PC Gaming

8607 readers

904 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

Be Respectful.
No Spam or Porn.
No Advertising.
No Memes.
No Tech Support.
No questions about buying/building computers.
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.)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

784

In 2018 a group of Valve staff tried to figure out just how efficient they were being—and found they were making more money per head than Apple, Facebook, and nearly every tech giant out there (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

223 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 46 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Back in 2021, indie developer Wolfire filed an antitrust lawsuit against Valve that accused the gaming giant of anti-competitive business practices—including a long-standing habit of taking unfair cuts from game developers on its store. Valve's 30% fees have come under criticism before—and they are notably high when compared to some other online platforms.

Ouch. I didn't realize they took such a big cut. On the other hand, authors trying to publish to Amazon's kindle get hit with commissions from 30%-65% before any other fees, so Steam seems downright reasonable for that particular comparison.

From where I'm sitting, though, I've plenty of complicated feelings. Steam might be the best option out there, but monopolies aren't great for anybody—at the same time, business is business.

Steam's absurd efficiency could be a product of merciless penny-pinching from indie devs, but it's just as likely we're watching a well-oiled machine continue to belch out cash in an expected fashion.

Is it really a monopoly with everyone from EA to GoG delivering games? I guess it is dominant enough to count. I have a hard time complaining when employees are getting good pay and I've continued to get good service from them. It might get scarey if/when Gabe steps down, but this all feels pretty fair for now.

[+] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The unusual though possibly wrong thing that differentiates steam is they don't appear to engage in all that much anti competitive behavior. Possibly some, but not really that much. Ultimately if it's better for the consumer but worse for 'the economy' who's really losing out? By what metric?

For now, at least. But the secret to valves success here doesn't appear to be very closed source. A fairly flat internal structure, moderately functional store and community reputation building, mostly keeping promises and having which reputation that when they don't they can weather the storm. Nothing there seems unachievable unless your design philosophy is so cut throat and monetized that you just build a bad product.

[+] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If your proposal is some sort of grant program to make that infrastructure easier to come by then that could be neat. Nothing about steams actual technology is unique though.

A federated indie store could also be neat, though like other federated systems with money involved especially you'll need to be extra careful about how it's all set up to make sure the result is any good.

[+] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The point is, steam competitors don't do badly because they lack the man hours of steams Dev team. They do badly because of terrible company vision and incentives. Open sourcing a tech doesn't solve a problem that doesn't exist. I don't even think open sourcing steam really does.. Anything, for developers. Philosophically cool, practically useless, everything that steam is exists in piecewise form already. Turning steam into a federated service is not meaningfully faster because you make steam open source.

Gog is the closest and does fine. The technology is about on par with steam, the philosophy of the service better, and they are doing fine. Not overwhelming steam no, but fine.

[–] tastysnacks -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Monopoly's themselves are not necessarily bad. Its when they use the monopoly to spread into other areas where it becomes the problem.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Just because monopolies can have a fanbase, doesn't mean they don't negatively impact society.

The cult behind Steam doesn't understand the problem that will arrive once Gabe retires. The amount of power they gave this single entity will come to.bite them in the ass.

[–] msage 1 points 8 months ago

It's not like there are any better options.

GOG perhaps, but that doesn't strive to deliver the conveniency, and ignores Linux players.

Epic? Lol.

Any other private company launcher? Well, just no.

Everyone will be gone one day, Gabe, Linus Torvalds... but that doesn't mean other people don't share their values and the original idea will be gone too.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

Steam isn't a monopoly; they have competition. As far as I'm aware, they also don't have a mechanism to lock people out of the market, so there's probably no danger of them becoming a monopoly. I have no idea why people are going around saying they're a monopoly when they demonstrably aren't.