Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Games

Is Valve's Steam Anti-Competitive? 286

Absolut187 writes "Gearbox Software CEO Randy Pitchford says Steam's domination of digital distribution is 'dangerous,' and exploits small developers. 'Steam helps us as customers, but it's also a money grab, and Valve is exploiting a lot of people in a way that's not totally fair. ... Valve is taking a larger share than it should for the service it's providing. ... There's so much conflict of interest there that it's horrid.' Pitchford's comments came as part of an interview with Maximum PC, and he thinks Valve should spin off Steam to its own company. Is he right? Is there a better answer?" Update: 10/10 at 02:00 GMT by SS: Randy has clarified his remarks in a comment here at Slashdot. He makes it clear that he likes Steam a lot, and for several reasons, but thinks stronger competition would benefit the industry as a whole.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Valve's Steam Anti-Competitive?

Comments Filter:
  • by Delwin ( 599872 ) * on Friday October 09, 2009 @08:14PM (#29700225)
    My digital distribution channel list for work has 10 names on it and Steam isn't even #1. While it may dominate in the US it's by no means the largest channel internationally.
  • by Quothz ( 683368 ) on Friday October 09, 2009 @08:37PM (#29700381) Journal

    There's nothing wrong with complaining about monopolies.

    No, and I'm usually the one up on a soapbox railing against 'em. But Steam isn't a monopoly. There needs to be a special barrier to entry for a company or industry to be one, and I just don't see it. There's no legal bar, like with government-granted monopolies or Google books. There's no incredible infrastructure needed, just reasonable bandwidth and servers. There's not a "desktop" barrier in which users only benefit from one similar product. There's not even an "I wanted to be the car" barrier that caused so much consternation in my youth. Nobody's accusing 'em of coercion. Popularity alone doesn't a monopoly make.

  • Re:Well.. (Score:3, Informative)

    by The MAZZTer ( 911996 ) <megazzt&gmail,com> on Friday October 09, 2009 @08:44PM (#29700425) Homepage

    Well with digital distribution you cut out the publisher/distributor, and you can either turn that cost into profit or cut ti out of the cost of the game.

    And of course since it costs mere pennies to distribute, once you make up the cost of producing a game you can set the price point wherever you want and it's pure profit.

  • Expensive (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09, 2009 @08:51PM (#29700459)

    I find Steam quite expensive to be honest. I pay the same price (and sometimes more) than for a boxed version. Whenever i can, i rather use Gamer's Gate.

  • Re:Monopoly? (Score:1, Informative)

    by rcolbert ( 1631881 ) on Friday October 09, 2009 @09:08PM (#29700533)

    You can put it on Impulse, GameTap, or make it a direct download on your site. You can port it to console and put it on WiiWare, XBox Live, or PSN. Seriously, there's a lot of alternatives here, and its hard for me to think of Steam as a monopoly.

    Agreed. Steam has the Valve titles plus a smattering of nice indies. But they're hardly a monopoly. Direct2Drive anyone? Just about every mainstream title is available now as a digital download from D2D except the Valve titles and Steam exclusives. If anything D2D should be the specimen under this pointless microscope.

  • Steam flaws (Score:4, Informative)

    by Inverted Intellect ( 950622 ) on Friday October 09, 2009 @09:11PM (#29700547)

    I'm seeing a lot of comments discussing various flaws of Steam, but nothing which I recognize as anti-competitiveness. Now I'm not terribly well informed on what constitutes anti-competitive practices, so I did what any random Joe Slashdot on the street would do, which is look it up on WP.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices [wikipedia.org]

    Looking at the list of typical anti-competitive practices, I see none which I can imagine applying to Valve's Steam, so I'd imagine that their high popularity with publishers given their high cut of the price is simply due to a lack of good competition rather than Valve pushing all their competitors in online game distribution off the market.

    If Steam wasn't ultimately providing a profitable service, I'm sure publishers would simply stick with the physical retail market.

  • by Randy Pitchford ( 547487 ) on Friday October 09, 2009 @09:22PM (#29700607)
    As a guy who reads, trusts and respects slashdot and the community here, I figured I'd take the time to clarify my position since my intent has been construed out of context. As a gamer, I *love* Valve's games. Hell, I've *made* some of Valve's games! As a customer, I love Steam. I like owning a credential that I can use from any terminal and I like the software. There are other things I like, too. As a businessman, I appreciate the access to Valve's customers that they are providing with Steam. I think there's value to that access. I'm really happy that the Brothers in Arms games are available on Steam and I think Steam customers are really going to dig Borderlands. I have been and hope to be a partner to Valve for many years. From an industry perspective of digital distribution on the PC, I think Steam is doing it the best right now. They're in front and they're really getting value out of their leadership position with digital distribution on the PC. From an industry perspective, I believe that Steam would be even better off if it were a separate company. Trust issues that result from conflict of interest could be mitigated if Steam were a separate company. Take that only as analysis. It doesn't matter how much I trust Valve or how trustworthy Valve actually is - it's just perception within segments of the publishing and development community that, I guess, no one is really talking about. I'm on record in this article saying how I personally trust Valve. I was attempting to comment on perception from some angles of the industry. I also believe that gamers and customers and anyone making games using 3rd party digital distribution systems would be greatly benefited if Steam had some viable competitors. Competition generally drives higher quality products and services at lower prices. I can't see how anyone could argue against that point. If we love Steam, we should hope that as competition appears that it prompts the Steam folks to go faster and better towards improving the service and the pricing. In spite of the implication made in the original source article, I do not want Microsoft to control digital distribution on PC, but believe they (and others) could enter the space if they wanted to and help the competitive landscape and even, perhaps, help to standardize the landscape a bit. I believe that because Valve is a game maker that generally "gets it" I think there's a lot of value to the position they have and I'm really excited about the risk they took and the foresight Valve showed in paving the way there. These are not mutually exclusive feelings and they are all honest and forthright.
  • Counterpoints (Score:3, Informative)

    by BinaryOpty ( 736955 ) on Friday October 09, 2009 @09:27PM (#29700631)
    Note that there's already been some counterpoints against this story posted elsewhere on the internet:
    Counterpoint from John Gibson [gamasutra.com]
    Counterpoint from Derek Smart [shacknews.com]
  • by appleprophet ( 233330 ) on Friday October 09, 2009 @09:53PM (#29700787) Homepage

    As someone who has an upcoming indie game [wolfire.com] appearing on Steam, here are my thoughts.

    First of all, there is no shortage of competition [wolfire.com] for Steam. Steam is definitely the biggest, but they are not doing anything anti-competitve.

    Unlike the console market, it is not uncommon to see a game sold on Steam, D2D, Impulse, and the 15+ other contendors simultaneously, from day one, in addition to being sold by the creator directly. In fact, even earlier than day one, due to the trend of preorders.

    If Steam pressured developers into exclusive deals (which they could easily do, due to their size), then sure, I would be kind of pissed. The fact of the matter is that Valve isn't doing that -- they are simply acting like a big, friendly store where developers can put their game for sale. They have been great dudes so far.

  • by Lulfas ( 1140109 ) on Friday October 09, 2009 @10:08PM (#29700865)
    You can play when you're not connected to their servers just fine. You don't pay per month, so the "rent" thing doesn't really apply. And once you download a game, you can make your own backups from within Steam just fine.
  • by TheKidWho ( 705796 ) on Friday October 09, 2009 @10:15PM (#29700903)

    Your argument fails for the fact that it was the developers choice to use Steam to activate the game. There are tons of games that are on steam and are also available for retail and do not require steam in any way shape or form to run.

  • by BitZtream ( 692029 ) on Friday October 09, 2009 @10:35PM (#29701029)

    He might have a point if Valve really had a monopoly. If they because the only way to do digital distribution, ok maybe a problem. However, that's not the case. My personal favourite for digital games is Stardock's Impulse (impulsedriven.com). Same idea basic as Steam. What I like about it is it is better on DRM. They don't apply their own DRM to all games, so some have none at all. Others use Impulse GOO, which is kinda like Steamworks but you don't have to be logged in or run the client, others use 3rd party DRM like on Steam.

    I agree, Steam isn't a monopoly, and there are are better (in my opinion) alternatives that have some of the exact same games.

    I've bought from Steam, Impulse and Direct2Drive specifically as well as a few other self distributors. So far, Impulse is my favorite, especially for items that they will sell you a box/cd and the download for a few bucks more. Direct2Drive is fine, but you have to pay extra to make sure you can redownload it later. I understand to some extent, you have to pay to get replacement cd's from pretty much anyone, if you can find someone to help you do so. Steam is okay except its constant requirement to talk to servers and that I can't transfer a game to another account, which aren't problems with Impulse.

    Clearly there is competition here, Steam has some shitty policies, feel free to bitch about them and shop elsewhere, Steam will either fix it, or have some other reason they own the marketplace or they simply won't own the marketplace, like now.

    Steam, Impulse and Direct2Drive are just examples of the Targets, Walmarts and Kmarts of the Internet, just retail stores, although they haven't worked out the details as well as the brick and mortor counterparts.

    You can bitch about them about the same way as you can bitch about BestBuy and Walmarts practices, but calling them a monopoly is just silly.

    Being silly is a valid slashdot headline/summary however.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09, 2009 @10:51PM (#29701101)

    Other concession of Impulse: unlike other DRM'd services, they list what kind of DRM is on a game. At least they let you know what you're in for. I hope publishers give up on the shit soon. I'm really sick of having to pick online distribution services for games based on which DRM package is the least evil.

    Seriously, this is truly the age of the company FIGHTING the consumer and calling it "service".

  • Re:Expensive (Score:3, Informative)

    by Fallingcow ( 213461 ) on Friday October 09, 2009 @11:15PM (#29701221) Homepage

    It's not at all uncommon for newly-released (and thus not-on-sale) games to be available cheaper at traditional retailers, as you can usually find at least one that is running a sale on the brand new game.

    The most notable recent example I can think of is Left 4 Dead (a Valve-made game, even!) which was available at some major retail chain (I forget which) for $40 at launch, vs. the Steam price of $50. Buy it at the store, put in your code et viola, legit Steam copy of the game for $40. Buy it from Steam (and therefore Valve) directly, pay $10 more. Weird.

    I pretty much only buy Steam games when they're on sale, these days. I still don't get why they aren't undercutting normal retail prices by 5-10%, what with the much, much lower distribution costs they have. Their specials, though--especially the multi-title bundles--are fantastic.

  • Re:Expensive (Score:3, Informative)

    by Animaether ( 411575 ) on Friday October 09, 2009 @11:32PM (#29701309) Journal

    I completely disagree.

    You must not be European, at the least, then.

    Ever since the product pricing in Steam adopted the traditional "USD = EUR! bend over, lol" method of currency conversion, Steam games have been bloody expensive for Europeans.
    No, it's not just taxes. Highest tax in Europe is some ridiculous 25% in Sweden, Denmark and Hungary (most are around the 19% mark). Now check the going rate for EUR/USD: 1.47501.

    It really is very often much cheaper to just buy retail in Europe.

  • by Drinking Bleach ( 975757 ) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @03:56AM (#29702139)
    Whether or not it's allowed, Epic Megagames already does it. Unreal Tournament 2004 Editor's Choice Edition on GOG.com is $9.99 [gog.com], but $14.99 on Steam [steampowered.com]. Just one example, I'm sure there's many more.
  • Re:Well.. (Score:3, Informative)

    by VGPowerlord ( 621254 ) on Saturday October 10, 2009 @03:29PM (#29705449)

    Microsoft launched Games On Demand [xbox.com] (Downloadable versions of full Xbox/Xbox 360 games you could buy in stores) a few months ago, so I don't expect that they'd put any games on sale through it quite yet.

    Having said that, the Xbox 360 titles on it are usually $19.99-$29.99, cheaper than you find them in stores. They also have the old Xbox original titles on it for $15 or so.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12, 2009 @08:43AM (#29717443)

    That is entirely up to the developer of the game, not Steam or Valve (unless it was Valve who made the game of course). For example, take Call of Duty 4 or Fallout 3. You can get these games on any console and it will not have Steam. You can get both these games on PC *without* Steam. You just also are able to download them and buy them through Steam. It is entirely up to whomever is creating the game and wants it published to decide how to distribute it, and it is entirely up to the consumer to decided which version s/he wants to buy. Grow up.

"Life begins when you can spend your spare time programming instead of watching television." -- Cal Keegan

Working...