Silverware wrote:This just shows that Steam is the "best" product out there for Digital Distribution

the same way that windows is the "best" operating system for home computers? :V

Silverware wrote:This just shows that Steam is the "best" product out there for Digital Distribution, much like Google is for Search Engines.
Steam has not bought out any other distributor (that I am aware of), they simply provide a well used, high quality, service.

So the high market share is no reason to dislike them.

Yes, it is.

The fact that they haven't bought out any other distributor (yet, that either of us are aware of) means nothing - they could. And even if they don't, do I want to be implicit in that 70% increasing? In pushing them closer to a true monopoly?


A couple of years ago I was talking with an online friend about GalCiv 2. Their first response was, "I can't see it on Steam". When I said that I didn't think it was on Steam, they said, "Why, what's wrong with it?"

To them, and others like them, if it's not on Steam it's not on PC.

This is especially a problem if you are a developer - want to release a PC game? Good luck not using Steam. You're practically forced to use them to have any success.

What happens when Valve decides they want 40% per copy instead of 30%? Well all your customers are there, you don't have much choice.

What happens when they up it even further?


If/when the digital game distribution market becomes suitably competitive (e.g. when Steam holds less than 50% of the total market, and has at least two competitors with more than a third of its market share) I'll happily support Steam. (Actually, that's not true - but I'll happily compare features instead.)

Until then, I'm supporting competition.

Cornflakes_91 wrote:

Silverware wrote:This just shows that Steam is the "best" product out there for Digital Distribution

the same way that windows is the "best" operating system for home computers? :V

except the reason I didnt include windows here, was because microsoft used some really evil methods of getting that figure.
Steam has simply made their system indispensable through legitimate use cases.

DigitalDuck wrote:What happens when Valve decides they want 40% per copy instead of 30%? Well all your customers are there, you don't have much choice.

What happens? The internet goes nuts. Boycott Steam movements grow. And Valve loses millions of dollars. Before being forced back to 30 percent.

Valve is not stupid. Even if they owned 90 percent they would still charge just 30 percent because sellling a bunch of games to loyal Valve customers beats the small potato gains 10 percent can accomplish.

AbhChallenger wrote:What happens? The internet goes nuts. Boycott Steam movements grow. And Valve loses millions of dollars. Before being forced back to 30 percent.

You think Valve will lose millions of dollars? You think enough people will actually boycott them for that?

As far as consumers are concerned, besides the hardcore few that actually follow the issues, many won't even know they're taking a higher cut (much like many don't know it's 30% now). Most that do know probably won't even care - as far as they're concerned, Valve taking a higher cut from devs means they can get their games even cheaper! Hooray for consumerism! If anything, the player base will grow, not shrink.

Devs will boycott, sure. But hey, why's your game not on Steam? What's wrong with your game? This is an even more suicidal move now - after all, it has a bigger player base. You're shutting yourself off to more customers. Is this a risk you want to take?


And if you don't think that's likely now, let me know what you think when Steam reaches 80%, 90%, or Josh forbid 100% market share.

I shouldn't need to explain why a monopoly is a bad thing.

Valve lost over a million dollars just over the Skyrim paid mod fiasco. That is nothing compared to the controversy that will erupt if they increase the take.

Valve makes money by attracting developers to use steam (At 30 EDIT: Valve Cut percent) If it somehow reaches 90 or 100 percent (Edit: Market Share) (Extremely unlikely) the job will be to attract steam users from developing nations and consoles. There is plenty of money to be made without something as stupid as an increased cut.

Nothing wrong with purchasing from GoG. Just be against steam for better reasons.

If steam does something really stupid, that is all it will take for some grassroots movement to lay the groundwork for a competitor to step in. AFAIK, Steam has been doing more things right than wrong, and the only reason to dislike them is because they are closer to a monopoly than anyone else. They sacrificed Half-Life 3 for this...let them have their golden age before someone shatters it like a bowling ball to a mirror. Oh, and I don't have a CD drive on my PC at all :p

AbhChallenger wrote:Valve makes money by attracting developers to use steam (At 30 percent) If it somehow reaches 90 or 100 percent (Extremely unlikely) the job will be to attract steam users from developing nations and consoles. There is plenty of money to be made without something as stupid as an increased cut.

Stop.

I never said their cut would go that high. I said market share.

AbhChallenger wrote:Nothing wrong with purchasing from GoG. Just be against steam for better reasons.

No. I don't want a monopoly. That is that.

The post of mine was worded poorly. I indeed meant market share. As you indicated. The point being that If the market share gets that high. They are still very unlikely to change the Valve cut from 30 percent. I actually think there is a better chance for Valve to lower it to 25 percent. In order to start pulling publishers from console exclusives.

Think about it. Steam Link, Controller, OS, Machines. That involves a LOT of money. Far more than Half Life 3 will likely end up costing. If money and being a monopoly was all they cared about. They would chrun out games left and right. And only invest money on stuff that is guaranteed to make Valve money. Instead they are focusing on increasing PC percentage.

AbhChallenger wrote:The post of mine was worded poorly. I indeed meant market share. As you indicated. The point being that If the market share gets that high. They are still very unlikely to change the Valve cut from 30 percent. I actually think there is a better chance for Valve to lower it to 25 percent. In order to start pulling publishers from console exclusives.

Think about it. Steam Link, Controller, OS, Machines. That involves a LOT of money. Far more than Half Life 3 will likely end up costing. If money and being a monopoly was all they cared about. They would chrun out games left and right. And only invest money on stuff that is guaranteed to make Valve money. Instead they are focusing on increasing PC percentage.

Aye, I see them dropping their percentage also, it's a smart move once you hit 80% market share to drawn in as much of that last 20% as possible.
There will always be competition, but nobody has made a system that works quite as well as Steam does in my opinion.

Well, one thing I am happy about...PC Gaming isn't going to disappear like I feared years ago. I remember when everything was going console and I didn't want to buy a console.

Charley_Deallus wrote:Well, one thing I am happy about...PC Gaming isn't going to disappear like I feared years ago. I remember when everything was going console and I didn't want to buy a console.

This...

People are used to Steam being available. What they don't remember was the time beforehand.

Steam was developed by Valve because their publishing partner was ending the internet game server service (WON) that they had been using for the money makers Half Life and Counter Strike (Even when it was a mod people were rushing to buy HL to play it) And even worse was the issue of cheating. Pretty much every human Counter Strike server had atleast one cheater in it. The games were becoming a joke to play.

Retailers were clearing out PC shelves to sell consoles and their games. For anyone but the largest players and MMOs. The future of doing anything on the PC was bleak.

Charley_Deallus wrote:Well, one thing I am happy about...PC Gaming isn't going to disappear like I feared years ago. I remember when everything was going console and I didn't want to buy a console.

Heh, this is a very good argument for steam.
I am so glad we didn't get the consolepocalypse.

I like Steam...mostly because I have been a fan of Valve since Half-Life 1. Competition for them will come along eventually. It is true for any business that I know of...which isn't much.

Ha! I remember when I was pissed off I had to get a steam account to download a game I wanted. Can't even remember what game it was. Now I get on steam just to browse what's out there from time to time. The only game I haven't gotten from steam recently are blizzard games. Oh steam. I do so love your holiday sales.