they got there by having the only storefront. by the time alternatives showed up, Steam already had millions of users just from being the only choice for years.
Doesn’t change shit. Epic is literally pumping out free games and what does it give it? Nothing. Because it’s store is straight up vile to use - no human feedback anywhere, the whole shit is suited for publishers to orchestrate however they see fit. Same shit applies to most online game stores. They are aimed at publishers, not gamers, and thus ignored by the latter.
But hey, let’s look at two shops that are, slowly but surely, carving their part of the cake. GOG and Itch.io. What differentiates them? Both are trying to play with users. GOG with rescuing old games, dropping DRM as much as possible and working with other launchers and Itch by creating probably the biggest Indie publishing site ever. But Itch.io is niche and GOG is still lagging behind.
Battle.net didn’t have a storefront until 2013, two years after Skyrim became the first AAA game to launch exclusively on Steam. Steam launched in 2003 and by 2005 was selling games from other developers. Games for Windows didn’t launch until 2007. Stardock only ever sold software published by one corporation.
so yeah, those options didn’t exist for years after Steam, like I said. I appreciate you providing good examples to prove my point tho.
Require is a strong word. The box set with five CDs needed it to install, but it could be uninstalled afterwards according to the Greybeards from that time.
Yeah, sure. But I still have not heard about doubious methods to keep it that way. Like Lego suing other brick brands over copyright while stealing designs or using customs services to crackdown on shops criticizing their methods.
the question wasn’t whether or not they engaged in dubious practices though. you can be a paragon of righteousness and still have a monopoly over something.
No. It’s also about accusability. Steam did not work to become a monopoly by shady practice, it became a quasi monopoly by offering a good product and no competitor giving Steam’s customers a reason to switch.
they got there by having the only storefront. by the time alternatives showed up, Steam already had millions of users just from being the only choice for years.
Doesn’t change shit. Epic is literally pumping out free games and what does it give it? Nothing. Because it’s store is straight up vile to use - no human feedback anywhere, the whole shit is suited for publishers to orchestrate however they see fit. Same shit applies to most online game stores. They are aimed at publishers, not gamers, and thus ignored by the latter.
But hey, let’s look at two shops that are, slowly but surely, carving their part of the cake. GOG and Itch.io. What differentiates them? Both are trying to play with users. GOG with rescuing old games, dropping DRM as much as possible and working with other launchers and Itch by creating probably the biggest Indie publishing site ever. But Itch.io is niche and GOG is still lagging behind.
Ah yes Blizzard didn’t have battle.net, Microsoft didn’t have windows live for games, stardock central didn’t exist,
Battle.net didn’t have a storefront until 2013, two years after Skyrim became the first AAA game to launch exclusively on Steam. Steam launched in 2003 and by 2005 was selling games from other developers. Games for Windows didn’t launch until 2007. Stardock only ever sold software published by one corporation.
so yeah, those options didn’t exist for years after Steam, like I said. I appreciate you providing good examples to prove my point tho.
First aaa game to launch exclusively on steam… And you think that was Skyrim?
Gordan is so disappointed in you.
HL2 actually had an edition that came on disks that didn’t require Steam.
Wild when I bought what I thought was a disc copy I came home opened the case and found a game code and a link to steam.
Most were, but there was one version that didn’t use Steam. It’s probably worth a lot of money, if you could find one that was unopened.
And here’s why that didn’t matter.
9 years before skyrim. Steam had it’s launch title secured.
Require is a strong word. The box set with five CDs needed it to install, but it could be uninstalled afterwards according to the Greybeards from that time.
Yeah, sure. But I still have not heard about doubious methods to keep it that way. Like Lego suing other brick brands over copyright while stealing designs or using customs services to crackdown on shops criticizing their methods.
the question wasn’t whether or not they engaged in dubious practices though. you can be a paragon of righteousness and still have a monopoly over something.
No. It’s also about accusability. Steam did not work to become a monopoly by shady practice, it became a quasi monopoly by offering a good product and no competitor giving Steam’s customers a reason to switch.