You lack some serious imagination if you think price (which I didn’t even mention) is the only way a monopoly can screw customers. But here’s one way there could be a price increase: why do you think a monopoly storefront would never increase their current cut? They want to maximize profits, after all. And if they increase their cut, do you think the publishers would accept lower profits with a “good for them” ? As you said, “no way”.
Another thing the article pointed out that I didn’t know about, and this goes to @Brakara’s point above, is that they reduced the cut that content creators get for DOTA 2.
And maybe Ubisoft pays contractors less to produce content for their next game, if there’s a sufficiently sized labor pool willing to do it for the lower rate.
If the cut the content creators get for DOTA 2 drops too low, people will stop making it, which will impact Valve’s bottom line. They will then have to reexamine if they should increase the cut, just like Ubisoft will have to determine if they need to pay more to get the numbers/quality they need.
Yeah, the way they treated Workshop creators seems to be on a whole other level. It’s another facet of monopoly: it’s probably even worse as as self-employed person that has a single client. Twitchers and youtubers can relate.
How? Content creators are free to go freelance for any other game out there that offers a similar service. Or they can go get employed at a game company doing it on a salary basis.
True. But you’re making the case for more competition being good. Same as Brakara. You’re not disagreeing with anything. Even the author of that piece isn’t arguing that Valve is bad. Just that “your friend Valve” is an illusion many cling to, when it is a business. And you’re agreeing with that, as am I.
You’re right. I guess I’m just utterly baffled at the fact that it’s a surprise to some people that Valve is a business. I’m apparently having a hard time wrapping my head around that. :)
It’s a business that is also everybody’s best friend!
That’d be nice.
That’s been my reaction to this entire tempest-filled teacup.
The interesting thing to me is that Valve (in my opinion) is a lot like Amazon, philosophically. Automation uber alles. Prioritize customers’ feelings (even when they’re silly) over vendor concerns. Minimalist, programmatic curation, if curation must exist. Publish 'em all, and let God the market sort 'em out.
In a lot of ways, Steam isn’t so much a storefront as a clearinghouse. The Curation Update and subsequent tweaks have tried to address that programmatically, with limited success.
The good news about monopoly worries is that the barrier to entry isn’t horrifically high, especially when you have one independent (GoG) and two credible vendor-run (Origin, Uplay) alternatives having already cleared that bar. You could probably put GamersGate in there too. I don’t actually think the risk of abusive monopolistic practices is all that high.
The one thing I do worry about is some vendor- or consumer-hostile practices being normalized if/when Valve adopts them and no shit hits any fans. I don’t even have a great example off the top of my head; something like “game companies can revoke your Steam keys at their discretion”? I dunno.
I don’t know, that seems like it circles back around to the publishers just using their own delivery methods again as they know making game prices higher will only reduce sale numbers, which is where we are now.
This is all such a non-issue for me, is I think my problem. If prices start rising, or if my “rights” (which is a laughable concept when it comes to video games and digital software) feel trampled on, I’ll just go outside and sit in a hammock and read a book, instead. This doesn’t feel like a thing worth getting worked up about.
While I’m sure Steam still control’s the lion’s share of the PC gaming distribution market, things are changing.
On my gaming PC I have the following clients installed: Steam, GOG Galaxy, EA Origin, UPlay, Battle.net, EPIC’s launcher, the new Bethesda launcher, even potentially the Windows 10 store (rofl), and others I may be missing. This wasn’t true even 2-3 years ago.
Major publisher titles are not on Steam like Battlefield or Overwatch and I bet The Elder Scrolls 6 won’t be on Steam either. Quake Champions is easing gamers into the Bethesda launcher before the TES bomb drops in the future. Major publishers are moving off of the Steam ecosystem.
Edit: After skimming the article I desperately need a browser plugin to replace the text string Good Guy Valve with something less obnoxious…perhaps just “Valve” in the same way the {replace “SJW” with “skeleton”} was needed not that long ago.
The anger in our hobby often feels far in excess of where the real-world stakes are. That’s why I increasingly take long breaks from forums, games media, and the “gamer community” to just play games solo and try and capture a little of that innocent joy and real surprise I experienced as a child in a pre-internet world.
GOG is owned by CD Projekt.
I think Valve the Steam-platform owner has absolutely ruined Valve the developer that used to be really good but ended up not bothering to finish Half-Life and turning episodic gaming into a screw-job for any consumer that trusted them.
Now that I really think about it, screw Steam-owning Valve. They do as little as possible for their money, and improve their customer service only grudgingly, and even then as late as possible. They kind of suck now, because they managed to set up a toll booth between PC gamers and 95% of what they want to buy. The storefront is terrible, the library interface is terrible, and they can’t be bothered to finish what they started. Try figuring out how much hard drive space a game you own will take up, or finding out whether it has controller support. Or for that matter try using Big Picture or Steam OS, sucker.
Yeah, this would be great, and a much cleaner way of managing your games I’m sure. YGG.
Time and sunk costs are valuable things that people are unwilling to abandon lightly. By setting a initial high reward-to-effort rate, a business like Valve can encourage outside parties to invest time and effort into producing value for their customers with no capital outlay of their own. That’s the Apple App Store model, charge a fixed 30% royalty in exchange for access to an enthusiastic and affluent user base.
Then, once these outside parties have created added value for a system they don’t own, the platform owner can change the compensation rate as they see fit. Because the same cost-free human capital that created the platform’s dominant market share is now trapped within the market they helped to create. The majority will accept a lower compensation rate in exchange for not having to start over again on a different platform with different technology and a significantly lower market share (assuming one even exists).
Say hello also to the credit card processing industry, who’s primary purpose is to act as a shill for cc terminal manufacturers and forward their phone calls from stores on to VISA/MC/AMEX/etc. It’s an industry that more or less exists entirely because some people figured they could getp aid to act as an unnecessary middleman and have spent the last 30 years attempting to justify their continued existence :(
We have several local businesses that don’t take credit cards… as a result I don’t use them. We had a large grocery store that wouldn’t take anything but debit cards… as a result, I barely used them. I know there are some sticking points on the fees but if someone isn’t taking plastic, they just don’t want my business.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the necessity of taking cards in the modern era. I’m just noting that if the Elavons and First Datas of the world disappeared tomorrow, businesses would be happier and consumers would be just fine (I mean, after the machines were reprogrammed to dial Visa directly :) ).