Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Vapourware Microsoft want to get into PC gaming again

Cowboy Moment

Arcane
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
4,407
What the actual fuck is that guy even talking about? Valve has PC market practically on lockdown, you have to go through them unless you are one of the big three. If you're not on Steam you might as well not exist. It's practically a functional monopoly by all possible definitions, but this weirdo seems not too even notice the actual fucking monopoly going on, but instead he keeps ranting about the deadly threat of Microsoft having their own distribution platform, that's currently being used by two people.

What the shit.
Valve doesn't have a sales monopoly though, you can buy Steam keys from many different stores and competition seems very healthy in that space. Think Microsoft would do the same, when the whole purpose of this Windows Store push is to take a cut of all Windows software sales?

Frankly, I'd welcome serious competitors to Steam in principle, but Microsoft's position as the OS vendor would give them way too much power when combined with a dominant software marketplace, as can be seen on Android for example.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2015
Messages
242
Location
Ziniguistan
Yeah, cause Valve never tried to enter Microsoft's monopolies either.

Thank god they're totally incompetent and neither of their abominations went anywhere.
 

IHaveHugeNick

Arcane
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,870,124
What the actual fuck is that guy even talking about? Valve has PC market practically on lockdown, you have to go through them unless you are one of the big three. If you're not on Steam you might as well not exist. It's practically a functional monopoly by all possible definitions, but this weirdo seems not too even notice the actual fucking monopoly going on, but instead he keeps ranting about the deadly threat of Microsoft having their own distribution platform, that's currently being used by two people.

What the shit.
Valve doesn't have a sales monopoly though, you can buy Steam keys from many different stores and competition seems very healthy in that space. Think Microsoft would do the same, when the whole purpose of this Windows Store push is to take a cut of all Windows software sales?

They've been doing the same on the console market for last 15 years, so yeah, I think it's safe to say they would to the same.

Frankly, I'd welcome serious competitors to Steam in principle, but Microsoft's position as the OS vendor would give them way too much power when combined with a dominant software marketplace, as can be seen on Android for example.

Their store is currently being used by Staya Whatshisface and his dad. Panicking about what might happen if they have a dominant marketplace is a little premature, don't you think?
 

Cowboy Moment

Arcane
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
4,407
They've been doing the same on the console market for last 15 years, so yeah, I think it's safe to say they would to the same.



Their store is currently being used by Staya Whatshisface and his dad. Panicking about what might happen if they have a dominant marketplace is a little premature, don't you think?
Pretty sure you're wrong on that, there's no legitimate way to buy digital Xbox game keys online, other than the official store.

And I'm not really panicking, in particular because of the sheer ineptitude of Microsoft's handling of their store, but what they do with UWP should still be carefully watched. It's not hard to see that their endgame is something like the Android model, which would be quite disastrous if it came to pass somehow.
 

Arulan

Cipher
Joined
Feb 13, 2014
Messages
313
Microsoft's idea of PC Gaming is a cancer upon it, nothing else. If you've been following Microsoft at all, you'd realize they're pushing for a closed-platform, with UWP at the center of it all. They'd love nothing more than to phase out Win32 and create a real monopoly, much like Apple does on its platform.

It's not clear whether Steam is a true monopoly, but regardless of that, I believe we're lucky that Valve is that leader. Despite the influence they have, they continue to push for an open-platform. They don't leverage that influence to force exclusivity on their own platform. In fact they encourage the opposite. They allow free use of their own APIs and software, without even mandating that the developer uses Steam at all. Developers can choose to use the features and benefits of Steam by releasing under the Steam key API, but sell directly on their own site, netting Valve no cut of the profits. They provided significant research and development in VR, and essentially gave it away for the good of the industry. They continue to create and add new features to Steam at no cost. They even created an extensive set of software and hardware to provide a better living room experience for those who want to play that way (Big Picture mode, SteamOS, Steam Controller, Steam Link, in-home streaming, etc.).

Valve competes by making people want to use Steam due to its features.

I can't think of many other companies that if placed in a similar position wouldn't have already abused that power significantly.

All that being said, competition is still needed. I believe CD Projekt through GOG represents one of the other platforms that shares many of the values of the PC and open-platform. Unlike some of the other alternative clients and/or storefronts, they don't compete by dangling exclusives on a fishing pole. They compete by providing value that doesn't exist elsewhere (Steam for example), such as DRM-free content, seeking the publishing rights to old games and releasing them, making sure their catalog is configured to run properly on modern OS and from the get-go, etc. I believe GOG will be a strong competitor to Steam in the future.

It also looks like Amazon is also going to get into the space with its own client/storefront, leveraging Twitch streaming features for users and streamers.

I may not hold the likes of Origin or Uplay to very high standards, the latter of which provides nothing of value whatsoever, but compared to Microsoft's initiative, they're far better. At least they're not trying to undermine the (open) platform itself.
 

ChasinTheTrane

Literate
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
34
I'm cool with Microsoft doing their thing if they are supporting good developers. With Microsoft's huge budget they could be creating some amazing games that couldn't come out of an indie studio. I'm all for more games!
 

Alienman

Retro-Fascist
Patron
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
17,046
Location
Mars
Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Codex Year of the Donut Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
I remember Microsoft once made/published good games. Close Combat, Combat Flight Simulator, Age of Empires and so on - then Xbox happened :(.
 

pippin

Guest
Competition is largely irrelevant when 99,9% of your userbase if technologically illiterate.
 

hpstg

Savant
Joined
Nov 14, 2014
Messages
485
Microsoft's idea of PC Gaming is a cancer upon it, nothing else. If you've been following Microsoft at all, you'd realize they're pushing for a closed-platform, with UWP at the center of it all. They'd love nothing more than to phase out Win32 and create a real monopoly, much like Apple does on its platform.

It's not clear whether Steam is a true monopoly, but regardless of that, I believe we're lucky that Valve is that leader. Despite the influence they have, they continue to push for an open-platform. They don't leverage that influence to force exclusivity on their own platform. In fact they encourage the opposite. They allow free use of their own APIs and software, without even mandating that the developer uses Steam at all. Developers can choose to use the features and benefits of Steam by releasing under the Steam key API, but sell directly on their own site, netting Valve no cut of the profits. They provided significant research and development in VR, and essentially gave it away for the good of the industry. They continue to create and add new features to Steam at no cost. They even created an extensive set of software and hardware to provide a better living room experience for those who want to play that way (Big Picture mode, SteamOS, Steam Controller, Steam Link, in-home streaming, etc.).

Valve competes by making people want to use Steam due to its features.

I can't think of many other companies that if placed in a similar position wouldn't have already abused that power significantly.
You realize that if Microsoft's platform wasn't open in the first place, Valve wouldn't even have the space to be as benevolent as you claim it is, right? That developing for the Microsoft platform is completely free, for any API, with the best tools in the business by far given also for free, and that they are also the best tools to develop even for competing platforms.

Also the confusion about UWP keeps going. It's not a closed platform, it's like confusing Steam with .exe files. You can install .appx files even through the command line, they just won't go all over the place. It's much closer to a distro's package manager, than anything else. Old nerds still believe that Microsoft is the enemy, while literally going to the toilet carrying a Google dildo. Valve knows their weird position, as they are a platform that exists within a platform. If they get too cagey and developers get a tiny bit scared, they're done.
 

Habbonovio

Educated
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
92
I remember Microsoft once made/published good games. Close Combat, Combat Flight Simulator, Age of Empires and so on - then Xbox happened :(.

To be fair, they just announced the Xbox Game Pass, a pretty good deal if done right (aye, the catch).

Monthly sub of ten dolars for playing a catalogue of +100 games.

I'd like to see it unraveling before praising it, but seems alright.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
14,152
What the actual fuck is that guy even talking about? Valve has PC market practically on lockdown, you have to go through them unless you are one of the big three. If you're not on Steam you might as well not exist. It's practically a functional monopoly by all possible definitions, but this weirdo seems not too even notice the actual fucking monopoly going on, but instead he keeps ranting about the deadly threat of Microsoft having their own distribution platform, that's currently being used by two people.

What the shit.
Valve doesn't have a sales monopoly though, you can buy Steam keys from many different stores and competition seems very healthy in that space. Think Microsoft would do the same, when the whole purpose of this Windows Store push is to take a cut of all Windows software sales?

Frankly, I'd welcome serious competitors to Steam in principle, but Microsoft's position as the OS vendor would give them way too much power when combined with a dominant software marketplace, as can be seen on Android for example.

Agree with this.

Valve vs. Microsoft leads to either Valve becoming marginally better or Microsoft becoming the boot stamping on the face of gaming forever.
 

hpstg

Savant
Joined
Nov 14, 2014
Messages
485
You agree with someone who said that Valve doesn't have a sales monopoly because you can buy Steam keys from different stores.

It's like saying that Coca Cola has no beverage monopoly because every poor ass sells it.
 

Cowboy Moment

Arcane
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
4,407
You agree with someone who said that Valve doesn't have a sales monopoly because you can buy Steam keys from different stores.

It's like saying that Coca Cola has no beverage monopoly because every poor ass sells it.

I wish I could put this in simpler words to help you understand, but I'm coming up short unfortunately. Valve does not have a monopoly on selling Steam games, other vendors can do it as well, resulting in price competition and benefit to the consumer. If you want to see how a digital game distribution monopoly looks, head over to PSN or XBL and marvel at their pricing.
 
Unwanted

Charles Eli Cheese

Neckbeard Shitlord
Edgy Shitposter
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
1,864,979
Location
Jewed by inanatron the crybaby faggot
It's kind of retarded to have different prices for same source, mostly this is of no value to either the game maker or the consumer. And it's still basically a de facto monopoly though because steam gets a set cut any way you slice it, and they can refuse games as well, though this is just an issue for the lower end of the budget range.
 

hpstg

Savant
Joined
Nov 14, 2014
Messages
485
I wish I could put this in simpler words to help you understand, but I'm coming up short unfortunately. Valve does not have a monopoly on selling Steam games, other vendors can do it as well, resulting in price competition and benefit to the consumer. If you want to see how a digital game distribution monopoly looks, head over to PSN or XBL and marvel at their pricing.

You realize that what you're telling me is that Steam is such a monopoly that Valve can afford wholesale operations in addition to retail. Have you ever worked in the real world? Steam is the equivalent of Coca Cola, Nestle and similar virtual monopolies. They are so big that additional retailers simply allow them to close market coverage gaps, there isn't any competition if the money always end up in a single pocket.
 

Jigawatt

Arcane
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
3,409
Location
in a desert, walking along in the sand
You agree with someone who said that Valve doesn't have a sales monopoly because you can buy Steam keys from different stores.

It's like saying that Coca Cola has no beverage monopoly because every poor ass sells it.
It's kind of retarded to have different prices for same source, mostly this is of no value to either the game maker or the consumer. And it's still basically a de facto monopoly though because steam gets a set cut any way you slice it, and they can refuse games as well, though this is just an issue for the lower end of the budget range.

You realize that what you're telling me is that Steam is such a monopoly that Valve can afford wholesale operations in addition to retail. Have you ever worked in the real world? Steam is the equivalent of Coca Cola, Nestle and similar virtual monopolies. They are so big that additional retailers simply allow them to close market coverage gaps, there isn't any competition if the money always end up in a single pocket.

You've both made a pretty fundamental mistake here, thinking that every Steam key is backed by a cut for Valve. In the case you buy and game on eg Humble Store and it's delivered by Steam key Valve gets nothing, 0, zilch, nada.

From Humble's Developer FAQ:

Q: What are the revenue splits?
A: Even though the Humble Store isn't pay-what-you-want we still are very adamant about supporting developers and charities. After deductions for payment processor fees (typically around 5%) the net revenue is split 3 ways: 75% to developers, 10% to charity and 15% to Humble Bundle to cover costs associated with hosting the content.

What assets do we need from you?
  • DRM-free build(s) (if available)
  • 10,000+ Steam keys

Where do the keys come from? As a developer you can generate as many as you like for no cost. Valve hosts and distributes the games pro bono, probably taking a very small loss on bandwidth for very large games. Of course they gain a lot too, from ecosystem and network benefits etc. so it's not pure benevolence, just pointing out that your assumptions are quite faulty here
 

Cowboy Moment

Arcane
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
4,407
It's kind of retarded to have different prices for same source, mostly this is of no value to either the game maker or the consumer. And it's still basically a de facto monopoly though because steam gets a set cut any way you slice it, and they can refuse games as well, though this is just an issue for the lower end of the budget range.
It's retarded to have different prices for the same product at different outlets? Price competition between outlets is of no value to the consumer? Some very interesting insights you have there...

You're also wrong about Steam's cut by the way, Valve don't get a cut of sales made outside Steam store itself.
You realize that what you're telling me is that Steam is such a monopoly that Valve can afford wholesale operations in addition to retail. Have you ever worked in the real world? Steam is the equivalent of Coca Cola, Nestle and similar virtual monopolies. They are so big that additional retailers simply allow them to close market coverage gaps, there isn't any competition if the money always end up in a single pocket.
But... the money doesn't always end up in the same pockets, Valve sees no money from sales of Steam keys made outside their own store. Seriously, you should get a handle on how this shit works before making dumb comparisons, so much for working in the real world.

Steam is nothing like Nestlé or Coca-Cola, those are wholesale with a small dash of retail on the side, the exact reverse of your own description of Steam. Amazon is a much more interesting point of comparison (the retail part anyway, AWS and other services aside), as their main competitive advantage is a distribution platform, and they even directly allow other sellers to compete with them on their own turf. Do you find the prospect of an Amazon monopoly scary as well?
 
Unwanted

Charles Eli Cheese

Neckbeard Shitlord
Edgy Shitposter
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
1,864,979
Location
Jewed by inanatron the crybaby faggot
It's kind of retarded to have different prices for same source, mostly this is of no value to either the game maker or the consumer. And it's still basically a de facto monopoly though because steam gets a set cut any way you slice it, and they can refuse games as well, though this is just an issue for the lower end of the budget range.
It's retarded to have different prices for the same product at different outlets? Price competition between outlets is of no value to the consumer? Some very interesting insights you have there...

It's retarded to have different prices for the same outlet with an extra middleman.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom