• CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      We worry about companies that aren’t anywhere near as dominant as valve. Just because their interests align with ours today doesn’t mean they will tomorrow.

      Valve is dominant because they treat users well. Is your argument here seriously “Yes, Valve is a better platform that treats you well, but you shouldn’t use it because other people already do! You should use a platform that’s not as good because competition!”

      A competitor in any industry needs to do more than “exist” to be worth using. If Valve starts acting shitty I will stop using it, much like how I have stopped purchasing or playing Blizzard games.

    • dudinax@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Valve isn’t dominating an essential industry. They could control 100% of the game market and it would make no difference to anything important.

        • dudinax@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          It matters if people are captive consumers of the product. It does not matter if they can simply stop using the product with no ill consequences.

          The same goes for movies, TV, music. You can simply stop buying these commercially with no ill effect.

            • dudinax@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              I don’t like Valve. I don’t like the non-ownership model of game distribution.

              Users aren’t captured at all, since none of them need to purchase video games. Game developers may be captured by Valve, but game developers aren’t producing anything of importance.

              I’m for legal restrictions on industry practice that are predatory towards the users, but there’s no need to protect the industry itself from control by Valve, since nothing important is being controlled.

              Valve also can’t control the gaming industry if they don’t control the OS gamers use. They may be trying to control the OS, but they haven’t done it yet. Until then, they can’t prevent users from installing games outside of Steam. If Developers are locked in to Steam, it’s because users buy games in Steam and refuse to buy games outside of Steam. The users behave this way because Steam provides lots of value to them.

              If Steam starts to abuse users instead of serving them, there’s nothing stopping them from purchasing games some other way.

                • dudinax@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I’m not arguing none of this matters.

                  This is what I’m arguing: if Valve had control of the gaming industry, which it doesn’t yet but might later, it would matter so little that we’d need no public policy to address it. Anyone who isn’t in the industry needn’t concern themselves about it.

  • hannes3120@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Steam is just perfect at keeping the gamers behind them as they are only assholes behind doors to the Devs on their platform.

    30% is an absurd cut for a store that has such a monopoly that if you don’t release there your game is pretty much cancelled even if you release at your own store without DRM and with additional goodies (Looking at GOG and The Witcher - they released the Gwent standalone like a year later on steam because it didn’t sell at all on GOG and then it apparently outsold the GOG version without a week)

    People are just too lazy and Steam is keeping them happy enough to not bother looking another way.

    Epic isn’t a good guy in any case but the exclusive deals on AAA Games they do is probably the only way to get someone to buy the game there instead of Steam