, they need to match the exact same discount on Steam. Point of that was that Valve doesn’t want customers to think that Steam is an expensive option when shopping for games.
I think that this is a common misconception and Gabe was annoyed that interviewer had not double checked information regarding Valve policies.
This has been re-hashed over and over. The terms are that if they want to discount steam provided keys on another platform they have to match that price on Steam. Steam keys are free to generate for them. They are free to distribute them on any platform. But the deal they make when they generate the steam keys is that they will adhere to the pricing rule.
If they want to discount keys generated on Epic’s store, then they can generate and sell them at any price they want.
I believe there is an exception for bundles like the humble bundle.
This is becoming hair splitting, it’s clear they don’t want publishers give out keys on steams dime, that might change with charity bundle but the general rule stays the same.
Start with SpaceX
