For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
The Epic store sucks ass, the EA store sucks ass, Nintendo hates it's fans more than Trump hates women.
As a counter example, Mincraft is a stand alone game, it came out long after Steam was established and it runs on Linux as well at it does on Windows.
If independent games came with a launcher/update experience as good as Minecraft I would have no problem buying outside of the Steam ecosystem.
Here's the thing. There are other places. Epic, Amazon Gaming, Origin/Battlenet/Ubi, itch, Microsoft store, gog...
Most suck at discoverability or they don't have the variety of Steam. Some are shitty by design (Origin, Ubi, Battlenet) - intended to only get you to play their games. Others like itch aren't built for scaling out to deliver thousands of big games.
This isn't a thing like Apple's walled garden, I feel like this is Steam out performing the competition.
Steam quite literally provides almost everything you could ever need too, it's so much more than a storefront. It's genuinely mind blowing just how many services steam offers, I don't think anybody, including valve employees knows about every function and service it offers tbh.
I would have killed for Steam Input alone back in the day when I was using xpadder to sloppily translate controller inputs to keyboard keys so the game would recognize it
Valve has a monopoly at being the only online gaming storefront that doesn't suck.
Yup, it's why I am willing to argue for them, at least until Gabe dies. He's proven to be far more fair and I know you wouldn't get that deal anywhere else. These days it really does seem like there a coordinated push to attack valve for not being scum like the rest of the industry these last couple of months.
It's because they actively fight for the consumer rather than the publishers.
It's funny though because valve has so much fucking money because they are not chasing next quarters arbitrary gains...
Valve is proof that if you don't try to screw over your customers somehow you end up with profits. Weird how that works, and instead of companies learning something from that we'll... they do what capitalism does....
The only one that lets me keep in my library, download and install at any time games that were delisted 10 or 15 years ago by their publishers.
For that reason alone, they deserve my money over any other storefront.
Gog and itch.io are decent. They're different types of stores, but very usable.
I'm a bit surprised that someone hadn't already posted this
GOG sails past the bottom of the screen on a skateboard sipping a juicebox with a straw
There was a funnier one with GOG enjoying itself in the corner and the complaining party being Epic lol
I hate to agree with a billionaire, but he's right. Currently steam is not a monopoly at all, and hasn't yet gotten so dominant that it amounts to one.
But they are the single most dominant outlet, and are in the first stages of having an ability to control the entire market in unfair ways to the point of crushing competition. It won't be long before they do have that ability completely. And we can't just trust the billionaire because he's shown an unusual degree of user focused choices overall. Even if he's perfect, he ain't immortal, and as soon as he's not in control, there will be fuckery
as soon as he’s not in control, there will be fuckery
This is what I don't think a lot of people will be prepared for ...
I dread if there's gonna some useless MBA coming around afterwards and saying some shit like: "why don't we charge steam users $9.99 to play their games per month?" and start cutting projects that benefit gamers to "save money" -- who needs Proton? who needs to invest in things like couch co-op? Then give themselves a shitload of money in exchange for all the goodwill that Valve have built up over the years.
But Valve is not a public company, so you don't get randos. Gabe is very aware of this fact himself.
One, it's kind of silly to just ask someone accused of doing something bad/illegal and then take their word for it. What's Gabe going to say? "Oh, yep, we are a monopoly, you're right."
Two, Valve makes some damn good software. Steam is really slick, has generally only improved over time, and has worked pretty flawlessly on every platform I've used it on. They also provide a great storefront experience, game managing experience, and have contributed to some awesome open source projects.
Three, I have zero doubt that Gabe and Valve in general has done some shady shit such as but not limited to the alleged unspoken policy mentioned in the article. No one becomes a billionaire ethically.
This is your weekly reminder at this point that Valve is a corporation and that corporations are not your friends nor your allies.
Billionaires shouldn't exist.
Honest question, is there any other store that directly supports seamlessly running games on Linux? Even games that do not natively build for Linux?
Edit: Because in that case, Steam does have a monopol on Linux, since it's the only store that can seamlessly/without 3rd party tools run most games.
running gog games through heroic is pretty much as seamless as steam
Given that Proton is open source, provides plenty of instructions and permits reproduction and distribution (BSD-3-Clause-Open-MPI), any other store could likewise include it or a fork of it. They may have a factual monopoly, but it's not enforced legally in any way.
It's just that nobody seems to compete meaningfully. Steam has a vested interest in being independent from Microsoft, maintaining their own SteamOS and making games run on it. Other companies just might not have the same commercial drive. And if there are easy to use 3rd party tools that people are content with, why would they bother investing in their own solution? They're accessible to the Linux market through no work of their own.
Of course, there are some companies actively not wanting to work with Linux. Some just don't trust the platform. Some require particular technology that might not work on Linux. For example, things like kernel-level-anticheat being confined to the wine environment defeats the point of spying on the whole OS. And some would require additional work to make it run smoothly, which obviously is an investment into a market they may feel doesn't promise enough profit.
I was going to point out how heroic launcher is fine, but that's not a store.
That's not really Valve's fault that all the other storefronts don't care to support Linux, though.
Has he inherited the David Jones curse? Is there any photo from him in the last 10 years that is not on a yatch?
It's so clear that so many people here DIDN'T read the article, which is further compounded by the author not understanding the meaning of monopoly vs anti-competitive practices. Just so we are all on the same page:
This isn't about steam being a better service, (even though it IS a better service,) or being a monopoly, (it isn't.) The lawsuit is about anti-competitive practices.
The lawsuit pertains to steam allegedly disallowing devs to price games lower on other platforms. If this is true, it's a move that prevents competition. Maybe other digital storefronts are shittier, but they might make up for it by taking a smaller cut from game devs, which allows them to sell at a lower price on GOG, or EPIC. If Steam is forcing devs to charge the same price on all platforms, or preventing them from offering discounts on those other platforms when they aren't offered on Steam, then it doesn't matter where I buy the game. This is a form of price fixing, except it isn't an agreement being done between digital storefronts behind closed doors, the price fixing is allegedly happening by steam leveraging the developers
Imagine you are going to buy Tide laundry detergent. You can go to Walmart, Target, or your local grocery store. They all carry the same exact same 125 fl oz bottle. Walmart has it for the lowest price, Target is the next highest, and the local grocer has the highest price for the item. Does my local grocery store get to force Walmart to raise their prices to match their own?
My local grocery store might charge a little bit more, but I prefer to shop there because it's closer to me, and the stores are better organized making it easier for me to find what I want. Personally I LOATHE shopping at Walmart. I happen to be willing to pay more for a better experience when buying the same product. Other people might not give a shit about the shopping experience and just want the lowest price, so they go to Walmart.
I refuse to touch EPIC game store. I think it's a subpar product. But if my buddy is telling me about a game he got for free through their storefront and raves about what a good game it is, I'm gonna buy it off of steam, instead of getting it for free, because steam is a digital storefront I trust, and provides a good customer experience.
I realize laundry detergent isn't the same as video game software, but I think my example demonstrates how competition can work and how fucked up it would be if the allegations against steam are true.
To be clear, the only time Valve requires prices match what's on Steam is if you're selling Steam keys. Games are sometimes cheaper on GOG and EA and Ubisoft regularly price their games a dollar or two cheaper on their own stores.
An earned monopoly is still a monopoly. Anyone who feels that the power that Steam wields in the gaming market is not an issue, I urge you to think or learn about why monopolies are harmful -- not in relation to steam. Think about a manufacturer of gizmos completely cornering the gizmo market and what that would mean for the people wanting to buy gizmos, as time passes. Don't think in terms of the laws or definitions of some specific country, just think about the effect it would have on society. Worst case scenario you lose some time and gain some insight on monopolies
Of course it's bad. For decades Valve has shown others why gamers value their game store yet most game stores still do stupid shit that drives gamers away.
The only one making an honest attempt is GOG. And their only issue is low purchasing volume which means they are slow to develop and improve their platform.
Think about a manufacturer of gizmos completely cornering the gizmo market
If your monopoly in the Gizmo market is because you've actively fought other companies, lobbied governments, filed frivilous patent suits, etc... in order to KEEP people from competing with you, than you're a piece of shit.
If your monopoly in the Gizmo market is because despite there being no hinderance to them doing so, no competitor has been able to match your quality, than kudos.
In your example, you're effectively saying that governments should force people to use shittier services just to avoid a monopoly, even if that monopoly is earned.
If people want to buy Gizmos, and that first company is losing their trust, another company will come in and compete successfully because that first company isn't preventing them from doing so. If that second company does it better, great.
An earned monopoly and a forced monopoly are not nearly the same thing, precisely because an earned monopoly is on the whim of the consumers. If your product turns to shit, a replacement will make itself known. Whereas a forced monopoly is on the whim of the government and lobbyists.
Does anyone have a link to the "internal communications" mentioned in the article showing Valve employees enforcing the unwritten rule? Seems foundational to the whole issue, I'd like to read them for myself.
Also:
... but a big challenge Epic Games faces is simply that an awful lot of gamers don't seem to want an effective Steam competitor: Steam rules the roost, and they like it that way.
The article mentions that the Epic Games GUI isn't great, and I think Steam's monopoly (It is, for sure, a monopoly) is backed up in part by the fact that they've had the time required to develop a decent interface that at this point, not many people are too itching to leave. With software everywhere enshittifying Steam keeps looking better in comparison, and I think that challengers need to at least focus on building out a comfortable trustworthy GUI before there's a serious argument for dethroning Steam.
GUI is definitely a big reason, but features as well. Epic could make their store snappy as hell and their GUI easier to use, but that doesn't give us controller remapping, game recording, an overlay with a web browser, per game notes, per game news, community guides, baked in mod support, performance data overlay, controller centric mode (big screen mode), and god knows theres more I'm missing.
Personally, I'd put my money on GOG becoming the real competitor over time. GoG Galaxy feels absolutely better than Epic does, and the fact it integrates other storefronts is such a major benefit that it makes it at least capable of competing with steam in the long haul. If GoG Galaxy gained all the features Playnite has, it would easily be able to compete with Steam.
Steam's "monopoly" is purely because none of their competitors bother with pro consumer updates.
Asked about this rule, Newell repeatedly denied it exists, even when shown internal communications seemingly showing Valve employees enforcing it: "Valve does not have a policy or practice of dictating prices to third-party software developers on other platforms." When asked how Valve would react if it ever happened, Newell initially said he was confused by the question and then added, "Many of our partners and many of our customers are quite happy with the service that we're providing."
It would be interesting to see what happens if some of the larger publishers did this.
I get it but its not like they are buying up competition or doing bad practices to win unless doing what your customers want is being unfare. In this case I blame the competition.