In general, I’m not a fan of steam. I know i know, I’m saying this in THE steam community.
Steam is DRM, its terrible drm that can be bypassed with an easily downloaded crack tool, but drm nonetheless.
If a game I want is on GOG I will gladly get it there over buying it on steam.
the only reason i favor steam over gog is their stellar linux support
Not all Steam games use it as DRM. Many Steam games you can simply launch the executable without Steam installed and it will work.
Still, GOG is much better on that front.
But even games I buy on GOG, I often launch through Steam to take advantage of tools like Proton and Steam Input. Steam’s dominance stems from unwavering commitment to building a good user experience, and I’m not ashamed to reward that with my wallet vote.
Valve: Has reasonably priced games on sale frequently Makes the Steam Deck Actively supports Linux, both for VR and regular gaming Has the best customer service out of any competitor Has the best store experience out of any competitor
I mean…it’s not surprising that they’re a monopoly, but that doesn’t make them a bad one.
Benevolent Dictatorship?
I fear for the day GabeN has to pass on the torch 😖
I’ve been seeing a fair amount of discourse lately that Gabe Newell might be the only reason why Steam is a benevolent monopoly, and it’s why I only buy games on Steam when there’s no other option, when they’re not otherwise available on GOG and Itch.io.
Because Steam says for now that they’ll have a failsafe in place to make our games playable even if the company goes under. Steam doesn’t nickel and dime people, for now. Steam is doing important work for Linux, for now. Our profiles are fun and customizable like the internet used to be, for now. Steam’s DRM is so light it hardly exists, for now. But what’s going to happen to our huge libraries when Gabe retires or dies?
I hate that I even have to think this way, but I for one don’t want to have all my eggs in one basket, especially when the competitors’ policies are doing more to protect users right now.
Yeah.
I have enjoyed many happy years with steam and for now things are still okay, with Gabe keeping the enshittification at bay. They’ve done great things for the industry, and have my respect for that.
Yet we can’t simply trust the platform will remain as benevolent as it always has been.
If history tells us anything, it’s that nothing remains the same forever.
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.
Well, since I use Linux, Steam is the only platform that cares about my money. The competition chose not to support my system.
Heroic Launcher works for GOG, Epic and Prime games.
Yes but that is a third party solution to those platforms refusing to support Linux. Good on the people developing Heroic, but Steam has native support.
People misunderstand the issue with monopolies. Monopolies, by themselvs, are non-issues. It’s what they do in their position of monopoly that can be illegal, through anti-competitive behavior. Steam does none of that BS
This. So much this. Monopolies are often evidence of an unhealthy/stagnating market, but they’re more symptom than cause. Trusts/cartels, price-fixing, and anticompetitive behavior are the actual abuses of market power, and are much more problematic.
I’m not going to claim that Valve is perfect (they’re not, e.g. see issues regarding DRM) and I’d love to have more choices about where I buy my games, but I can’t think of any instance of them abusing their position in the market to prevent new entrants or claim an unfair advantage. From what I’ve seen, they appear to be a very fair and honorable competitor in the space. However, if anyone is aware any examples to the contrary, I’d love to hear about it and update my opinions.
Yes, but by pushing back on monopolies in the first place, you ensure that there are other options if one turns sour. Steam is great for now in a lot of ways. That can change - and if it does, we only really have GOG to fall back on, and their platform isn’t nearly as mature as steam.
Steam is naturally the only platform gamers care about because they’re the only platform that acturally targers gamers, all other platforms target devs (except GOG who targets gamers that specifically want offline copies without DRM)
all other platforms target
devsshareholders
I love Steam, but I don’t like how their rules seems to biased against Japanese games.
There are plenty of JP games outright refused by Steam despite have zero have adult content, and perfectly fine on being released on GOG, (edit: and also Nintendo!) or other digital platform.
Especially with visual novels and games with psychology theme.
That’s a nightmare minefield you’re insisting on as the meaning of art can be skewed. Does the Triumph of Will count as a film or a propaganda film? Does the Wolf Warrior series count as propaganda? Steam probably doesn’t want to be dragged into another legal issues like in Australia so that’s the choice they’ve made.
And it’s not like you cannot get it anywhere else. There are plenty of other places like GOG as you said or Dlsite or others I wouldn’t mention.
Oftentimes, niche genre only can survive on platform with huge reach.
Releasing it only on DLsite or GOG means either they have to drive up the price to even cover the development cost. This often happen on niche Nintendo games or big budget R18+ on DLsite.
Some big budget games on DLsite can reach around 70USD, while when it gets released on Steam it’s only 20-40USD.
Idle speculation: maybe it has to do w/ the nightmare of their copy write/distribution laws. For instance Sony (yuck) has contracted Japanese VAs for dialogue in certain games(helldivers 2) but won’t allow anyone outside Japan to even purchase the option.
Those are entirely different thing.
It’s just classic case of Sony doesn’t want to pay additional license of Japanese voice for non-JP release.
Whenever Japanese VA is available, the option are presents on every single game release on Steam except of Western big budget AA or AAA-developed games.
I’m curious what the Japanese devs think might be the problem with Steam in this case. I know dlsite has been the main place for trying to sell their own indie stuff
I remember several conversation on Twitter from Japanese dev. They already consider Steam as monopoly, especially as Japanese PC game scene itself has already several competing store, from DMM, DLsite, Getchu, Melonbooks, Booth.pm, and so on.
Remind people that a monopoly isn’t illegal. Abusing a monopoly to prevent competition and using a monopoly as a means to create unfair market conditions in other categories - Windows and web browsers in the past or Apple’s monopoly on iOS software distribution.
Consoles are even more restrictive than an iPhone is still in the US and was in the EU. Complain about Steam all these devs and people want, unless it can be proven that Valve is using their market share to stop other companies from competing well, it’s a moot point calling them a monopoly. That Wolfire lawsuit when I read the initial court filings they put out was a joke. It was citing Twitter posts and blogspam articles citing anonymous forum posts
Steam was not the first PC digital distribution store. It wasn’t even great until like 2006/2007. In the early days Impulse could have been competitive but Stardock sold it to GameStop who in dumb move of the last 2 decades did nothing with it. Desura did not improve. GFWL was terrible. Windows Store used to have issues with making storage unreclaimable without a reformat of the drive. Direct2Drive never improved. GamersGate just stayed a key seller. GoG was never going to grow without regular day one games which wasn’t going to be competitive as DRM free. Humble Store stayed a key seller.
Amazon and Epic’s idea was to just give away games. Ubisoft and EA stores barely even had games they didn’t publish. So sparse I bet they didn’t have self publishing tools. Those 2 puzzlingly regularly had issues maintaining login sessions persisting over time. PC gaming is dieing was the mainstream meme until like 2015. Epic on Android doesn’t even have a library of owned games view and it’s been almost a year since that released.
Valve didn’t make Amazon, Microsoft, Epic, EA, Ubisoft, Stardock+GameStop, Direct2Drive, … all under invest and/or mismanage their PC game store platform efforts. It’s not up to Valve to stop making the platform more appealing. EGS is 7 years old. Those other companies have been doing PC game stores for much longer. I remember buying and downloading PC games from Amazon before Prime gaming. It was just like Direct2Drive. Since 2004 Direct2Drive was always a storefront for any publishers game whereas Steam didn’t start listing 3rd party games until 2005.
If any service was comparable to like end of 2013 Steam, that would easily be second best store platform. Instead every store is at best like 2010 Steam with nicer animations, bigger buttons. And today there’s way more resources to make a competitor. More cloud service providers with mature onboarding tools. NPM install. A lot more open source databases. Kubernetes. Git. Etc. Should be able to do better than 7 year old Steam in 7 years from these companies that were far larger than 2002/2003 Valve when they got into PC game distribution. The big publishers were probably all wealthier than Valve up to like 2015
It’s not Sony and Nintendo’s fault that since the Kinect on the 360, Microsoft hasn’t been able to manage their studios to be competitive with Nintendo and Sony studios
Absofuckinglutely. Being a monopoly happens when your product is just that good. What you do when you are a monopoly, that’s a different matter. And Valve is doing OK so far, yeah, not perfect, but that’s how these things go.
Does this mean Steam is guaranteed to always be equally good? No.
Does this mean Steam is an evil monopoly right now? No. At the moment they are just a monopoly as people prefer them over the competition.
100% agree to everything. Steam is monopoly. But they implement policies for gamers in mind, not money. If anything, devs should praise Steam for decreasing gaming piracy. Things that Valve do for gamers is incomparable to whatever EA, Ubi, Epic do.
But they implement policies for gamers in mind, not money
- sucky currency conversion rates they refuse to update
- they take 30% cut
- they are banning games on behest of Mastercard and Visa
So, no. It’s enshittification.
sucky currency conversion rates they refuse to update
This goes one way or another, some countries benefit from the unchanging conversions
they take 30% cut
I don’t know how expensive it is to run Steam, and they certainly could afford to lower their cut with how much infinite money they have, but with how much Steam offers to developers and the potential cost of bandwidth, it doesn’t really seem that bad?
they are banning games on behest of Mastercard and Visa
The alternative is to be cut-off from those payment processors and only take money through some other means
That’s the problem of the monopoly (or large dominant market share) - Steam doesn’t have to compete for us with anyone.
they are banning games on behest of Mastercard and Visa
They literally have no choice, this was under threat of being essentially cut off any banking system. It’s fucked up, no questions about it, but it’s a societal problem that needs to be addressed legally, as any single company is powerless against that. Even Apple would not survive being banned by visa & MC
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”.
Words don’t matter. Do well and have a platform that most prefer? You’re a monopoly. People don’t realize that to be a monopoly you must be the only source and actively prevent access to or other sources of the same product. How many of those using the term monopoly regarding Steam have GOG Galaxy, Epic, Battle.net, and etc. installed on their machines, ya think.
Being the best does not a monopoly make!
Edit: Further, and speaking of Epic, I never heard of Steam paying devs to pull their games from other platforms for exclusivity deals.
I think there is a distinction to be made between being a monopoly and doing anti-competitive behavior.
Steam hasn’t done any anti-competitive behavior that I am aware of, but they do have enough market power to be considered a monopoly. Consider how companies like EA and Activision tried to maintain competing platforms but caved because those platforms were not viable compared to Steam. That’s monopoly power.
theres basically one anti conpetitive measure they hold primarily, and its the one that states the listing price of a game must be the same on all platforms policy. stops devs from having a lower listing price on other platforms.
other than that its usually other platforms shooting their selves.
I’m pretty sure that that only applies to steam keys being sold on other sites. If it’s being distributed in some other form, it can be cheaper.
This “most favored nation” clause in contracts is huge! It means that even if another store takes half of Steam’s cut (say, 15% vs 30%), the game can’t be sold for less, meaning other rival stores can never compete on price. In other words, Steam drives up prices for games economy-wide. Amazon does something similar, and this was part of the basis the FTC’s antitrust lawsuit against them.
Say I sold a game for $10 on Steam and GameStoria. With the 30% you suggest I would take home $7 from Steam and $8.50 from GameStoria. I make more with a competitor who is willing to take less and of their instead wanted to charge more, Steam would be more profitable… The consumer doesn’t see anything but a $10 game.
Steam drives up prices for games economy-wide.
You must be joking
Yes, this, so many people use words but don’t know what they mean.
Yes, Steam is an effective monopoly.
You don’t need to literally be the only possible option, the entire market, to be ‘a monopoly’.
Economists very often refer to a company that has just a vastly oversized market share and other kinds of market influence, ws compared to the next comptetitor or set of competitors, as a monopoly.
Like uh, Walmart has a decent chance of having a local, effective monopoly on the grocery market, if you live in a whole lot of US cities.
And also yes, when it comes to anti trust law… yeah you generally have to do things that are either current anti competetive or anti consumer practices, of have done them in the past to acquire your monopoly status, to be broken up by a possible Sherman Act based action.
It is actually possible to become a monopolist without doing anything particularly uncommon in the market, or underhanded… its possible that just no one bothers to meaningfully compete with you untill its too late.
but they do have enough market power to be considered a monopoly
Bullshit. Being the most popular platform does not automatically make a monopoly, this is armchair lawyer nonsense.
It’s true that I am not a lawyer, so feel free to not take what I say as what the law says. I think that the law certainly should consider Steam to be a monopoly with its level of market power, even if it doesn’t currently.
From what I have heard from actual lawyers, monopolies are not currently illegal under US law anyways. They’re only illegal when combined with anticompetitive practices. That’s my best understanding as a non-lawyer, anyways.
Failing to make a product that doesn’t suck shit does not make a monopoly for your competitor.
In fact, Steam is de facto not a monopoly because of the very existence of GOG. EA and Activision tried to break in to this arena but failed to provide a product that actually switched people off of steam, because they failed to provide a comparable experience to steam. GOG did, and they’re doing fine.
By this logic Google isn’t a search monopoly because DuckDuckGo exists, despite Google buying default placement in Safari, Firefox, Chrome, etc to make sure no other search provider can compete, with their bribe to Apple alone totaling $20 billion a year to maintain their search dominance. What do you think monopoly power is if not that?
Can you describe where Steam has done anything even approaching that, ever?
EA and Activision stores didn’t fail because Steam bought them out and bullied them out of the market, they failed because they were trash products. Steam doesn’t buy “default placement” in anything. They just have a good product that people want to use over alternatives.
Point out a situation in which Steam has acted anti-competitive and I might agree that you have a point, but I can’t think of any situations to call out here.
Whether something is a monopoly or not is independent of anti-competitive practices. It’s about market power.
If there’s a genuinely good product that’s popular because it’s good. There’s no need to step in and give shittier products more share in the market.
The point in breaking up monopolies is to be more fair for consumers. If you want to say they’re technically a monopoly because they have a large share of the market then fine. But I don’t see that as a bad thing until it starts abusing its power.
I agree that Steam is pretty good as it is, and there are certainly more pressing concerns. However, in an ideal world, what Steam does should probably be handled by the public sector because it’s a natural monopoly. People like only having to go to one place to find their games, but that place doesn’t have to be controlled by a for-profit corporation.
yes, it is “is independent of anti-competitive practices”, a monopoly is when there is only one company providing a product or service (and they usually kill or gobble up the potential competition)
Um, there is more than one type of anticompetitive practice? Amazon uses predatory pricing to drive companies out of business, Microsoft uses tying to sell Teams, Google uses self-preferencing for their own services in search results, Facebook acquired Instagram rather than compete with them, etc.
One of Valve’s favorite anticompetitive cudgels is requiring “most favored nation” clauses in their contracts, prohibiting devs from selling for less on other storefronts (which Amazon also has used).
Um, there is more than one type of anticompetitive practice? Amazon uses predatory pricing to drive companies out of business, Microsoft uses tying to sell Teams, Google uses self-preferencing for their own services in search results, Facebook acquired Instagram rather than compete with them, etc.
None of which are related to Steam nor has Steam done anything resembling any of these examples to my knowledge.
One of Valve’s favorite anticompetitive cudgels is requiring “most favored nation” clauses in their contracts, prohibiting devs from selling for less on other storefronts (which Amazon also has used).
Valve prohibits people from selling steam keys for less on other storefronts which I think is perfectly reasonable. You can list your game on Steam for $20 and distribute it on Itch for $5 or even free and Steam has zero problem with this, so long as you aren’t distributing steam keys via that storefront. This is to try and prevent a developer from leveraging Steam for advertisement purposes but making all their actual sales off-platform.
GoG has, like, 1/5th the market share of Steam. It’s not nearly big enough to prevent Steam from having monopoly power. If Steam came out with a policy saying that games could not be on both Steam and GoG, the vast majority of devs would release on Steam. That’s monopoly power which Steam has, regardless of whether they are currently abusing it or not.
If they do anti-competitive behaviour then that would make them a monopoly.
“Steam is so popular because they’re good not because they’re a monopoly”
“Oh yeah? Well what if Steam was a monopoly? They would be a monopoly then right!”
Even if there were literally no other competitors, GOG holding 1/6th of the market share (your words) absolutely precludes Steam from being a monopoly.
You’re using a different definition of monopoly from what I’m using. To quote Wikipedia:
In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge overly high prices, which is associated with unfair price raises.
I’m using the latter of those definitions. I don’t think it’s particularly useful to only consider it a monopoly when there are literally no competitors. I think it is useful to consider it a monopoly when it has dominant market power. Steam’s estimated 75-80% market share is dominant market power.
So how often does steam charge overly high prices, which is associated with unfair price raises?
the power to charge overly high prices
One doesn’t have to actually use a power in order to have that power. If I was carrying a loaded shotgun, I would have firepower. I wouldn’t have to actually fire the gun to have firepower.
Also, one could argue (and Epic Games has) that Steam’s 30% cut is overly high for digital distribution. I’m not sure whether that’s true or not, but that doesn’t really matter to the question of whether Steam has dominant market power.
I think they were viable but nobody trusts EA and Activision with keeping the game they buy.
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.
Remaining a privately held company is really the only protection from enshittification. Not a guarantee, mind you.
Gabe Newell is a man with a red button on his desk that, if pressed, will immediately grant him 11 figures to distribute as he pleases. It’s labeled “sell Valve to Microsoft/go public”. Newell hasn’t pressed the button. Newell and his employees are satisfied with “making shitloads of money” and don’t need to “make more shitloads than last year, forever”.
I can reasonably say that Newell probably won’t press that button during his lifetime. Similarly, I’d trust anyone with that button to hold onto it no matter what, because “if it’s getting pressed, it should be me pressing it.”
Once Newell dies, many bets are off. That’s a really, really tempting button to press. There are very few humans likely to not press it.
Yep, exactly.
They don’t have a board of investors demanding LINE GO UP FASTER, the way that say, MSFT did, demanding their games division hit a 30% profit margin for the last 5 years, and then I guess being surprised that that level of short term thinking blew it all up.
But, on the flip side… who the fuck knows what’s gonna happen when Gabe either passes the torch or quits.
Hooray capitalism, lol.
Well they are certainly the exception, not the rule. I’ll take it, but we definitely got cosmically lucky to have steam exist in this timeline the way it does. 99/100 times it’s a soulless shit factory that’s entirely reflective of the AAA industry as a whole.
They have a functional monopoly on game launchers, but it isn’t illegal to have a monopoly — it’s only illegal to use that monopoly for anti-competitive actions.
A monopoly in law doesn’t mean total (100%) market control; it means having the power to control prices or exclude competition. Courts often refer to this as monopoly power.
A monopoly could exist with as little as 50% of the market, or even lower. Steam has around 70–80%, which is easily enough to be considered a monopoly. However, you could argue that despite their large market share, they can’t truly control the market, since it’s their goodwill and consumer-friendly behavior that earned them that share in the first place — and if they ever tried to abuse it, people might go elsewhere.
Personally, I don’t really believe that. Considering your entire library is tied to their platform, they could pull all kinds of shady tactics if they wanted to. But it’s an argument.
As far as I’m concerned, Steam is the least evil of the major corporations. I can overlook the secret gambling ring and possible dark-money smuggling complicity because they seem to be a net benefit to consumers, and the harm mostly falls on those complicit in the scheme — as well as on China and Russia.
Edit, fixed spelling.
Steam does force the sellers on their platform to not give better discounts elsewhere. So basically if you see a game that’s 20% off on steam and it is ATL, you won’t find it 30% off anywhere else.
Not necessarily a monopoly but definitely not allowing competitive pricing.
Now that I think about it, it’s probably why Epic has to go with the “timed exclusive” approach instead of just giving you a bigger discount.
Not actually true. They only require price parity for steam keys. Basically don’t sell steam copies anywhere cheaper than on steam. Any other copy you can sell for whatever price.
They only require price parity for steam keys. Basically don’t sell steam copies anywhere cheaper than on steam.
Even that isn’t true which a quick search on isthereanydeals before buying games will show a lot of times when it comes to steam key prices.
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 $31.92.
People are missing out on deals if they assume Steam store price is the lowest price for Steam games.
But the key price is the same, they giving you a discount. They can’t change the price of 100$ to 80$ without giving a 20% discount.
I linked their own guidelines regarding steam key prices. They do require price parity with steam for steam keys. (with some exceptions)
I believe the clause applies to any storefronts as it operates on the MFN pricing principle.
But let’s say it doesn’t, and you’re correct and you could buy the same game on itch, gog, humble, epic, M$ store, ubi store, whatever else.
Did you ever actually see any of the stores promote better pricing on their first party platform? I haven’t.
Did you ever see assassins creed games being 5$ cheaper if you buy them on the ubi store as an example?
Same as the above for humble, epic, EA, Microsoft?
That’d be a pretty effective way to drive people to your storefront and drive first party sales with additional profit to the first party… and yet for some reason that practice apparently doesn’t exist.
I am almost 100% sure that’s not done out of the goodness of the shareholders hearts and has more to do with the legal spaghet of it all.
But at the end of the day the above is speculation, I have no concrete way to prove it one way or the other besides the limited observations that I’ve made over the years.
Did you ever see assassins creed games being 5$ cheaper if you buy them on the ubi store as an example?
I had tracked ubisoft vs steam prices over the years, and usually if you wanted to pay less Ubisoft was the way to go for Ubisoft games.
Like Far Cry 6 $6 all time low on Ubisoft store and $11.99 all time low on Steam.
Good resource, thanks
Yeah its saved me money over the years. I’m realizing in this thread lot of people didn’t know Steam prices isn’t always the best price and missing out on lot of discounts.
What do you mean it doesn’t exist? Epic got me to download their launcher because they were selling gta 5 for free. How could I have found that out if I only play on steam???
They don’t want to drive you to your storefront so that you get the games cheaper. They want to sell for the same price without paying commission. They want to pocket the difference, not give it to you.
I’ve never seen a reliable source display steam has price parity. Their steam key price parity however is very clearly displayed. https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys
Not true. I just checked the first game currently discounted I know on GOG’s front page: Ghost Runner. It’s at -75% (7.49€) on GOG but full price (29.99€) on Steam.
Price parity doesn’t mean no discounts. All games in all platforms are the same fucking base price, each store front applies different discounts for different products based on their metrics. The other guy is right, EGS doesn’t get 30% cut like steam but their games is not 15%-20% cheaper, if they give you a 15% once in the blue moon doesn’t mean shit.
Compare to lowest all time price on steam, not current price. Pretty sure it’s going to come out to the same.
Goal post.
Isthereanydeals. Frequently see steam keys available for cheaper than it is on Steam.
Recommend using it as a resource before buying games since it tracks prices, so no need to spend more than necessary.
Example is recently released ARC Raiders where you can save a few bucks. Current best is 15% off for a Steam key.
https://isthereanydeal.com/game/arc-raiders/info/
I’ve often wondered who is paying full price buying from Steam at launch over sometimes buying a Steam key from another storefront for 10-20% less. Guess its people who think games aren’t sold cheaper than on Steam.
Il Epic had free cloud saves and more social aspects they would be a much more appealing option, especially because they are much friendlier towards indie devs since they demand a much lower service fee. Steam is just the best for consumers right now
Also if they didn’t have an irrational hatred for Linux.
And all the fixation is on Epic vs Steam, but it has also been Epic vs GOG. Since their exclusive deals were prevented from being released on GOG too. Probably since people would actually be willing to biy from GOG if steam wasn’t available with how hated epic is, and would have led to GOG growing as opposed to Epic.
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.
heroic launcher to the rescue!
Steam has a monopoly: yes. Steam, like apple, takes a cut from all payments in the store, and micro transactions. Considering how Steam is a company, and could just be evil, and bad, like Google, it’s:
-Contributions and implementation of the opensource software Proton-Ge, which lets me just download a windows game and play it, off steam, and is also available, free & opensource on other platforms like Lutris. -Regular deals which make it the best place to buy games, if you choose to do so. -Steamdeck
Make it a (mostly) positive force, imho. However, a billion dollar company being able to do discounts below any small game distribution companies, is bad.
FYI: Proton-GE is a fork of Proton. The Glorieus Eggroll (GE) version is not affiliated with Steam/Valve
Plus, who knows what the next CEO after Gabe retires will have in mind?
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
Then why aren’t 72% of games on GOG.
Yeah I gotta say that I am a steam fanboy, but GOG is making me pause. After 20 years of being on steam (oh my god it’s been that long) I am finding myself preferring GOG. No DRM is pretty sick.
They want to fight back against steam the winner isn’t more DRM, it’s using valve’s own weapon against them, and using less DRM.
GOG version is superior for modding like Skyrim or Fallout series because of the forced updates if you launch the game on Steam.
If it wasn’t for Valve’s aggressive support for Linux (and GOG being for-profit and hence inherently evil) then I’d definitely prioritize GOG.
Steam’s for-profit too. The term you’re looking for that describes CDPR but not Valve is “publicly traded” or simply “has shareholders”.
“For-profit” refers to a legally binding obligation to shareholders to maximize profit. It does not simply mean “wants money”. You can be for-profit without being publicly traded, but since Valve is private we’ll never know.
I will always choose GOG over Steam if given the choice, but too many developers still think it’s okay to take your money without giving you true ownership of your purchase. Steam allows that exploitation and GOG does not.
Because they are cowards.
I don’t know if I would say they’re a monopoly there are other options/store fronts out there…it’s just that the vast majority outside of GOG suck. in fact they all suck OTHER than Steam and GOG.
And as a Linux user…I ain’t got much of a choice. Steam, now, just works for me. I don’t even have to toggle the compatibility option anymore or hell even mess around with proton if I don’t want to. install steam via whatever package manager or flatpak and i’m off to the races.
Anything other than Steam is unlikely to work. EA, Epic, and Microsoft have all essentially told me they don’t want my business simply because I use Linux.
I think it qualifies as a monopoly because of the network effect of having so many users and so many games on it. Especially on the developer side, it’s basically mandatory to release your game on Steam because the number of users you can reach is so much higher than any other platform.
That being said, it’s not a monopoly that most people have a problem with because they generally continue to serve users well even though they have enough market power that they could enshittify things. If they were a public company they almost certainly would have done that by now.
It’s not a monopoly. I’ve tried the other store fronts and they either don’t work on linux or they are extremely anti-competitive. I’m not sure why you’re dying on this hill but good luck.
So, it’s not a monopoly… because there are no viable alternatives?
deleted by creator
You can sell your game for different prices on different platforms, you just can’t sell steam keys that way. If you purchase a game on Itch and it gives you a steam key, that’s still a steam purchase and is subject to this restriction. If you purchase a game on Itch and it hands you an installer then you can buy that game at whatever price they want to sell it at.
And yet Steam keys have been sold for less than Steam prices for over a decade.
Like the recently released ARC Raiders.
https://isthereanydeal.com/game/arc-raiders/info/
All time low of $31.92 vs $39.99 on Steam. Current low is $34.17 for a Steam key.
Developers aren’t forced to exclusively ship on Steam or not at all.
That’s just not true in practical terms. If you want your game to be discovered and you don’t have a massive advertising budget, it’s not a serious option to try to forego selling on Steam while staying in business as a game developer. That’s like saying Amazon isn’t an ecommerce monopoly because you’re not “forced” to sell there, even though that would mean bankruptcy and irrelevance for most sellers.
If Steam suddenly introduced a policy that prohibited devs from selling on other platforms alongside Steam, most devs would choose Steam because they would make way more money on Steam than elsewhere.
The power to do that is monopoly power, regardless of whether Steam is abusing that power currently. I think that their behavior on the whole is pretty good, but that doesn’t make them not a monopoly.
This!
fyi heroic launcher installs and runs epic and gog games beautifully
epic and uplay is a bit more complicated, but with a bit of fiddling, lutris worked well enough for me
unfortunately (?) no solution for microsoft/xbox stuff yet, if they’re not on steam i mean
that said i’m not giving any money these companies (except for gog ofc), but free stuff is freeAs a Linux user, exactly as well.
