you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -16 points 1 year ago (16 children)

I simply do not understand the sentiment that not being a total bastard is something celebrated and not expected or required.

And while many like our Steam benevolent (almost) monopoly, I do wonder how would the market look like if we had 20 competing companies that cannot gain more than 5% of the market share. Can you imagine the competition between them and how would that benefit us, the consumer?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    That would mean exclusives everywhere. Everyone would try to force some game pass on us, until our only choice to get an OK selection would be having 4 subscriptions. Or piracy.

    With Steam, I get a well integrated platform for buying, updating and launching everything with the correct compatibility layer.

    That's more convenient than piracy, so I use it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Exclusives are a bastard child of oligopoly, where the distribution platform has more power than the publisher.

    Before Steam physical games were NEVER sold only in ToysR, they were sold in all shops.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    "Not being a total bastard" is a weird way to describe overhauling the gaming on linux experience at no additional cost to the end user, among many other incredibly pro consumer choices they've pushed in the last twenty odd years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah. Steam is fucking solid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Honestly 20 different companies would probably suck for the consumer. That's 20 different storefronts to compare, 20 different libraries to manage, potentially 20 different sets of logins, 20 sources of data breaches. It's unlikely they would adopt an open standard to allow a shared library. Maybe you have a 21st company that makes a product like heroic launcher. You'd likely run into regionality issues where a particular store is unavailable, so you may not be able to play purchased games. You would have all sorts of odd exclusive dlc and pre order bonuses so a cosmetic item you like could be locked to a store you haven't used. Multiplayer likely wouldn't be global cross play between all companies, you likely get some set of 20 companies working together for multiplayer. Some games may develop a good scene available to a single store, requiring a game to be repurchased. Exclusives or timed exclusives would be annoying to track, as each store would likely have different catalogs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think this amount of competition could be good if individual competitors were allowed to fail. All the parts that build vendor lock-in would need to be removed, and more things would need to be interoperable, but it could be quite good and even specialised.

    Each storefront could live or die independent of each library and each game service. If one company tried to squeeze money from users, they could just take their elsewhere, without worrying about losing access to games or connections to friends.

    Of course no company would create such a system voluntarily, most depend on monopolistic practices to survive. It would take monopoly busting-policy or a foss group to even begin such a thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I simply do not understand the sentiment that not being a total bastard is something celebrated and not expected or required.

    It’s simple really. If you don’t give positive feedback, you’ve lost the major lever that can be used to get what you want.

    Using negative feedback is a useful tool but it’ll never achieve the same outcomes if used by itself.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    And while many like our Steam benevolent (almost) monopoly, I do wonder how would the market look like if we had 20 competing companies that cannot gain more than 5% of the market share. Can you imagine the competition between them and how would that benefit us, the consumer?

    More comptetion wouldn't just benefit consumers, it would benefit devs. A dev could shop their game around go with a store front that suits their needs better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    If I'm going to need to install several different clients/launcher on my computer just to keep up with where games get published, I'll just resort to piracy.

    Being forced to install some shitty client to run a specific game has been a deal breaker for me in the past. And there is no guarantee that other "competing" platforms will bother making Linux versions of their clients.

  • source
  • parent