All of this is true but the ugly truth people don’t want to unpack is this is largely because over 90% of PC game purchases occur on Steam, meaning it’s not that they give you an advantage much as you’re nearly dead in the water if you aren’t on Steam unless you’re a AAA game made by a major dev. I’m sure they help as well but that market dominance means they’re essential more than anything.
Valve didn’t do something nefarious to get there, let me be clear. They run overall what most consider a good operation. But saying “they’re so helpful and expand your reach” is like saying “google search helped expand my business’s reach so much” when the reality is if you can’t be found on google you practically don’t exist due to their dominance in search.
TL;DR: Choosing not to be on steam unless you’re on console or a major AAA game is choosing not to exist. And sometimes I worry what kind of company we’ll see in the future if they don’t maintain their company culture/philosophy down the line.
Edit: see the defensive responses for my point 🤷♂️
And exactly none of that matters because Valve has never attempted to maliciously take market share. If someone else wants to step in all they have to do is stop being shit. Steam has tons of issues. From the limited UI adaptability for devs to the rather archaic games list and somewhat silly discussions forums from the 90s, all the way to the convoluted larger menu system.
Yet rather than put any real effort into things we get shitty launchers from 9 different companies ONLY selling their limited scope of bullshit.
Plenty of amazing companies change. We have to think about that man. They have my trust now and I really like valve - I have a steamdeck, I have hundreds of games on steam, they’re great. But you can’t seriously act like having all of that dominance in one company isn’t a potential liability down the road. Again, companies change. Gaben isn’t immortal.
But they do give you an advantage. If steam didn’t exist at all, without a comparable replacement, it would not be possible for you to move a real quantity of units at all. The market they provide has massive value, and their market share is a product of genuinely being far and away better than any alternative.
People don’t refuse to buy games on Epic or Origin or Uplay just because they need everything in one place. It’s because all of those platforms are so much worse that they degrade the experience of games purchased through them.
That’s highly speculative. But again, I like valve and think steam is beyond a net good. We need to be asking these questions though. Market dominance is a risk in any hands.
You can’t discount the fact that if you are not on Steam then your game basically didn’t release on computer. You can’t just hand wave away that factor. It’s baked in.
Again, that’s because every other way to distribute games is terrible.
And it doesn’t really matter, because any sales you actually drive yourself you can give them 0% of, with free steam keys. Sales through their storefront are inherently partly driven by their value add.
I am not arguing about why the market is the way it is, it’s not relevant.
I am saying regardless of how we got here, valve controls the PC game market, and that will always be a liability no matter who is in control. We have to be sober about this.
Valve controls the PC market because they created the PC market and are responsible for the overwhelming majority of its progress. And they have done nothing remotely abusive with it.
They’ve justified their cut and are fully entitled to it.
I agree they have not been abusive, but no they are not entitled to anything. That is a ridiculous outlook. You’re talking about a for-profit company dude. Stop letting your worship of Gabe cloud your judgment. Again, I like valve/steam a lot. I use it practically every day and I am happy to. The service is fantastic and they have earned their place at the top. But I really do not understand how you can’t see the potential issue with such overwhelming dominance. You seriously think there is nothing to worry about ever?
This is an anecdote, but it is also absolutely not speculation. I won’t install Epic, I avoid most AAA launchers/required accounts, prefer GOG, and get most of my games on Steam. Epic and many other studio launcher apps are hostile to the consumers or just a royal pain to use. I have a couple Sony games. Why should I have to be online to play a 20-year-old single-player game that I bought through Steam? So now I check if they have that garbage before I buy them through Steam.
I think Steam could afford to charge less, but I don’t think most smaller companies could get a basic store up for less than they charge (and the big companies have the tools to determine if thos is saving them money), and that still doesn’t get you everything Steam brings to the table, consumer confidence being the most important.
All of this is true but the ugly truth people don’t want to unpack is this is largely because over 90% of PC game purchases occur on Steam, meaning it’s not that they give you an advantage much as you’re nearly dead in the water if you aren’t on Steam unless you’re a AAA game made by a major dev. I’m sure they help as well but that market dominance means they’re essential more than anything.
Valve didn’t do something nefarious to get there, let me be clear. They run overall what most consider a good operation. But saying “they’re so helpful and expand your reach” is like saying “google search helped expand my business’s reach so much” when the reality is if you can’t be found on google you practically don’t exist due to their dominance in search.
TL;DR: Choosing not to be on steam unless you’re on console or a major AAA game is choosing not to exist. And sometimes I worry what kind of company we’ll see in the future if they don’t maintain their company culture/philosophy down the line.
Edit: see the defensive responses for my point 🤷♂️
And exactly none of that matters because Valve has never attempted to maliciously take market share. If someone else wants to step in all they have to do is stop being shit. Steam has tons of issues. From the limited UI adaptability for devs to the rather archaic games list and somewhat silly discussions forums from the 90s, all the way to the convoluted larger menu system.
Yet rather than put any real effort into things we get shitty launchers from 9 different companies ONLY selling their limited scope of bullshit.
Plenty of amazing companies change. We have to think about that man. They have my trust now and I really like valve - I have a steamdeck, I have hundreds of games on steam, they’re great. But you can’t seriously act like having all of that dominance in one company isn’t a potential liability down the road. Again, companies change. Gaben isn’t immortal.
But they do give you an advantage. If steam didn’t exist at all, without a comparable replacement, it would not be possible for you to move a real quantity of units at all. The market they provide has massive value, and their market share is a product of genuinely being far and away better than any alternative.
People don’t refuse to buy games on Epic or Origin or Uplay just because they need everything in one place. It’s because all of those platforms are so much worse that they degrade the experience of games purchased through them.
That’s highly speculative. But again, I like valve and think steam is beyond a net good. We need to be asking these questions though. Market dominance is a risk in any hands.
You can’t discount the fact that if you are not on Steam then your game basically didn’t release on computer. You can’t just hand wave away that factor. It’s baked in.
Again, that’s because every other way to distribute games is terrible.
And it doesn’t really matter, because any sales you actually drive yourself you can give them 0% of, with free steam keys. Sales through their storefront are inherently partly driven by their value add.
I didn’t say their success wasn’t due to offering a great product over a sea of bad ones. That isn’t relevant nor am I contesting it.
Of course it’s relevant.
It’s why the PC market is what it is.
I am not arguing about why the market is the way it is, it’s not relevant.
I am saying regardless of how we got here, valve controls the PC game market, and that will always be a liability no matter who is in control. We have to be sober about this.
Valve controls the PC market because they created the PC market and are responsible for the overwhelming majority of its progress. And they have done nothing remotely abusive with it.
They’ve justified their cut and are fully entitled to it.
I agree they have not been abusive, but no they are not entitled to anything. That is a ridiculous outlook. You’re talking about a for-profit company dude. Stop letting your worship of Gabe cloud your judgment. Again, I like valve/steam a lot. I use it practically every day and I am happy to. The service is fantastic and they have earned their place at the top. But I really do not understand how you can’t see the potential issue with such overwhelming dominance. You seriously think there is nothing to worry about ever?
How they got to the top is not relevant.
deleted by creator
This is an anecdote, but it is also absolutely not speculation. I won’t install Epic, I avoid most AAA launchers/required accounts, prefer GOG, and get most of my games on Steam. Epic and many other studio launcher apps are hostile to the consumers or just a royal pain to use. I have a couple Sony games. Why should I have to be online to play a 20-year-old single-player game that I bought through Steam? So now I check if they have that garbage before I buy them through Steam.
I think Steam could afford to charge less, but I don’t think most smaller companies could get a basic store up for less than they charge (and the big companies have the tools to determine if thos is saving them money), and that still doesn’t get you everything Steam brings to the table, consumer confidence being the most important.