feddit.org

0 points

2 months ago

Losing an entire third of your revenue, straight off the top, is egregious. It’s the figure console manufacturers settled on when they had game developers by the balls. Seeing it continue with a company that controls nothing about the platform they serve says a lot about how much power is inherent to simply having a supermajority market share.

Steam shoved its way onto everyone’s computer as mandatory DRM for Half-Life 2. Calling that move “forward-thinking” would not be a compliment.

report

conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works

[ - ]

3 points

2 months ago

Taking 1/3 of your revenue when they quadruple it absolutely is not egregious. Steam is the reason you’re capable of making a living selling PC games to begin with.

report

[ - ]

0 points

2 months ago

PC gaming existed for decades before Steam and wouldn’t magically disappear without it.

Steam increases sales because it’s the only store customers use.

Taking the same kind of money Nintendo charges for the privilege of publishing on Switch, just to be on the de-facto monopoly that Valve has secured, is not some kind of favor. It’s a sign of the power they wield. They didn’t help you make the game. They didn’t invent the video card. They don’t even make the OS that 95% of their customers use.

They’re a middleman.

report

conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works

[ - ]

2 points

2 months ago

For massive studios.

Indie games would not have the tiniest chance in hell of succeeding without Steam massively amplifying their reach. If you have a budget under a million, Steam is the best thing that’s ever happened to you and nothing is close.

report

[ - ]

0 points

2 months ago

Indie games would not have the tiniest chance in hell of succeeding without Steam massively amplifying their reach.

BECAUSE IT’S A MONOPOLY.

The internet is not some big-money-only affair, where independent creators have no chance of breakout grassroots success. Digital publishing has been the best thing ever for small games, except every platform is centralized, so there’s still some gigantic arbitrary gatekeeper.

Praising that gatekeeper as if they invented the internet is not a serious argument. Indie developers like this one have been held back - the game’s exactly the same, and it was just as available to anyone with a credit card, but it sold fuck-all beforehand because people only use one store.

report

conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works

[ - ]

2 points

2 months ago

We’re pretending Steam (who has done literally nothing to suppress any other platform) doesn’t exist. There is no “monopoly” involved in the discussion

It’s because people don’t have any interest in buying digital products from individuals, especially products that necessarily must change over time. Steam is the entire reason being an indie developer can be done, and very probably most of the reason most AAA PC ports exist at all. Without Steam, console gaming would quite possibly be the only option if you wanted modern demanding games.

report

[ - ]

2 points

2 months ago

‘They have all the sales so they must be the only reason anyone buys things.’

‘Stop calling them a monopoly! It’s not like they have all the sales.’

It is impossible to address nonsense like this in a forum with enforced politeness.

report

CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works

Show more comments

[ - ]

1 point

2 months ago

Even without Steam around, do you really think Average Joe is going to check a bunch of storefronts looking for a game? Nah, they’re going to see what comes up on Twitch/YouTube and then play that. That would have meant nothing but sponsored garbage forever. Steam saved us from that fate with Greenlight and later opening the door entirely (and favouring indies in their upcoming and new lists)

Do you remember Direct2Drive? Opened up in 2004, digital storefront for games run by IGN? No? That’s ok, neither does anyone else, and it had the pull of fucking IGN. That’s the market Steam was launching into at the time, a time when many people were openly exclaiming PC gaming was dying.

At the time gamer chat was a mostly text-based affair over several places and services, and voice was the realm of the few people with the skills to get TeamSpeak/Ventrilo/Mumble going or a connection to those people. Steam did something wild and brought the whole community together in one place. All the games, all the gamers, and all the developers in one place.

That’s how Steam ended up a monopoly, and with their collection of mature services no one is going to beat them at everything. If you want to beat them you’re going to need to focus on one aspect of their service, beat that, and then work with other people who have targeted other parts of the service and connect. In other words, you need to do the exact opposite of Battle.net/Epic/Uplay/Origin/etc. but none of those companies will do that because they are too selfish to give up any part of the profits.

Only the FOSS community would have the required mentality and why would they step on Steam? Linux gaming has never been this good. It’s almost like the only people who could take on Steam view it as an asset.

Oh and just to be clear: virtually no other service has even tried to do anything but be a worse version of Steam. GOG and Itch.io instead opted to focus on what made them different and thus occupy meaningful niches, but everyone else continues to be worthless to this day and they only have themselves to blame.

report

[ - ]

3 points

2 months ago

Or games could be in multiple stores.

You could go to a game store… and it would have… all of the games.

Like a real-ass brick-and-mortar store, and physical glass-disc games in little plastic boxes.

Valve has not been an obstacle to that possibility, but Steam’s 30% cut says they don’t mind de facto exclusivity. They’re not charging you like they’re abusing their monopoly… but they’re charging game developers the same as bastards like Nintendo and Apple.

The article is entirely about how that monopoly holds back the industry. There is one store. You’re on it, or you’re fucked. And getting there requires sacrificing an entire third of revenue, straight off the top. For obvious reasons developers and publishers would rather not do that. Valve has them by the balls - and a gentle grip doesn’t really defuse that situation.

report