To quote the article: “Competition in this space is not only uninteresting to most Steam users, it’s actively denigrated!” He then says.
And then: “As long as Valve is independent and not a publicly traded company,” it looks impossible for Steam to be overthrown as the de-facto PC gaming marketplace.
(Sorry I don’t know how to do quotes)
This entire article tongue in cheek shows the thinking behind these ceos and how out of touch they are. The vibes I get from just scrolling here and listening, plus listening to the market in general, people are moving away from the evil, and ai whomever is least evil, wins the attention.
This guy compeletely ignores the inbetween the lines of his own words, Steam isn’t publicly traded, so doesn’t put shareholders above the actual product and it’s users. The ai isn’t used in the same ways, it’s pretty obvious to anyone who isn’t actively hallucinating , everyone hates ai.
They want an equal share of the market, and instead of listening this article (not bagging the article) highlights how much he instead sucks on sour grapes, and blames the gamers for being rusted on fans, rather than examining where they might have gone wrong, acknowledging and listening. The fact he’s unable to listen is going to actively keep users from Epic.
People just want to feel like they aren’t seen as cows to milk, in ever decreasingly comfortable and trapped ways. They want to feel listened to and be able to use the product. They don’t want to be force fed pigs pigswill and told to like it. There almost seems to be a fetish level hate towards the customers / consumers from these elitist idiot ceos etc. On a base level anyone could tell you that’s not a good business model.
The market is so fed up with all the things said out loud that previously weren’t. The whole “we own you” spiel from the top companies and ceos around the world. Gamers would more likely pack in the internet and retro game or build their own infrastructure (like has been done here) and ignore them all.
This guys egomaniacal take is just absolutely going to sink the entirely ship.
There’s an argument that steam take too high a cut from developers, but if that keeps it stable as is for a very long time, instead of tipping the scale and leading to a publicly traded company, so be it.
You can do the greater than symbol for quotes at the start to do quotes.
“>” Like this
Like this
They “broke it”?
I mean sure nobody likes capitalism here but have they actually tried making a better product?
It’s just as much that epic shit the bed when they first introduced their launcher/store by very clearly taking the “shitty capitalism” path that tries to compete by killing off competition with exclusivity deals and later throwing money at players with free games. Not to mention not even trying to compete on some of the things that gives steam more value to many users.
It was clear they were trying to do to video games what uber and abnb tried to do to taxis and hotels and use venture capital money to undercut the existing market with the intent of being able to set whatever price later when their competition died off but were even less successful than the other two corps, who still managed to become big players in their market even if they didn’t kill off the competition.
For me personally, not only am I uninterested in epic’s store, but I don’t wasn’t to see them succeed. Even if they started doing the good things, I wouldn’t trust that they’d keep it up if they managed to get to steam’s market position. They showed their cards too soon with trying to open up with exclusives.
skill issue
Uh-oh an economic discussion in a gaming Forum?
This will be very informed and up to economic standards in the field 😂
BS. Steam offers games simply without the bull. They didn’t break capitalism, they just didn’t enshitten their platform.
Or maybe they broke capitalism in the sense that they are showing that the shit they teach MBAs isn’t the only or even the best path to profit and if enough people adopt (or return to) that way of doing business, they can dominate their markets and compete directly with the venture capital class that tries to compete with its financial weight more than whatever products or services it is currently peddling.
I mean, this part is so obvious to me right now. With all the complete shit products out there that have so many anti-features that I often just stop looking for things rather than get enticed by the good features, I think that competitors that come in with the intent of making good quality shit people want (where “good” can even just mean “doesn’t try to spy on you”) could similarly dominate their markets. And if people don’t chase empires to become billionaires, I think there’s a lot of room in all markets even when certain players come to dominate their local area (considering physical markets more than digital ones, since they scale very differently, though I do think that some thought could be put in to how to do this for digital markets, too… Maybe some drastic changes to IP laws).
The volume of Valve glazing I see on the internet has me worried. They could enshittify dramatically tomorrow, and I think they would still have positive sentiment.
People trust them. Trusting a corporation is a recipe for monopoly, pretty much without exception, historically.
And Steam is the only storefront for so, so many games. For all of Sweeny’s toxicity, I honestly didn’t feel that particular outrage against EGS, as I was already concerned by how many games are Steam-only.
They have positive sentiment because they haven’t enshittified much, in an industry that has embraced shit maximalism as a policy.
People would complain if they got worse. There would be people saying “at least they arent microsoft”, but they would still be held to higher standards than other companies. The fact they are more or less meeting those standards is impressive.
Also, steam integration is pretty un-invasive on the developer’s side. If steam went tits-up, everybody would just re-release elsewhere.
We know they will, but it’s probably not today.
Gabe will die, directives will change, Valve will slip. But probably not today.
and that “probably not today” is actually WORLDS MORE reassurance than i feel from literally any other platform (gog aside)
GoG is very underrated as well.
Steam can, and will be replaced. Kiaran Ritchie is a silly boy.
We’ve tried nothing and we’re out of ideas.
What do you mean? They tried the most capitalist of solutions, buying themselves into the space free games and exclusivity! It’s a shame it takes a bit more than just being able to click “play” (and not even that in Linux) to have a shop front people want to use.
Steam has problems, Epic games could fix that. They choose to whine about it on social media instead.
They could, but they won’t.
The major way they broke capitalism was by not going public. Gabe has to answer to nobody, so the usual gang of corporate fucking idiots can’t force him to do short sighted shit to make a short term squeeze at the cost of long term viability.
This is the key. It’s the WHOLE thing. A runaway cap table destroys companies, always. Investors have different exit horizons and they are fundamentally incompatible with long term viability.
All you need to do to compete with a publicly owned company is capitalism is wait for their investors to get too greedy.
I’ve been screaming this exact sentiment into the void for a long time, so it’s nice to see someone else who understands.
The main reason companies are getting so shitty right now isn’t a blanket “capitalism bad”. Companies need to have a clear goal that they pursue with a coherent vision, and that is impossible when you auction away control of the driver’s seat to a comittee of random people with varying interests.
On the one hand, they’re not really competing on features right now.
On the other hand, I have heard (more times than I can count or remember), that Steam users will never use another launcher for any reason ever.
So they kind of have a point. If they invest hundreds of millions or billions into features, would Steam users really use the Epic launcher? I don’t think so.
There are a couple things that cement Steam at the top, imo.
The first is obviously familiarity and completeness - everyone knows Steam and it almost certainly has whatever game you are looking to buy.
The second is added value - very good controller support, mod support, (some) good community spaces, easy multiplayer sessions, proton integration, regular updates, etc. These are genuinely worth using the launcher for.
The third is the single-launcher desire (or the sunk cost effect depending on your point of view). People already have massive libraries on steam, keeping their collection there just makes it easier to browse and find whatever they want to play. Yes, there are other solutions for this, but that is an extra step - there will always be people who don’t take that step.
Familiarity can’t exactly be bought - Epic tried. Completeness can be bought (Epic, Gamepass) but it is hideously expensive. Added value is difficult to get to parity (mod authors aren’t going to instantly port to a new launcher even if there is support). The single launcher effect is a massive first-mover advantage.
I completely agree that Valve having a monopoly on PC game distribution is unhealthy long-term, they also just offer a better experience to me as a consumer than the competition. Even when games have GoG versions, for instance, they are often not updated as frequently and mod support is often more difficult, controller support is hit-or-miss, etc.
I’d be fine using a different launcher. Just not theirs.
Epic has done so much to breed ill will with gamers. If they wanted to be disruptors they should have just followed the typical tactics. Come in with a decent or even good service that is cheaper or more user friendly than the competition, be extremely consumer focused with customer support and decisions, get enough market share to have a solid user base, then start tightening the strings so they can turn a profit.
Instead, they said ‘fuck gamers’, spent years bribing developers for exclusives, offered fuck-all in terms of features that people want, had very strict customer service, and then proceeded to tell everyone that they’re wrong for preferring the other guy.
I mean, Steam isn’t even my preferred storefront, despite being where I buy most of my games. I actually prefer GoG when it’s an option.
they released a new video codec for steamlink vr streaming not too long ago, and are adding achievement categories
He is saying Epic isn’t releasing new features right now (because it doesnt help against steam)
Epic announced that fartknife was coming to Linux less than a month ago
Their new launcher supposedly runs on Linux, but their FAQ tells you that most games will need a compatibility layer and doesn’t mention a built in one.
At the same time they are rebuilding Easy Anti Cheat (EAC) to run on Linux, something that was possible with Steams Proton for years alreadyif developers enable it.
All they are doing is bringing their main cashcow to as many people as possible, while trying tobe as invasiv as possible with the new EAC. Nothing about this is really customer friendly.
When Gabe passes one day and the next owner is some business dimwit and makes steam really win capitalism, pretty sure we’ll jump to GoG. That’s my headcanon at least. Because that’s what always happens to private companies when the person who cares about the thing no longer leads the company.
How?
I try to buy GoG over Steam, at any price, but the vast majority of the time the game I want is only on Steam, or Steam/1st party launcher.
They’ve got the whole market.
It’s a chicken and egg kind of problem. But ultimately, it’s where gamers go. Where we vote to put our dollars basically. If it’s GoG or some other platform that becomes open source or something that works to build a good product, that’s where publishers will eventually move to as well after the paying audience moves. But yeah, of course lots of big name studios will fight tooth and nail and won’t supply DRM free versions willingly.
Unless policy gets instituted to force them of course.
https://www.theverge.com/policy/1013521/video-game-ownership-bill-congress-power-to-the-players-act
No I don’t want to lose my library 😭
Gabe doesn’t even work at valve anymore. He passed the torch long ago. Please don’t keep repeating this.
Really who runs it?
A collective of knives and boats.
Is GoG immune?
For a while, maybe? It’s very tempting to sell out, and most people succumb.
Not entirely, but they’re focused on delivering DRM free copies for your purchases. So if they were to pivot and revoke your library, that part is impossible if you’ve downloaded your DRM free installation files.
Do you keep an up to date copy of all your games installers?
I have some games on GoG. But when I wanted to install games, I got their launcher installer. You need to go through some dark path to find the true installer. At least it was the case a couple years back.
Also a few month ago they putted an announce to hire someone to lead the Galaxy launcher. They explicitly asked for someone that would push the use of AI in their team.
I fear the moment they gain enough traction, the game won’t be as easy to install DRM free. Their launcher will be the DRM, just like steam.
So yeah, they provide an escape hatch for now, but sadly other than that it looks to me they are more like Epic than Valve. I have not much trust for them.
(Maybe Humble Bundle stopping to provide DRM free download of the game + the steam key eaeliy on made me very skeptical of this?)
Yeah, and their unknowable secret sauce to win capitalism was to not overdo it and enshittify. Wild stuff. Who could tell that keeping your userbase happy is more productive in the long term than chasing “growth” at every turn?
Give it a generation or three, but yes.
Companies that “haven’t gone evil” yet are like dynasties that aren’t ruled by a mad king, yet.
It usually comes after the original founder leaves or dies.
Steam still have a lot of issues, so there’s some opportunities still. If Epic truly managed to provide what Steam does while taking less from the devs, I would guarantee you that more people would go to the EGS, and even make memes about EGS taking less from devs. But with nonexistent social features and AI slop unlabeled, people will not want to touch it with a ten foot pole.
Hell, even if they just let people avoid AI slop easier than on Steam would at least win over a few people. But from what Epic is doing with its other tools, it seems like they’re trying to force as many devs to be “AI first” as possible.
As a dev, I wouldn’t lie that Epic taking lower cuts sounds nice. But if it comes with the costs of their game launcher coming with Chinese spyware and being horribly vibe-coded, a chronic inability to dodge AI slop, then I don’t even want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. Maybe I won’t even release my games there.
Fixable? Whats broken?
Why do people even give clicks to this bullshit.
People were saying the same thing about Netflix, then netflix went to shit and look at that alternatives popped up.
And don’t forget Microsoft was the goliath that steam managed to take on.
Something feels different about that – i guess EA is big enough they could theoretically stop selling on the steam store. But idk other companies are big enough to make competing platforms the way all the Hollywood media giants did
EA tried that initially. They eventually went back to putting their games on Steam. Although their platform was dogshit compared to Steam, so that’s not surprising, except to them I guess. These execs keep thinking they can do the bare minimum and pull people away from Steam, and that’s not how it works. They need to provide a better value proposition to customers, and they flat out refuse to even try.
What would happen is if steam started to piss people off. Netflix did, and this is what happened.
I think we have different opinions about what happened. The main problem with Netflix is all the rights holders pulled their content off of Netflix leaving it with mostly junk
They raised their rates and split dvd and streaming first. That was the opportunity that gave (Stars first I think?) a chance to split off, and then more followed.
And then netflix keeps raising rates, blocking family sharing AND not having much to watch.
Edit: and I just looked it up, they had already raised prices, but this one was about 60%.
The LA Times lead line captures what I am saying: “Netflix Inc., America’s largest video subscription service, is hiking prices as much as 60% in a move that has sparked outrage among its customers but brought smiles to Hollywood studio executives.”
Maybe I have it backwards ,-- thanks for sharing!
