Support NeoGAF

[Phrozenflame500]

2) Unlike consoles, they became a monopoly fair and square, by simply being more attractive than the competition. Stop accusing them of being a monopoly as if it was some nefarious thing they did, especially if you're going to conveniently ignore pretty much every other platform's store is also a monopoly and one enforced by its manufacturer.

i don't think you understand what a monopoly is

 

[Pixieking]

This thread is embarrassing on both sides.
1) Yes, Steam is a de facto monopoly. Let's not mince words. If you're not Blizzard or a F2P game maker, you will starve if you try to sell your game elsewhere.
2) Unlike consoles, they became a monopoly fair and square, by simply being more attractive than the competition. Stop accusing them of being a monopoly as if it was some nefarious thing they did, especially if you're going to conveniently ignore pretty much every other platform's store is also a monopoly and one enforced by its manufacturer.

Edit: Actually, I'm getting tired of repeating all this, so just have this bit:

1) The actual legal bar for monopoly is a lot higher than you think, otherwise action would be taken against, as examples, Amazon in the digital marketplace, and Waterstones and HMV in the physical. All three companies command a majority share of their markets (online sales, bricks-and-mortar book sales, bricks-and-mortar CD/DVD sales respectively).
2) As soon as Steam comes close to becoming a monopoly, you can bet your bottom dollar EA, Activision/Blizzard, MS etc are going to file legal complaints in the US, UK and Europe. If anyone really thinks their legal teams aren't just waiting for the moment, they're not thinking far enough ahead.

 

[Dreamwriter]

Steam is nowhere near a Monopoly, because of Amazon, GameStop, Good Old Games, PSN...

And regardless, they were charging 30% before they were huge. Same as just about everyone else. Even if Steam was a monopoly at this point, that has nothing to do with the 30%.

 

[entremet]

Sweeney always makes the most nonsensical arguments.

 

[Random Human]

.

 

[aliengmr]

This thread is embarrassing on both sides.
1) Yes, Steam is a de facto monopoly. Let's not mince words. If you're not Blizzard or a F2P game maker, you will starve if you try to sell your game elsewhere.

They aren't a monopoly though. If Steam were a monopoly no other digital storefront would exist. That is the entire point, the exclusion of ALL competition.
Monopoly:
The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.

EA wouldn't have been able to fuck off with its games if Valve controlled the supply of all games.

 

[Weltall Zero]

i don't think you understand what a monopoly is

Edit: Actually, I'm getting tired of repeating all this, so just have this bit:

Yeah, people need to stop using "monopoly" to mean "large market share".

PS4 has a "large market share". Steam has a "market share so large publishing in any competitor is financial suicide for the vast majority of developers". In practical terms that's closer to "monopoly" than "large market share", even if it's not one in the literal legal sense. But disputing terms is not the point I was making nor one I'm interested, so I'm fine with using a more accurate term like "near monopoly" or "majority market share".

They aren't a monopoly though. If Steam were a monopoly no other digital storefront would exist. That is the entire point, the exclusion of ALL competition.

I said they are a de facto monopoly:

De facto monopoly is a system where many suppliers of a product are allowed, but the market is so completely dominated by one that the others might as well not exist

https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/de-facto-monopoly/

Again I don't want or care to derail any further to argue whether or not they fit the definition for a de facto monopoly, but the existence of competition is not a valid argument against it.

 

[harriet the spy]

Does anyone know the market share of steam for pc games sales ?
50%?

 

[Pixieking]

PS4 has a "large market share". Steam has a "market share so large publishing in any competitor is financial suicide for the vast majority of developers". In practical terms that's closer to "monopoly" than "large market share", even if it's not one in the literal legal sense. But disputing terms is not the point I was making nor one I'm interested, so I'm fine with using a more accurate term like "near monopoly" or "majority market share".

The two bolded terms are so different it beggars belief. A "near monopoly" (also "effective monopoly") is not the same as "majority market share".

And disputing terms matters, because all these words are not synonyms for each-other. It fundamentally misunderstands economics and the marketplace to say the PS4 "has a large market share" but "Steam has a market share so large publishing in any competitor is financial suicide for the vast majority of developers". If for no other reason than you could say the same about the PS4, unless you think so many games release on it "just because".

Oh, and the legal sense matters more than anything. We can debate definitions til the cows come home, but there's specific branches of governments whose sole job is to determine if a company is behaving in an anti-consumer fashion, or an industry is beholden to a monopoly. That no government has even begun an inquiry into Valve's position says a lot.

 

[EdgeXL]

Does anyone know the market share of steam for pc games sales ?
50%?

Hard to say. Digital game sales are not publicly disclosed by Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo. Valve does not indicate their sales numbers either.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

Does anyone know the market share of steam for pc games sales ?
50%?

Probably nowhere near that high when you take into account that most of the biggest games aren't on Steam (like Minecraft, League of Legends, Blizzard & EA stuff), MMORPGs, retail, Amazon, all the smaller Steam-likes like Humble & GOG, foreign PC stuff (PC gaming in China is huge), and casual game sites that aren't even on gamer's radars.

 

[Sportbilly]

Amazing. Over 700 posts and people are still ignorant of what a monopoly actually is despite dozens of explanations and that a 30% cut is standard for any retailer, let alone one that provides as much as Valve does.

 

[danm999]

This is what angers me so much about the gaming community. Imagine EA would have created steam and be the main online store for games and they would take such a cut and have bad support like steam (unlike the real ea origins which as amazing support), they would get so much shit from neogaf and all the other gamers. but because its steam its always right what they do no matter how greedy and anti consumer and anti dev they are.

"Imagine the history of digital distribution on PC was completely different to what it actually is. Then I bet you'd feel stupid about your current opinions!"

"Imagine if the company that did an extremely popular thing didn't do it and the company did not do a popular thing did it instead. I bet you'd all feel like hypocrites!"

 

[aliengmr]

I said they are a de facto monopoly:

De facto monopoly is used to describe something as a monopoly, that isn't, but you need to make a point about how ridiculously dominate that thing is. In other words, a bullshit term.

And even then, it false. There are many examples of games profiting with out Steam. Star Citizen? There are other devs out there refusing to use Steam and benefiting by saying they aren't going to be on Steam.

Steam is the market leader in the distribution of digital PC games. Not a monopoly, de facto or otherwise.

Tim Sweeny: Why does Tim Sweeny take a 30% cut?

 

[ArtHands]

I thought 30% was common knowledge. Pretty much the same as the consoles.

What makes it worse is Tim Sweeney's UE marketplace takes in 30% too

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

What makes it worse is Tim Sweeney's UE marketplace takes in 30% too

To really go cock-headed, every game made with Unreal pays royalties of 3-5% over X copies sold.

 

[Rathorial]

Not sure why when this 30% cut gets brought up, it's always centered around Steam...

Most of the other major platforms take the same cut, have less features/services they provide to both the dev + consumer vs. Steam, and if the game releases to retail devs/publishers get to enjoy even less money per copy.

I definitely wouldn't mind if Steam took less of a cut, but it's disingenuous to compare it to a credit card transaction. Objectively Valve is providing more to a developer and consumer than a credit card company. You have the transaction + record of it itself, the distribution of the game data, the patching that increasingly occurs as games are treated like a service, the services Valve bundles in for both devs + consumers, and because their store is popular Valve being among the few game stores creating a recommendation algorithm ala Netflix.

What bothers me far more is Valve over time decreasing the percentage cut for content creators on their own games. Just makes no sense to me, especially when that content helps keep their games relevant.

 

[Hurricane_Chris]

Before implementing Steam, Valve Corporation had problems updating its online games, such as Counter-Strike; providing patches would result in most of the online user base disconnecting for several days. Valve decided to create a platform that would update games automatically and implement stronger anti-piracy and anti-cheat measures. Through user polls at the time of its announcement in 2002, Valve also recognized that at least 75% of their users had access to high-speed Internet connections, which would only grow with planned Internet expansion in the following years, and recognized that they could deliver game content faster to players than through retail channels. Valve approached several companies, including Microsoft, Yahoo!, and RealNetworks to build a client with these features, but were declined.

They saw a need and took a risk when no one else would. One could argue that they should profit as much as legally possible for their innovation, provided they do not illegally hurt consumers or stifle competition.

 

[Blizzard]

Amazing. Over 700 posts and people are still ignorant of what a monopoly actually is despite dozens of explanations and that a 30% cut is standard for any retailer, let alone one that provides as much as Valve does.

I really wish a mod could make a poll in a new thread that asks people whether they think Steam is less / equal to / greater than the iOS app store, PSN, etc.

I'm genuinely curious how little known this is since I thought it was basically common knowledge as an industry standard.

 

[Sad Affleck]

Sweeney's point has been missed. Like visa and MasterCard, Valve adds very little into the chain: all three are parasitic rent seekers, and valve is worse because they take 30%. It is a slam highlighting how little valve does for gaming in general given how much they take from it.

Valve has done little for gaming in general? What the fuck am I reading, I can't believe my eyes. The PC gaming market as it is today exists because of Valve, for crying out loud!

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Valve has done little for gaming in general? What the fuck am I reading, I can't believe my eyes. The PC gaming market as it is today exists because of Valve, for crying out loud!

Certain people consider the PC market a negative, as it draws away attention that is only deserved by their branded plastic box of preference.

 

[Stumpokapow]

This is what angers me so much about the gaming community. Imagine EA would have created steam and be the main online store for games and they would take such a cut and have bad support like steam (unlike the real ea origins which as amazing support), they would get so much shit from neogaf and all the other gamers. but because its steam its always right what they do no matter how greedy and anti consumer and anti dev they are.

EA did "create" Steam. They called it "EA Downloader". It was a piece of shit. Then they rebooted it and called it "EA Link". It was a piece of shit. Then they called it "EA Download Manager". It was a piece of shit. Then they rebooted it and called it "Origin". It was a piece of shit. After a bunch more work, it's now a mostly clean and functional piece of software that tries to do very little but launch your EA games. Most of this stuff happened before Steam was selling much in the way of third party games. It's not like Valve time traveled and got the jump on EA. All of the established players tried to do the same thing as Steam, and they all did it much worse.

It makes sense that a company that does a bunch of things right has a better reputation than a company that does almost nothing right. It's okay if you disagree, but if you want to understand the world in more rich terms than "Everyone Is Just An Idiot And They Think Stupid Idiot Things But I'm Right" then probably it makes sense to really think about how people come to their positions and it just so happens it's very obvious in this case.

 

[dex3108]

Well that 30% gave us Steam Controller, Lighthouse VR tracking (most advanced VR tracking solution today) and most advanced Digital Distribution platform today. And all of that hardware is open source for everybody to improve. I say that deal is good.

 

[Wireframe]

Pretty much because they can. They're one of the main sources of games on pc.

 

[LordRaptor]

Not sure why when this 30% cut gets brought up, it's always centered around Steam...

 

[Dirk Benedict]

Because it's the industry standard, and because they offer a lot of value to customers for free that other platforms charge for extra (on top of their own 30%).

What I find amusing is how different the position is for some GAF posters depending on which company they are talking about.
If [insert plastic box manufacturer] does something blatantly anti-consumer, it's "good business" and "I would do the same". When Valve charges the same everyone else does while providing more services and features, that's an outrage.

For other companies, acting purely profit-motivated is seen as normal and acceptable. But Valve is expected to act like a charity even when they are the most consumer-friendly of the bunch.

Stump always with the excellent posts in these threads.

Indeed. I am often without a response when he posts in a thread that catches my own personal interests.