Grimm Fandango
Member
Well, it has a basis in uh... an awful lot of monopolies in other industries, which started out in the exact same way that Steam did.
Really? Which ones?
Well, it has a basis in uh... an awful lot of monopolies in other industries, which started out in the exact same way that Steam did.
Corporate Greed.
Steam isn't exactly a monopoly. There just has not yet been any other service for PC games that comes close to being as good as Steam with or without DRM. Origin, GFWL, and UPlay each have bigger problems as services when compared to Steam, which does have their problems as well. GOG and Desura may be well liked, but both also cater primarily to a specific niche, classic games and indie games respectfully.
What I want to see is a Sega to Steam's Nintendo... A PlayStation 3 to Steam's 360... I want to see a company willing to just challenge Steam head-on and match it feature to feature. I want to see a service that will motivate Valve to have to improve themselves.
Lol. Sorry but its a majority, not a monopoly. My goodness.It is a monopoly due to market share.
Lol. Sorry but its a majority, not a monopoly. My goodness.
It is a monopoly do to market share.
Weren't you saying there were tons of viable alternatives just a few pages back? What happened to that? If there are tons of viable alternatives it's not a monopoly. You can't have it both ways.
Sources claimed Steam serves 80 per cent of the PC download sector, and shops are worried that selling games with Steam tech built-in pushes users towards only buying games through Valve.
Minecraft Creator Worried About Steam Monopoly on Digital Distribution
You can have options and still have a monopoly.
I think two quotes is enough to make a point.
Not really, the first is from brick and mortar stores complaining about digital lock-in on physical discs in general. Steam's just the biggest of the stores so it gets the focus, but EA and Ubisoft do that, too. Basically, the physical model has all but died on PC, and they are sore about that.
The second comes from someone whose game has sold six million copies on PC without even going anywhere near Steam. If he can be so successful without touching Steam at all, how could Steam then have a monopoly?
I think two quotes should be enough to make a point, there are plenty more if you are curious.
Indeed... Compare to Microsoft in Windows operating systems, which is at least legally considered a monopoly. Windows is on 89% of all computers. Steam is estimated to only have 70% of the marketshare for PC video games, a clear majority but not a monopoly. We are not even sure that doesn't count games that offer both a Steam Key and a DRM-Free download like the Humble Bundles do.
DOJ said:Following Alcoa and American Tobacco, courts typically have required a dominant market share before inferring the existence of monopoly power. The Fifth Circuit observed that "monopolization is rarely found when the defendant's share of the relevant market is below 70%."(22) Similarly, the Tenth Circuit noted that to establish "monopoly power, lower courts generally require a minimum market share of between 70% and 80%."(23) Likewise, the Third Circuit stated that "a share significantly larger than 55% has been required to establish prima facie market power"(24) and held that a market share between seventy-five percent and eighty percent of sales is "more than adequate to establish a prima facie case of power."(25)
Really? Which ones?
....yet Steam supporters say it'd sell a lot more if he just released it on Steam. The fact that it's even debatable is a problem.
Actually, 70% is considered a threshold of sorts for a monopoly. It's not the only requirement by a long shot, but it is a sufficient market share.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/reports/236681_chapter2.htm
Monopoly power is conventionally demonstrated by showing that both (1) the firm has (or in the case of attempted monopolization, has a dangerous probability of attaining) a high share of a relevant market and (2) there are entry barriers--perhaps ones created by the firm's conduct itself--that permit the firm to exercise substantial market power for an appreciable period.
It might be principle not the money.
Valve are good guys who would never do a scummy thing?
It's exactly that.
http://www.minecraftforum.net/news/422-notch-gives-3-million-to-mojang-employees/
When you can just give each of your 25 employees $3 million....
Anyone saying "what's the problem, Gabe is my friend! Valve would never do anything bad I trust them" is completely incoherent - they are doing something bad RIGHT NOW. That's the entire point of this thread.
This is like getting punched in the face by a guy then immediately claiming the guy would never punch you in the face.
Valve are good guys who would never do a scummy thing? Then why are they locking out users from the games they paid for, putting clauses in their EULA that allows them to ship broken games without legal repercussion, etc?
The barrier of entry for digitally downloadable games on PC is very low. Practically anyone could make a game outside the Steam ecosystem and bigger game studios can market games that are outside the Steam ecosystem.
No, they´re the good guys who do far less scummy things then others. They´re not faultless, I don´t think anyone are actually saying that, but if you do 15 good things and then 2-3 bad things, you can still be considered the good guys. Maybe not if you live like a Bioware storyline, but otherwise it´s possible.
No, those are Steam fanboys. I bet the Nintendo fanboys would go gaga if GTA ever appeared on their system.
Fair enough... So let's apply these standards to Steam. Looking over them, there are actually one very key point that should be noted.
Regardless of Steam's monopolistic marketshare, this second point actually shows that Steam is not a monopoly... The barrier of entry for digitally downloadable games on PC is very low. Practically anyone could make a game outside the Steam ecosystem and bigger game studios can market games that are outside the Steam ecosystem.
I don't get the beef. It's T&C's, there is no grey area, you either accept, or you don't. That's how they work.
I don't understand why you don't just accept and go play some games. I don't think there going to come and try to make you part of a Human Centipede.
So... No need to bother our little heads with such stuff, let's just get back to playing games? Yeah, it would be nice to be a worry-free kid once again, trusting the world to take care of us.I don't get the beef. It's T&C's, there is no grey area, you either accept, or you don't. That's how they work.
I don't understand why you don't just accept and go play some games. I don't think there going to come and try to make you part of a Human Centipede.
Why get worked up about that now? They've always been licenses to be terminated at their descretion.
When do you suggest people should get worked up about it?
When they first joined Steam and needed to accept the agreement.
You referenced a qualification that does give credence to the monopoly claim. Steam is a huge barrier to entry for competing services. There are a lot of things about steam that disincentivise switching. Friends list and Steamworks being the obvious.
The point of these services is make customers stick to the platform.
The rest of your post is accurate, but this is false.In fact, major competitor Origin has only been around for 2 years.
Here's my take on the whole situation. Valve is moving into the big leagues this year. By adding non-game software, expanding into Linux, possibly creating a new platform and openly criticizing behemoths like Apple and Microsoft, Valve is setting Steam up to be an actual competitor to these companies' app stores. In the process, they have painted a big red target on themselves as they try and complete the move from quirky PC-oriented company to actual threat for the big dogs in the technology space.
My guess is that Valve is trying to defend itself from potentially destructive lawsuits instigated or "encouraged" by rival companies. I don't believe that they are trying to screw over the average Steam user,since they seem perfectly happy to pay the bills for any potential dispute. This is why I don't mind the recent EULA changes. It would be suicidal to leave the company open to such threats when every other competitor has already activated similar clauses.
TL;DR I don't have a problem with the new EULA because I believe it's not meant to hurt the consumer, just defend Valve from potential legal attacks from rival companies.
Companies don't use class actions against other companies.
Right. So just completely ignore human nature and the reason companies put things in fine print in the first place, and assume people are unable to learn new facts and respond differently? Cool.
Companies don't use class actions against other companies.
When they first joined Steam and needed to accept the agreement.
I think the thing that is troubling to some people is that we have no idea what we are agreeing to. If you bought a game on Steam last year, there was no arbitration clause. Now there is, but it doesn't just affect future purchases, and it doesn't just affect future access to a service, it affects past purchases too. To agree to the SSA is to agree that you are willing to accept literally any terms Valve may choose to set in the future, or you will lose the ability to use items you have paid for. That seems so unconscionable to me that I find it odd that anyone would think that it's ok.
That seems so unconscionable to me that I find it odd that anyone would think that it's ok.
It's not ok but it's not the case here. Steam has an arbitration clause that was deemed legal by the US Supreme court. Valve can't update the SSA to say that you have to yell out "Hail Gaben!" three times every morning or lose your games because it's not legal and it would be shot down in court in an instant. Please try to understand the distinction. Steam added a clause that is considered legal in the US. They can't add illegal clauses. They acted within their rights.
Look at it from the other side. Let's say, hypothetically, that in the future the Supreme court rules that everyone on Steam should be able to sell their games and that Valve should amend the SSA to conform to that ruling. Do you think that Valve would have the right to say "ok but this goes only for new customers and not for those who are already on Steam"? Would people be ok with that? Valve would have to change the SSA for everyone. Not only for those who become members of Steam after the ruling but for everyone. It's the same principle here.
I think the thing that is troubling to some people is that we have no idea what we are agreeing to. If you bought a game on Steam last year, there was no arbitration clause. Now there is, but it doesn't just affect future purchases, and it doesn't just affect future access to a service, it affects past purchases too. To agree to the SSA is to agree that you are willing to accept literally any terms Valve may choose to set in the future, or you will lose the ability to use items you have paid for. That seems so unconscionable to me that I find it odd that anyone would think that it's ok.
And this is the number one issue at hand. They are basically holding your games hostage unless you agree to their terms no matter what they are for every update in the near future.
Yup. I don't see how difficult it would be to prevent the purchase of new games without accepting the terms, but to allow the playing of old ones.
As it stands, I'm just looking to see how many of the titles I purchased can run without Steam installed. Most of my Paradox published games can be moved and run without it. Sadly I'd not finished downloading The Witcher 2 before the change...
I believe those people with restricted accounts still have to follow the EULA. Doesn't make any sense why the rules would still not apply to them.
The sad part is they already have a method in place for locking accounts of out of future purchases while allowing access to old purchases.
Steam added a clause that is considered legal in the US. They can't add illegal clauses. They acted within their rights.
On the other hand, if they responded by disabling my Bioshock DVD, we would all agree that is nuts, right?
The problem with digital games is that these clauses, legal or not, are binding, because you have no choice about complying.
It's not the same thing. Steam is a digital delivery service. If you refuse to accept the terms of the service then you can't have access to it. There is no other way to enforce this.
That is absolutely not true and you always have a real-world choice. If the clause isn't legal, it isn't binding and that's that. It doesn't matter at all if you click "I accept" or not. If a clause is blatantly illegal you can click "accept" safe in the knowledge that your acceptance will not matter at all in the case of a legal dispute. No company can use the reasoning that "the customer accepted our EULA" to justify an illegal clause.
They could give you access to your old games whilst restricting your ability to purchase new ones. The fact that they don't is strictly their anti-consumer choice.
This is ridiculous. How is anyone to know which clauses will be upheld? "I accepted because I figured it was bullshit" is a really bad defense.