• Julian@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    They mainly have a monopoly because everyone else’s attempt to compete sucks. I haven’t seen any launcher that has half the features or conveniences steam has. Most of them are slower too.

    Steam offers actual value. Other launchers just feel like a lazy way to add drm.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, yeah. Steam has been around for a very long time and is the only real option. They have a ton of extra money to spend that a new competitor hard never expect to match. That’s what makes it bad. Yeah, it’s a great product, but what would we have if there was an actual competitor pushing them to be better? Would they take less of a cut or would they make Steam even better? Maybe they’d reduce prices of games for consumers even.

      The fact of the matter is no one else really competes, so it’s a monopoly.

      • Julian@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The hardest part is getting games on the platform, and epic and gog have already done that. Giving it features that steam has is just a matter of money and time, which other game companies definitely have.

        I agree it’s a monopoly and I’d love to see a good competitor. But it’s different from something like at&t, where to even be a cell service provider you need a huge investment, time to build infrastructure, and government approval. All you need to make a good game launcher is a dev team, which is what these companies do all the time.