Okay, So what prevents developers from pulling their games from Steam? Over 100,000 titles available on Steam vs. 4,000+ titles on EGS , which has better revenue sharing (12%). Surely, they dislike this monopolistic platform. So, why haven’t they at least offered their games elsewhere?
You still haven’t answered my question. If a Steam equivalent was released today. Had all the same features of Steam. But had better revenue sharing and even an exclusive feature that takes it over the top. Would that product be able to compete? That’s one of the questions that will be asked in court soon.
Another one could be, more directly related to monopolistic practices, does Steam take measures to prevent someone from downloading another marketplace and using it instead? The only discipline Valve could receive for being a “monopoly” would be is if the government wants to apply a windfall tax on their profits. Which has yet to happen.
Nobody is even trying to compete with Steam, cause no one wants to. So, what do you recommend happen? The entire Steam team gets broken up and has to develop new marketplaces? How does that work with a flat structure company like Valve? How would the employees, who are very happy feel? The consumers?
These are some of the questions one must answer when dealing with monopolies. Monopoly laws are there to protect the consumer. Therefore, the last question I will posit is this: What is Steam doing that is actively harming the industry and consumers?
Dude, I explained they are a monopoly. You have not provided anything other than conjecture that they are not a monopoly.
I suppose I could field your questions, but considering how resistant to basic facts you are I am not sure I could provide satisfactory answers for you.
I will give it a try though. What prevents developers from pulling from steam. The answer is nothing except for a loss in potential revenue since that is where (75%) the majority of PC gaming software is sold. There is also nothing preventing you from shutting off the power to your house. This doesn’t suddenly make your power company not a monopoly.
Whether someone likes or dislikes a monopoly has no bearing on the monopoly. Just because you liked IE in Windows didn’t mean that MS didn’t leverage their monopoly in an attempt to make it the Internet standard.
Also, the antitrust bit. Steam requires you to sell your product for the same price even if a competitor charges less of a cut. You are not allowed to sell it for less to increase the sales on another platform that charges less. This is anti-competitive and a clear sign of a monopoly.
What would it take for that company to compete. They can’t and that is the point. Even after Epic has thrown billions at the issue they have been unable to move the needle. This makes me laugh at your previous question about building your own steam competitor from scratch. Clearly you could do it in your basement with no help when a multi-billion dollar company can’t manage it.
Please don’t talk to me about court when you can’t even agree to a basic fact. While I am not a lawyer I have studied monopoly laws and cases for years. That is why it is crystal clear that Steam is a monopoly.
Your statement about no one competing because they don’t want to is false, but if it were true that would definitely make Steam a natural monopoly which I alluded to earlier.
Does steam prevent you from downloading and using another marketplace. No, but Windows never prevented you from installing another browser either. Clearly you are grasping here and I think studying some monopoly cases could help you.
Keep in mind the US government, in particular, has given up on enforcing monopolies in the digital space as seen by their refusal to hold Google accountable for their many monopolistic practices. So don’t worry, me calling Steam a monopoly or you accepting this reality isn’t going to change shit.
Your questions asking what would happen if Steam was broken up are missing the point. There are numerous policies that could be passed to ensure competition or just regulate the rights of consumers and publishers. I would recommend that Steam’s anti-competitive policies be eliminated.
To answer your final question, because of Steams dominant market presence they keep prices high (despite their great sales) and take a disproportionally unfair cut for the work they do. This actively harms customers through lack of competition and anti-competitive practices.
Let me put it this way. If you poured you life into a indie game project and made a million in sales, do you feel a 300k cut is fair? Clearly you would feel that is way too much and it is for a digital marketplace.
I will give it a try though. What prevent developers from pulling from steam. The answer is nothing except for a loss in potential revenue since that is where (75%) the majority of PC software is sold. There is also nothing preventing you from shutting off the power to your house. This doesn’t suddenly make your power company not a monopoly.
How would there be loss in revenue if it were only available through stores which have better profit sharing? You think the people who want that game would not purchase it through a different store? That’s literally how Steam got started. The reason developers don’t is because they like Steam. I know this intimately.
Whether someone likes or dislikes a monopoly has no bearing on the monopoly. Just because you liked IE in Windows didn’t mean that MS didn’t leverage their monopoly in an attempt to make it the Internet standard.
That’s because Windows was unfairly competing by having Internet Explorer preinstalled. That was what that case was about. I know because one of my family members works in Business Law and has extensive knowledge of monopolies and their standing in court with 20yrs of court experience. Did you know that if the DoJ evaluates a “monopoly” and finds consumers actually just prefer that product and nobody cares to compete, they’ll leave it alone?
Also, the antitrust bit. Steam requires you to sell your product for the same price even if a competitor charges less of a cut. You are not allowed to sell it for less to increase the sales on another platform that charges less. This is anti-competitive and a clear sign of a monopoly.
That is not antitrust as the developer could choose not to sell on Steam and use their own launcher and selling service. It would be antitrust if they applied that to other games. E.g. if EGS sells a game, not owned by Epic, for less than what Steam offer and Steam took actions against games on Steam owned by Epic, that would be antitrust and monopolistic.
What would it take for that company to compete. They can’t and that is the point. Even after Epic has thrown billions at the issue they have been unable to move the needle. This makes me laugh at your previous question about building your own steam competitor from scratch. Clearly you could do it in your basement with no help when a multi-billion dollar company can’t manage it.
Epic has thrown billions at it because they haven’t done shit to improve their storefront or community. They don’t have hardly as many offerings or community support. Funny how Valve is able to manage a larger community just fine with fewer resources.
Please don’t talk to me about court when you can’t even agree to a basic fact. While I am not a lawyer I have studied monopoly laws and cases for years. That is why it is crystal clear that Steam is a monopoly.
Ha! I guess my family member who’s gonna go to court tomorrow, was wrong about everything. Because I’ve been sending him our conversation. It is not as crystal as you believe.
Your statement about no one competing because they don’t want to is false, but if it were true that would definitely make Steam a natural monopoly which I alluded to earlier.
It’s still not a natural monopoly, because of other competitors in the same market space. This definition of monopoly is very difficult to define. Should Valve have to apologize for developers not offering their games on other platforms? Developers can use any storefront they want, but they mostly only use Steam, I wonder why? The option is there, consumers are very well aware of the options, yet they still choose Steam.
Does steam prevent you from downloading and using another marketplace. No, but Windows never prevented you from installing another browser either. Clearly you are grasping here and I think studying some monopoly cases could help you.
No, IE came preinstalled. That’s what that issue was. Stop acting like Windows gained market share fairly, as Steam has.
Keep in mind the US government, in particular, has given up on enforcing monopolies in the digital space as seen by their refusal to hold Google accountable for their many monopolistic practices. So don’t worry, me calling Steam a monopoly or you accepting this reality isn’t going to change shit.
The current climate of the DoJ, as well as, the past three to four decades of the DoJ, is far too intricate and complex to address and relate to Steam. Why you do that? So silly.
You questions asking what would happen if Steam was broken up are missing the point. There are numerous policies that could be passed to ensure competition or just regulate the rights of consumers and publishers. I would recommend that Steam’s anti-competitive policies be eliminated.
So, with your suggestion developers can under bid Steam however much they want? Congratulations, you just caused Steam to give away the game for free. They can do it. They have the market share to sustain the loss. You’ve improved nothing and demonstrated the knowledge you lack in part.
To answer your final question, because of Steams dominant market presence they keep prices high (despite their great sales) and take a disproportionally unfair cut for the work they do. This actively harms customers through lack of competition and anti-competitive practices.
They take 30% which is not unheard of in the mobile world. You can argue on whether a 70% cut for devs is enough, or not. I think it’s fine for the amount of service Valve has provided the community and developers.
Let me put it this way. If you poured you life into a indie game project and made a million in sales, do you feel a 300k cut is fair? Clearly you would feel that is way too much and it is for a digital marketplace.
You absolute donkey. It’s 70% for the developer and 30% for Valve. Not only that, there are different tiers going up to 80/20. You dolt. You fool. It’s finished.
Okay, So what prevents developers from pulling their games from Steam? Over 100,000 titles available on Steam vs. 4,000+ titles on EGS , which has better revenue sharing (12%). Surely, they dislike this monopolistic platform. So, why haven’t they at least offered their games elsewhere?
You still haven’t answered my question. If a Steam equivalent was released today. Had all the same features of Steam. But had better revenue sharing and even an exclusive feature that takes it over the top. Would that product be able to compete? That’s one of the questions that will be asked in court soon.
Another one could be, more directly related to monopolistic practices, does Steam take measures to prevent someone from downloading another marketplace and using it instead? The only discipline Valve could receive for being a “monopoly” would be is if the government wants to apply a windfall tax on their profits. Which has yet to happen.
Nobody is even trying to compete with Steam, cause no one wants to. So, what do you recommend happen? The entire Steam team gets broken up and has to develop new marketplaces? How does that work with a flat structure company like Valve? How would the employees, who are very happy feel? The consumers?
These are some of the questions one must answer when dealing with monopolies. Monopoly laws are there to protect the consumer. Therefore, the last question I will posit is this: What is Steam doing that is actively harming the industry and consumers?
Dude, I explained they are a monopoly. You have not provided anything other than conjecture that they are not a monopoly.
I suppose I could field your questions, but considering how resistant to basic facts you are I am not sure I could provide satisfactory answers for you.
I will give it a try though. What prevents developers from pulling from steam. The answer is nothing except for a loss in potential revenue since that is where (75%) the majority of PC gaming software is sold. There is also nothing preventing you from shutting off the power to your house. This doesn’t suddenly make your power company not a monopoly.
Whether someone likes or dislikes a monopoly has no bearing on the monopoly. Just because you liked IE in Windows didn’t mean that MS didn’t leverage their monopoly in an attempt to make it the Internet standard.
Also, the antitrust bit. Steam requires you to sell your product for the same price even if a competitor charges less of a cut. You are not allowed to sell it for less to increase the sales on another platform that charges less. This is anti-competitive and a clear sign of a monopoly.
What would it take for that company to compete. They can’t and that is the point. Even after Epic has thrown billions at the issue they have been unable to move the needle. This makes me laugh at your previous question about building your own steam competitor from scratch. Clearly you could do it in your basement with no help when a multi-billion dollar company can’t manage it.
Please don’t talk to me about court when you can’t even agree to a basic fact. While I am not a lawyer I have studied monopoly laws and cases for years. That is why it is crystal clear that Steam is a monopoly.
Your statement about no one competing because they don’t want to is false, but if it were true that would definitely make Steam a natural monopoly which I alluded to earlier.
Does steam prevent you from downloading and using another marketplace. No, but Windows never prevented you from installing another browser either. Clearly you are grasping here and I think studying some monopoly cases could help you.
Keep in mind the US government, in particular, has given up on enforcing monopolies in the digital space as seen by their refusal to hold Google accountable for their many monopolistic practices. So don’t worry, me calling Steam a monopoly or you accepting this reality isn’t going to change shit.
Your questions asking what would happen if Steam was broken up are missing the point. There are numerous policies that could be passed to ensure competition or just regulate the rights of consumers and publishers. I would recommend that Steam’s anti-competitive policies be eliminated.
To answer your final question, because of Steams dominant market presence they keep prices high (despite their great sales) and take a disproportionally unfair cut for the work they do. This actively harms customers through lack of competition and anti-competitive practices.
Let me put it this way. If you poured you life into a indie game project and made a million in sales, do you feel a 300k cut is fair? Clearly you would feel that is way too much and it is for a digital marketplace.
Fuck it, I’ll bite.
How would there be loss in revenue if it were only available through stores which have better profit sharing? You think the people who want that game would not purchase it through a different store? That’s literally how Steam got started. The reason developers don’t is because they like Steam. I know this intimately.
That’s because Windows was unfairly competing by having Internet Explorer preinstalled. That was what that case was about. I know because one of my family members works in Business Law and has extensive knowledge of monopolies and their standing in court with 20yrs of court experience. Did you know that if the DoJ evaluates a “monopoly” and finds consumers actually just prefer that product and nobody cares to compete, they’ll leave it alone?
That is not antitrust as the developer could choose not to sell on Steam and use their own launcher and selling service. It would be antitrust if they applied that to other games. E.g. if EGS sells a game, not owned by Epic, for less than what Steam offer and Steam took actions against games on Steam owned by Epic, that would be antitrust and monopolistic.
Epic has thrown billions at it because they haven’t done shit to improve their storefront or community. They don’t have hardly as many offerings or community support. Funny how Valve is able to manage a larger community just fine with fewer resources.
Ha! I guess my family member who’s gonna go to court tomorrow, was wrong about everything. Because I’ve been sending him our conversation. It is not as crystal as you believe.
It’s still not a natural monopoly, because of other competitors in the same market space. This definition of monopoly is very difficult to define. Should Valve have to apologize for developers not offering their games on other platforms? Developers can use any storefront they want, but they mostly only use Steam, I wonder why? The option is there, consumers are very well aware of the options, yet they still choose Steam.
No, IE came preinstalled. That’s what that issue was. Stop acting like Windows gained market share fairly, as Steam has.
The current climate of the DoJ, as well as, the past three to four decades of the DoJ, is far too intricate and complex to address and relate to Steam. Why you do that? So silly.
So, with your suggestion developers can under bid Steam however much they want? Congratulations, you just caused Steam to give away the game for free. They can do it. They have the market share to sustain the loss. You’ve improved nothing and demonstrated the knowledge you lack in part.
They take 30% which is not unheard of in the mobile world. You can argue on whether a 70% cut for devs is enough, or not. I think it’s fine for the amount of service Valve has provided the community and developers.
You absolute donkey. It’s 70% for the developer and 30% for Valve. Not only that, there are different tiers going up to 80/20. You dolt. You fool. It’s finished.