Is it a monopoly though. Monopolies are there to protect the consumer, not really the seller. A developer does not need to use steam at all. I really don’t think steam can control the pricing like that. Like, if steam started to raise prices on people buying the games, then I feel like people would still jump ship. Places like gog and itch.io exist. There are plenty of game stores as well, Microsoft, Nintendo, ea.
The problem developers have is they feel if they make a PC game, that they have to put it on steam and no other platform or they won’t make money. But the developer still has choices and I feel like steam is pretty reasonable with their cut and the tools they offer developers. A developer can even sell their game on a different platform at the same time they sell it on steam. They can even sell steam keys on their own website if they wanted to.
To call steam a monopoly is a bit of a stretch. People still have plenty of choices and steam isn’t circle jerking their consumers.
Imagine creating a platform which is so feature rich, and costs nothing for consumers to use, that other distributors want to legally force you to separate it from your store so they have a chance to sell the consumer the same game, for the same price (or more), but on “an equal playing field”.
Yeah, of course it would. Senior Manager position is something that basically only exists for bigger studios. From the 306 developers interviewed, probably only a small part are indie developers.
I suspect what’s unique in valve’s case is that they don’t have investors and board members and other stakeholders to lead them toward short-term profit maximization.
Unless games become something we truly own, steam is going to stay dominant. It’s more like a utility than a storefront. If you want to remove the dominance of steam you need to force a way to move libraries of games to other platforms.
Steam also got their monopoly the honest way by simply being the most consumer friendly option.
Valve is “de facto” monopoly, bit the actual monopoly potential is in Microsoft hands.
Microsoft is for PC gaming industry what Google is for the web browser one.
Sure, there may be other cool web browsers, but it’s Google that (through Android base) decide whic web browser will be delivered with the next billions of Android mobile device: some elderly people on smartphone don’t even know what is a web browser (“oh, you mean when I Google? I don’t know: I just Google”).
All future new PC will be sold with Microsoft Store and Xbox junk ware: Microsoft has been exceptionally shitty for not being the actual monopoly in the PC gaming industry. But that’s a very feeble protection: break Valve business is just a mandatory “security update” away to happen.
They can break Steam little by little (such as suggested by Tim Sweeney) or just a big blow by sheer monopolized manipulation (such as Google not allowing adblockers to chrome to feed their advertising business)
Microsoft tried to flip the switch years ago to kill anything outside the Microsoft store. That’s when steam released the original steam machines. Combined with general negative response to the messaging Microsoft has backed off, but they absolutely want to do it still.
They never tried to kill anything outside the Microsoft store. That’s just what Tim Sweeney and developers got fearful of and made a big fuss about (not saying it’s not worth making a fuss about, but they never announced they would do it). Microsoft did introduce more limited versions of windows that had sideloading disabled by default, but these were low cost versions of windows generally aimed at children and grandparents / non tech people, not at their gamer user base.
They absolutely were heading that direction with both windows and Xbox until the massive backlash from the public forced them to tone down their plans. It’s still the same company that tried to kill used games on consoles, and they basically have with the creation of game pass. Valve built an escape hatch to Linux for gaming, which has forced them to be a bit nicer on the PC front, but that’s not a sign of Microsoft being good.
Lol, they didn’t try to kill used games on console, when they announced the Xbox One they also announced that you would be able to digitally sell and transfer your games licenses and share you digital library with friends.
Gamers didn’t hear that though, and then those plans got scrapped when they had to rework everything before launch.
Game distribution platform Rokky has just released the results of a study it conducted with 306 senior managers of PC game developers (all from the US or UK)
There’s nothing in this article that suggests that they polled more than just senior managers.
I mean, they’re not really wrong. Valve has a monopoly on game distribution the same way that Google has a monopoly on Internet search. Alternatives exist, but they aren’t really competing with Steam.
Valve has so far been pretty pro-consumer which is how they got to where they are, but yhat doesn’t really change the fact that they essentially get to set the rules for digital distribution of games.
It’s also a big risk, as they could always enshittify. It’s a good platform now, but if Gabe dies or decides to give up his leadership position, that could all change very quickly.
Yeah, the day Gabe leaves is going to be a sad day for gaming, because Steam is probably gonna get real shitty real quick. I’m sure some finance-minded jackasses will do their best to maximize short-term profit and fly the whole ecosystem into the ground at Mach 3.
Thats not true. Privately owned firms tend to be really bad because they don’t have a feduciary duty to long term value. They suck everything dry. Private equity is the reason why daycare costs so much yet the daycare workers make minimum wage.
Steam just happens to be fine under private ownership because it makes enough profit for Gabe to be satisfied.
I assume they mean private equity vs privately owned.
Private equity would mean you have to bow to your investor since they are paying you. Privately owners make their own decisions without needing to answer to an investor
Gross oversimplification of Private vs Public. We are really taking about three kinds of ownership models, if arguing in good faith.
The people that are invested in the company, usually the people that built it, are at the helm.
The people that built it took a payout from Private Equity who now have ownership stake, and who now set the growth agenda.
The compant is now public, and given to the irrational whims if the ENTIRE marketplace, while at the same time primarily being at the whims of the board and the largest few investor stakeholders.
Private equity is commonly referring to “owned by a private equity fund” like Blackrock. It often involves extracting unhealthy amount of short term profit to make the numbers look better then sell the business so they can record a profit.
Gamers have good reason to love Valve for Steam alone – not even accounting for their amazing games. They really do have the best gamer-oriented platform, and seemingly they care about gamers. I think they’ve done a lot to advance gaming on linux as well which is much appreciated.
But, at least the way I see it, they still extract rents from game devs to an almost feudal degree.
“Sure – come sell your grain game – but you’ll have to give me a third of your profit because I own the town square platform/servers.”
Side note: It’s pretty funny that for a while Valve had Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis on staff to analyze spontaneously emerging markets for digital items on Steam – and he went on to write about the phenomenon above in his recent book Technofeudalism.
Game distribution platform Rokky has just released the results of a study it conducted with 306 senior managers of PC game developers (all from the US or UK)
Unsurprising that they find this, since that’s what their business is about.
MAXIMIZE GLOBAL GAME SALES WITH ROKKY
Expand sales of your PC game beyond Steam. Sell game keys to 200+ global storefronts simultaneously with Rokky. Enjoy revenue increases of up to 100%.
Nailed it, this is an ad for their company, that’s all the poll is, and of course it backs up the purpose of the company, almost like they set out from the beginning to create a poll with the results they wanted. Once they did that, they fired up their email (or hired a PR company) and spammed every news outlet they could to get them to cover. Steamdeckhq was dumb enough to take the bait, literally advertising this company for free, and OP continued that idiocy by posting here.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
Is it a monopoly though. Monopolies are there to protect the consumer, not really the seller. A developer does not need to use steam at all. I really don’t think steam can control the pricing like that. Like, if steam started to raise prices on people buying the games, then I feel like people would still jump ship. Places like gog and itch.io exist. There are plenty of game stores as well, Microsoft, Nintendo, ea.
The problem developers have is they feel if they make a PC game, that they have to put it on steam and no other platform or they won’t make money. But the developer still has choices and I feel like steam is pretty reasonable with their cut and the tools they offer developers. A developer can even sell their game on a different platform at the same time they sell it on steam. They can even sell steam keys on their own website if they wanted to.
To call steam a monopoly is a bit of a stretch. People still have plenty of choices and steam isn’t circle jerking their consumers.
I laugh when i see this shit.
Imagine creating a platform which is so feature rich, and costs nothing for consumers to use, that other distributors want to legally force you to separate it from your store so they have a chance to sell the consumer the same game, for the same price (or more), but on “an equal playing field”.
The problem with this “anti-monopoly” rhetoric is that players want to play on the same platform as everyone else.
Remember when Ubisoft came crawling back to Steam?
It surprised me that only 10% had tried selling their games on GOG. I guess the thought of going DRM-free was scarier than the monopoly of Steam.
Yeah, of course it would. Senior Manager position is something that basically only exists for bigger studios. From the 306 developers interviewed, probably only a small part are indie developers.
If only all monopolies were so user-positive.
I suspect what’s unique in valve’s case is that they don’t have investors and board members and other stakeholders to lead them toward short-term profit maximization.
I dread the day where GabeN is leaving valve
meh, IDK. it won’t change the basic facts of the company, there will still be no stakeholders.
Depends. Whoever will follow up, can charge the company into a public one
certainly possible. I just think Gabe isn’t the only Gabe who works at valve.
It’s a monopoly that benefits the consumer.
It could easily not be a monopoly if any other company was dedicated to making as good of a customer experience.
Unless games become something we truly own, steam is going to stay dominant. It’s more like a utility than a storefront. If you want to remove the dominance of steam you need to force a way to move libraries of games to other platforms.
Steam also got their monopoly the honest way by simply being the most consumer friendly option.
How’d they get their polling pool? Sitting outside the Valve corporate office?
Valve is “de facto” monopoly, bit the actual monopoly potential is in Microsoft hands. Microsoft is for PC gaming industry what Google is for the web browser one. Sure, there may be other cool web browsers, but it’s Google that (through Android base) decide whic web browser will be delivered with the next billions of Android mobile device: some elderly people on smartphone don’t even know what is a web browser (“oh, you mean when I Google? I don’t know: I just Google”).
All future new PC will be sold with Microsoft Store and Xbox junk ware: Microsoft has been exceptionally shitty for not being the actual monopoly in the PC gaming industry. But that’s a very feeble protection: break Valve business is just a mandatory “security update” away to happen. They can break Steam little by little (such as suggested by Tim Sweeney) or just a big blow by sheer monopolized manipulation (such as Google not allowing adblockers to chrome to feed their advertising business)
Microsoft tried to flip the switch years ago to kill anything outside the Microsoft store. That’s when steam released the original steam machines. Combined with general negative response to the messaging Microsoft has backed off, but they absolutely want to do it still.
They never tried to kill anything outside the Microsoft store. That’s just what Tim Sweeney and developers got fearful of and made a big fuss about (not saying it’s not worth making a fuss about, but they never announced they would do it). Microsoft did introduce more limited versions of windows that had sideloading disabled by default, but these were low cost versions of windows generally aimed at children and grandparents / non tech people, not at their gamer user base.
They absolutely were heading that direction with both windows and Xbox until the massive backlash from the public forced them to tone down their plans. It’s still the same company that tried to kill used games on consoles, and they basically have with the creation of game pass. Valve built an escape hatch to Linux for gaming, which has forced them to be a bit nicer on the PC front, but that’s not a sign of Microsoft being good.
Lol, they didn’t try to kill used games on console, when they announced the Xbox One they also announced that you would be able to digitally sell and transfer your games licenses and share you digital library with friends.
Gamers didn’t hear that though, and then those plans got scrapped when they had to rework everything before launch.
news are suppose to have new information
So… not developers, but businessmen.
I read this as senior managers at valve…
First line of the article seems fairly contradictory to that.
Wait now I’m even more confused
There’s nothing in this article that suggests that they polled more than just senior managers.
Yeah, who do you think is best equipped to examine the sales and financials?
From what I’ve seen and heard, probably not businessmen.
Irrelevant - the title and graphic says “developers”.
They’re a functional monopoly in my case since I’m on Linux. GOG is the main competitor for my money.
I mean, they’re not really wrong. Valve has a monopoly on game distribution the same way that Google has a monopoly on Internet search. Alternatives exist, but they aren’t really competing with Steam.
Valve has so far been pretty pro-consumer which is how they got to where they are, but yhat doesn’t really change the fact that they essentially get to set the rules for digital distribution of games.
Really? Has Valve abused their position to specifically further entrench their monopoly or other anti-consumer behavior?
There was a time I would have agreed with that comparison but Google has sucked for a while.
It’s also a big risk, as they could always enshittify. It’s a good platform now, but if Gabe dies or decides to give up his leadership position, that could all change very quickly.
Yeah, the day Gabe leaves is going to be a sad day for gaming, because Steam is probably gonna get real shitty real quick. I’m sure some finance-minded jackasses will do their best to maximize short-term profit and fly the whole ecosystem into the ground at Mach 3.
As long as it remains privately owned, it should be OK. The day shares go public, god forbid, will be the beginning of the end.
Thats not true. Privately owned firms tend to be really bad because they don’t have a feduciary duty to long term value. They suck everything dry. Private equity is the reason why daycare costs so much yet the daycare workers make minimum wage.
Steam just happens to be fine under private ownership because it makes enough profit for Gabe to be satisfied.
Thats PE firms, not the same as private owned companies. THERE WAS only one istance of a hybrid of PE and private owned sitaution, SEARS.
How exactly are they different?
I assume they mean private equity vs privately owned. Private equity would mean you have to bow to your investor since they are paying you. Privately owners make their own decisions without needing to answer to an investor
Gross oversimplification of Private vs Public. We are really taking about three kinds of ownership models, if arguing in good faith.
The people that are invested in the company, usually the people that built it, are at the helm.
The people that built it took a payout from Private Equity who now have ownership stake, and who now set the growth agenda.
The compant is now public, and given to the irrational whims if the ENTIRE marketplace, while at the same time primarily being at the whims of the board and the largest few investor stakeholders.
Steam has largely existed exclusively in the first category. So have most of the oldest businesses in the planet, which are often family-owned and maintained operations across generations.
Neither do publicly traded companies. All they are required to do is make money for shareholders, and most of them push for short-term value
The profits are taken away from the trading price, yes
Although it still helps the long term price
Privately owned is not the same thing as private equity. https://irely.com/private-equity-or-privately-owned-does-it-matter/
The first sentence
This article seems to be about the ethos of private equity. Legally they’re nearly identical.
Well done missing the point.
Private equity is commonly referring to “owned by a private equity fund” like Blackrock. It often involves extracting unhealthy amount of short term profit to make the numbers look better then sell the business so they can record a profit.
Sure, legally yes.
In practice, a lot of the time, not even close.
You say that as if publicly traded firms do
Gamers have good reason to love Valve for Steam alone – not even accounting for their amazing games. They really do have the best gamer-oriented platform, and seemingly they care about gamers. I think they’ve done a lot to advance gaming on linux as well which is much appreciated.
But, at least the way I see it, they still extract rents from game devs to an almost feudal degree.
Side note: It’s pretty funny that for a while Valve had Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis on staff to analyze spontaneously emerging markets for digital items on Steam – and he went on to write about the phenomenon above in his recent book Technofeudalism.
Edit: formatting
Unsurprising that they find this, since that’s what their business is about.
Nailed it, this is an ad for their company, that’s all the poll is, and of course it backs up the purpose of the company, almost like they set out from the beginning to create a poll with the results they wanted. Once they did that, they fired up their email (or hired a PR company) and spammed every news outlet they could to get them to cover. Steamdeckhq was dumb enough to take the bait, literally advertising this company for free, and OP continued that idiocy by posting here.