72% of Game Developers Say Steam Is Effectively a PC Gaming Monopoly 164
A new survey of over 300 US and UK gaming executives found that 72% view Steam as a monopoly. "Furthermore, 88% said that at least three-quarters of their revenue came from Steam, while 37% reported that the platform accounted for 90% of their total revenue," adds Techspot. From the report: Atomik Research conducted the recent survey on behalf of Rokky, a company that helps game publishers minimize the impact of grey market key resellers on prices. In addition to opinions on Steam, developers also answered questions about the PC market's biggest challenges.
The increasing popularity of free-to-play games such as Fortnite, DOTA 2, Counter-Strike 2, Call of Duty: Warzone, and Roblox topped the list of concerns for 40% of respondents. Approximately a third mentioned market saturation and discoverability, echoing data that suggests there aren't enough players for the thousands of new titles released on Steam each year. A similar portion of survey respondents also expressed concerns regarding subscription services.
The increasing popularity of free-to-play games such as Fortnite, DOTA 2, Counter-Strike 2, Call of Duty: Warzone, and Roblox topped the list of concerns for 40% of respondents. Approximately a third mentioned market saturation and discoverability, echoing data that suggests there aren't enough players for the thousands of new titles released on Steam each year. A similar portion of survey respondents also expressed concerns regarding subscription services.
Princess Bride (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Princess Bride (Score:4, Informative)
The correct quote is: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I'm not sure Steam is a monopoly, but it's certainly quite dominant. I prefer GOG because you get an offline installer that you can keep forever.
I'd love to use GOG more (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: I'd love to use GOG more (Score:3)
"But there no native Linux client"
I've never understood this complaint. The Steam client is why I prefer GOG. I'd rather just download and installer and install to my home directory. No need for some app to hand hold me through this process.
Re: I'd love to use GOG more (Score:3)
Same. I'm happy with installers that I can backup offline, random bits of bonus material like manuals, and native Linux.
I do like cloud sync of save games with a client like Steam (I assume Galaxy does it too). And while Proton is nice for compatibility for companies not willing to put the effort in for native Linux support, I feel like a middle ground of a Wine-like wrapper could be made available to all game developers without having to let Steam manage everything. Maybe some day when I retire I'll take a
Re: I'd love to use GOG more (Score:2, Informative)
Steam makes it irrelevant that a game has no Linux version, you just click on install then on play and you're playing the game. That's two clicks. How do you not see the appeal of that.
Other pros of using the Steam client: automatic game updates, automatic controller setup, dlc management, mod management, automatic proton parameter setup, I'm sure there's more advantages that I forget. Steam also makes it very easy to invite a friend to play with you, but there is no technical reason why this should be hard
Re: I'd love to use GOG more (Score:2)
Note: this reply is for the post above your, my bad
Re:I'd love to use GOG more (Score:4, Informative)
I hate to be a broken record about this lately, but Lutris is a great interface to your GOG library. So far it's successfully installed and run everything I've tried. I'm gonna have to try this Heroic thing that seems to be more popular than it is now, but last time I looked everyone was telling me to use Lutris — when at the time I was happy with PlayOnLinux, which was then being maintained. On Linux you can very reasonably use the web for GOG (and it's easy enough to get Steam reviews there) and then install the games with Lutris.
While I'm advocating for software you want for playing Windows games, you will also want ProtonUp-Qt if you don't have it already.
Re: I'd love to use GOG more (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I buy games on Steam and then do all this stuff to make them work better on Linux. But I also buy games on GOG. And I have games on Epic and EA too, and Lutris does all those too.
I initially got ProtonUp-Qt specifically for use with Steam, because it is the best (easiest) way to install steamtinkerlaunch.
Re: I'd love to use GOG more (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am an experienced user, but I don't know anything about proton etc. Using Lutris I find my game, give it my gog installer, and play. the DB of hacks is crowdsourced for most games.
Even a very old small game like Powerslide just works...
I believe Lutris can connect to your GOG account and download the installers itself. As a hoarder, I don't use that feature.
The thing is, either you'd love to use GOG, or you don't care enough to...
Re: (Score:3)
This may surprise you, but there are in fact some Linux games on GOG. There may not be a ton of them, but there are options. I've bought a few and have been happy with those purchases.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just thinking about this exact idea a few days ago. Sadly, unless they allow the community to organize an Open Source project, a Linux based client can not be done with the resources that they have. If they offered the community a chance to go at it, I am sure they would find LOTS of volunteers... me being one.
Re: (Score:2)
Heroic Laincher works great on linux. Haven't encountered a GOG game yet that doesn't work. Steam is fucking bloated, its goal is selling you things so it prioritizes fetching that info when it starts. Other launchers are much more lightweight
They are just mad he did it first (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: They are just mad he did it first (Score:4, Informative)
"Steam is the opposite of a monopoly; its how i want all my online experiences to be."
Steam IS a monopoly. Specifically because it's the online experience people want.
Monopoly is not a bad word. Monopolies are not illegal. Network effects create what are known as natural monopolies. There's no reason to avoid recognizing Steam as a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Steam IS a monopoly.
Steam isn't a monopoly. They have a massive dominant position, but it doesn't qualify them as a monopoly under US law at this time. In short, they have to be found to be abusing their market dominance. This lawsuit could potentially change that, however.
Re: They are just mad he did it first (Score:2)
No. You don't have to generate abuse first to be a monopoly. That's not how it works. You have to be a monopoly first before those abuses become illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
The courts have no specific percentage of market power required to hold monopoly power. The only guideline is that it usually doesn't happen below holding 50% of the market. However, the requirement can be much higher. The key here is tha
Re: They are just mad he did it first (Score:5, Informative)
Monopoly is not 100%. Steam has effective monopoly, so does Windows.
Sure, as a user, you have many choices. You can choose to use Linux, you can choose a different game store. However, game developers don't really have the choice.
Let's say a game developer makes a PC game that does not run on Windows. It probably would not sell that great.
Let's say a game developer chooses to not sell the game on Steam and use something else instead. It probably would not sell that great.
That means, game developers absolutely have to make PC games for Windows and sell them on Steam.
So, Windows and Steam have a monopoly. It does not necessarily have to be a bad thing, but we should recognize it as it is.
Re: (Score:2)
If Steam were the only way to install a game onto a computer, I would agree. Unfortunately, reality will show us that there is of course other ways to install games on your computer. Especially in Windows.
Your ability to install something in a different way does not come into the definition of a monopoly. You do you, it doesn't change the fact that Steam has total market dominance over PC gaming, and that's the only thing required for the monopoly definition.
Monopolies themselves aren't actually a bad thing. They aren't illegal. The question is, what do you do with market power.
Steam is no more a monopoly then Microsoft is
Microsoft isn't just theoretically a monopoly both on desktops as well as corporate groupware, they have been literally ruled as suc
Re: (Score:2)
...and that Steam continues to respect its community.
Exactly. I've never felt life the product. The games are the product.
Re: (Score:2)
Steam is the opposite of a monopoly; its how i want all my online experiences to be.
Whether they produce something you like or want or not is irrelevant. Monopoly comes in the form of market power, market power comes in the form of market share. Steam has a monopoly precisely because create an online experience that most people want. They have near dominance over the PC market.
Whether they are good or bad doesn't come into the question of being a monopoly or not.
Also monopolies are not bad or illegal. What is illegal is engaging in the action of monopolising - i.e. using your market power
Weird. (Score:2)
I use GOG a lot. Epic is a thing. Battle.net is a thing too.
These are choices. I mostly use Steam because a lot of the value ad is pretty good and my Steamdeck is fking great.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't need the onerous always online requirements that come with modern PC gaming. Steam checks that box for the suits, but they build in a ton of value-added goodies on top of it. Cloud synced savegames, autoupdates, workshop, community pages... there's a ton of extras.
Re: Weird. (Score:2)
How many exclusive are there on GOG or Epic?
The reality is developers don't have a choice but to publish on Steam. That makes them a monopoly. You're just not the customer.
It's a natural monopoly... (Score:4, Insightful)
Steam isn't an evil monopoly, instead I would argue it is a "natural" monopoly because they provide an excellent service without treating their customers like cash cows to constantly butcher for an additional buck, unlike some other competitors and businesses in general.
Re: (Score:2)
The word monopoly has a stigma because it is usually used for evil. Monopolies aren't bad, or illegal. Monopolizing is illegal. Anti-trust law is based on a verb not a noun. Likewise economic theory is based on outcomes not on market position.
Re:It's a natural monopoly... (Score:4, Informative)
> I would argue it is a "natural" monopoly
It absolutely isn't. A natural monopoly is a service where building out the infrastructure multiple times doesn't make sense. Railroads, roads, highways, telecoms...
Steam is a monopoly, same as google was and is. Remember when google had "Don't be evil" as its motto?
If you can't move your purchased games out of steam, you're potentially in trouble.
Now I'm not saying Steam currently is evil, Valve are in my book "The Good Guys"; for now...
The moment maximizing profit becomes the end game, it's game over for the customer.
Re: (Score:2)
Most natural monopolies are the worst kind of monopolies that require extreme regulation to manage.
Examples of natural monopolies: Telephony, power grid, water supply, railroad operations.
Re: (Score:2)
Their customers are the games companies, not the players. The players eyeballs are the primary product that they are selling to the games company, together with some packaging and installation technology that can be easily replicated.
That's not to say that you're wrong in any way.
You choose to develop for a walled garden! (Score:2)
30%, you paid once, now pay forever (Score:2)
So what if Steam is a monopoly? Who cares?
What abuses are they contending? A 30% fee? Every major digital store charges similar fees.
As an industry, you should have kept control of your distribution. But instead you all chased $ by giving 30% away. Now you've established 30% as the market rate. You've undermined any argument you may have for rapacious fees.
So I say again. Steam is a monopoly. So what?
Re: (Score:2)
The only people who care are people who understand the definitions of words, and those people care because steam is in no way a monopoly. It's not the only place to purchase games, it's not the only place online to purchase games, and it doesn't have access to every game. It isn't the only software to integrate and auto-install a multi-publisher library or to automate downloading and installing updates.
Re: 30%, you paid once, now pay forever (Score:2)
It had an effective monopoly over distribution. How many game developers don't publish to Steam? How much money do they make? How many PC gamers don't have Steam? The numbers of vanishingly small.
Their products actually work, and give me options. (Score:2)
I have tried using other game management, installation systems. most are trash. GoG is ok. Epic is terrible. MSFT is a joke. They have the market share because they actually build good products.
What the.. (Score:2)
How do they possible come to this conclusion when you can install a game completely outside of the Steam App store? You can buy games, especially on Windows, in numerous different ways. You don't need to install those games via an app store unless the developer decides to only release their game in a specific spot.
Even on Linux, you have options, though I will admit Steam is super convenient for Linux gaming.
Re: (Score:2)
No chance (Score:2)
No, it's not a monopoly, it's simply the best place to buy games. There's plenty of healthy competition, but Valve has won over the hearts and minds of players but being amazing at selling games. This includes fighting for consumers' rights with generous refund policies, something previously unheard of with software. It used to be that all you needed to know about software purchases was "no refunds," but now you can buy a game, try it out, and if it doesn't run well on your PC or if you just don't like it,
Re: (Score:3)
Bingo, there's nothing illegal or fundamentally unethical about a monopoly, it's the anti-competitive and anti-consumer actions that are at issue and as far as I can tell Valve has never really engaged in that. They don't even advertise and they don't even undercut the competition with a 30% commission. As you said they got here by being a good storefront even in the face of their competitors really throwing everything at them (Remember Origin?).
And as a developer at least have access to quite a lot of fe
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And they even do things like let you register games bought elsewhere and then install and launch them via STEAM. The main difference is that STEAM is not primarily driven by short-sighted greed and actually tries to deliver a good product first.
99% (Score:5, Informative)
In other news, 99% of studios and developers in 2025 lack the ability to do proper server administration and bandwidth management.
Many think proper user engagement and marketing involve the words "Join our discord".
Trust me, they are a monopoly, but they literally take care of 98% of the problems you would face upon launch day and continued distribution.
Want to do a public beta test? Easy.
Want to load to 3 million users at once? Easy.
Want to be discovered for your sandcastle building game alongside other competing sandcastle building games? Easy.
I think it's more about audience (Score:2)
At the same time though valve does a pretty good job of promoting games to the right users. So although they take a good chunk of money at 30% for a lot of small studios that 30% is basically their marketing budget. AAA game will typically spend more on marketing than they did on the actual game. So that seems like a pretty reasonable deal.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is simple - create a competitor. Make it competitive.
Epic? They're not investing in the Epic Games Store. It was just a way to short circuit the process. You can tell their lack of investment because features to the store are slow in coming - like they're just putting in minimum effort and minimum dollars to keep it running.
At least GoG is offering a value proposition over Steam and Epic - their games are literally "you own it". GoG can stop selling a game tomorrow, even be forced to delete it
Re: (Score:2)
In other news, 99% of studios and developers in 2025 lack the ability to do proper server administration and bandwidth management.
Steam does nothing to solve this. They do *not* provide server administration or bandwidth management for their online resources. There are plenty of games that do public betas on Steam and user load testing on Steam only for it to collapse spectacularly.
The only thing correct about your post is the last point: Steam provides discovery. Assuming you are blessed by the algorithm.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, the second one hasn't been great in spite of trying. For things they predict correctly, steam works.
Then Silksong gets released and everything just breaks for a few hours.
So what? (Score:2)
So it's a monopoly, so what? I always enjoyed using Steam to find, purchase, and play my games when I did Windows gaming. I started using Steam I believe when I purchased Half Life 2 (wow, probably 20+ years ago now) and in all that time they never acted like ass-hats towards their users. Some monopolies can be good monopolies I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
Gaben will die eventually. What do you think is likely to happen to Steam after he is gone from leadership?
300 Executives? (Score:2)
Well, the thing is, STEAM does work (Score:2)
And they never lost sight of their users. That is why it is still there and efforts to sabotage and replace it have failed, despite Valve actually being not very large.
Remember Netflix? (Score:2)
Which was better for the consumer? Netflix, back when they were *the* streaming platform? Or the situation today, where streaming is balkanized?
What's good for the big game studios is different from what's good for gamers. As long as Steam remains consumer-friendly, they can (and will) keep their monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, nothing stops developers from releasing on multiple marketplaces.
Make a viable alternative then (Score:2)
So blame greed for Steam retaining its dominance. Companies wanted the cake to themselves and failed to see the bigger picture that federation would have been a better idea. Develop a common platform that handles sign on, updates, achi
Lock-in from the beginning. (Score:2)
Steam was introduced by making it mandatory to be able to buy and play Half-Life 2. Big red flag right there and then, which is why I decided _not_ to use Steam right then and there at the beginning of it all.
Yes, HL2 was an excellent game and dominates the hall of fame of videogames for good reaons. Which is why Steam took off like a rocket. And yes, Steam offers great value and Gabe and his crew manage the service well. But if he changes his mind or valve gets sold to some greed leech investment gang thin
Re: (Score:2)
It was introduced as a server listing requirement for counterstrike 1.6.
1.5 was the last conterstrike to use WON. Valve bought out counterstrike team and moved the project off WON server listing to it's own. That was original steam.
This switch over fucked so many users over, it's not even funny. Steam client at this stage was incredibly buggy grey menu you had to start CS 1.6 from to get it to load a server list. It served no purpose other than to make all CS players into free alpha testers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's only lock-in for Valve games, any other developer is free to release anywhere they like, and Valve doesn't impose any exclusivity deal ala Epic (Alan Wake 2 anyone?).
Steam is only a monopoly because (Score:2)
Follow suit with the language (Score:2)
"Honey, I'm effectively monogamous. 88% of my sex comes from you."
"Officer, I'm effectively sober. Less than 12% of my blood is alcohol."
"No, this is a ham sandwich. It is not a shit sandwich. It's 88 percent ham, and only 12% shit."
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see if this brilliant argument works the other way:
"Officer, I'm not a rapist. 12% of times I had sex, it was voluntary."
Holy fuck, this works for EVERYTHING!
The word is "rentier" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh no, Steam is a distribution network charging a distribution fee. It's not preventing developers from using any alternative systems in any way.
We need a common "shopping mall" interface (Score:2)
Well, no (Score:2)
Is Steam preventing gamers from using alternative marketplaces? No.
Is Steam restricting developers from releasing on alternative marketplaces through exclusivity deals? No.
Steam is not a monopolist, it's simply the gamer's favorite marketplace.
No (Score:2)
Re: What exactly is "Steam" anyway? (Score:2)
Re:What exactly is "Steam" anyway? (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically it's an app you install on a Windows PC or a Linux PC that lets you buy and install PC games from the makers of the app, Valve.
It got its start as the application you were required to install if you want to play Half-Life 2 which was an extremely popular PC game from the early 2000s. Virtually every PC gamer at the time had a copy of Half-Life 2 so every PC gamer ended up with steam installed. Before long valve was using the steam software to distribute other games they made and not long after that they started to distributing other people's games. The rest is basically history.
Steam does a very good job of providing useful tools and services to developers for doing things like supporting multiplayer, installing game modifications and finding new games you might be interested in. The last one is extremely important because there are literally tens of thousands of games released every year from Indies. Most are pretty terrible but there are inevitably some great games in there that are basically impossible to find. This is especially important because video game journalism has never been great and has only gotten worse with the end of print magazines.
Steam has overwhelming market share so they are a de facto Monopoly. In general they are a relatively benevolent Monopoly but they still do take a 30% cut. If you are a larger developer that's not really a good deal for you. For smaller developers steam does a good job of finding your audience for you effectively becoming your marketing budget.
So for example I like 3D platformers and steam introduced me to one called Penny's big breakaway that I otherwise wouldn't know existed. That's a sale to company probably would not have had without steam.
Marketing budgets can account for as much as 50% of the cost of a product so for small companies steam ends up being a fairly good deal with 30%. But larger companies still need their own separate marketing in order to drive the kind of sales they need so steam isn't nearly as valuable for them.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are a larger developer that's not really a good deal for you.
You can always go to Epic and take their money. The reality though is that people look at game distribution today in a vacuum. 30% cut of sales in exchange for instant access to everything they provide (including customers) is pennies compared to the old method of producing boxes and marketing in gaming stores to a far smaller customer base.
Large developers are nothing more than little bitches, whining and wiping away their tears with $100 notes, wishing they made $200million instead of $180million on the l
Re: What exactly is "Steam" anyway? (Score:2)
The small game developers I've talked with have all said that Steam is by no means a replacement for a marketing budget. Random indies on steam don't get noticed, as a rule.
Re:What exactly is "Steam" anyway? (Score:4, Informative)
Epic managed this (to the extent they have), by:
A) capitalizing on their hit game "Fortnite" to get gamers to install their platform (analogous to Steam with HL2 in the beginning), and
B) Throwing money at the problem by way of offering a reduced platform cut (only 12% instead of 30%) and by paying developers to release exclusives on their storefront (limited-time exclusivity, not permanent).
Epic had enough capital to generally pull it off, but smaller stores basically starve to death in Steam's shadow. Because, sure, I could buy stuff from other storefronts, but I already have Steam, already own a ton of stuff on Steam, and the things other storefronts want to sell are already probably on Steam, too!
Re:What exactly is "Steam" anyway? (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
I only use Steam (The software, as opposed to the store, which can be used through the web) because I'm forced to do so. I'd rather not. While it's possibly the least crap of the game store apps, it's still crap. It shouldn't even have a browser in it. It should be calling out to your browser. AFAICT the Steam updates still don't resume if the download is interrupted, which is weird AF to say the least. This isn't a problem on a healthy modern connection but if your connection is flaky then you can't even g
Re: What exactly is "Steam" anyway? (Score:4, Interesting)
And Epics platform still sucks. It's so bad I mostly even ignore the free games they offer. The hassle of finding stuff on their platform is so much worse than on Steam.
People may complain about steams cut of the profit, but at least it provides a payment platform, merchandising platform, shop in shop, patch service, addon delivery platform, and content delivery platform. Oh, and authentication and cloud storage. They're all part of the platform.
Really big publishers may build that for themselves but smaller ones just can't afford that. So steam does it for them.
There are many reasons to dislike a monopoly, but what is the alternative here?
Steam already does that (Score:2)
What makes steam so dominant is the tools they have for doing stuff like that are really easy for users to use and encourage that kind of engagement without being overbearing.
It's extremely hard to compete with steam. One of their competitors, good old games, offers games without DRM but they have a toug
Re: (Score:3)
Steam does a great job of managing installation and syncing across devices.
As a user it makes the game experience so much nicer than selling me a download of a game.
I've never had issues getting games from steam to run (assuming my computer was capable), even old ones. For most games my saves exist across all my devices, and I can easily uninstall a game for space and install it again later.
Steam also provides a forum for discussion with other users, guides, and game news.
It's significantly more than a stor
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. Been using GOG since Mac OS went to MacOS X and I wanted to keep playing my Aspyr games.
Only started using GOG for new games when Cyberpunk2077 came out. Didn't realize they were owned by a subsidary of CD Projekt but reading up on the history, man, that's interesting!
Re: What exactly is "Steam" anyway? (Score:2)
"There are plenty of ways play games on a Windows machine that dont require Steam."
Perhaps. But there's pretty much no way for a game developer to succeed without launching on Steam.
Re: (Score:2)
Launching on the Apple app store might be a good replacement.
Re: What exactly is "Steam" anyway? (Score:2)
PC games is the relevant market for Steam. Apple's share of that market is a rounding error. iOS games are a different market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Apple App Store takes a similar slice of revenue and has a much smaller addressable market -- including just about none of the high-end gamers, given that current Macs are stuck with whatever GPU is built onto the CPU. "Might" is doing an awful lot of work in your comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Monopoly just means (Score:5, Informative)
Monopolies are only a problem when they illegally abuse their position. Typically to prevent competitors from getting into the market.
Sometimes you have natural monopolies like how you have power companies because it doesn't make sense to have multiple power companies trying to run their own lines.
And sometimes you have monopolies that form because of single company is just plain out competing everyone. That's steam.
Most of the grumbling is from studios that are big enough that they could probably go out on their own except users prefer to stick to steam because the features steam has. It's difficult for game studios to compete with steam on features because they're focused on making their game and not on making a platform to distribute and maintain and manage their game.
There is also a risk which is that the reason steam is being a monopoly isn't a problem is because the guy who runs it used to work for Microsoft and hates abusive monopolistic business practices so he doesn't do them.
He's not going to live forever and when he dies who knows what's going to happen to steam. It's basically like a fiefdom or a monarchy at that point and if you know anything about the history of monarchies when the King dies there is usually a huge mess as people scramble for power and the peasantry takes it into shorts
Re: (Score:2)
Steam is definitely not literally a monopoly. Most people don't seem to know either of the most important things about monopolies, which is 1) what one is and 2) that it's not necessarily relevant whether they are, because antitrust doesn't require a monopoly. It only means you're abusing a somehow dominant position in a market.
With that said, I've been using Steam for a lot of years. I've had many technical problems with it, but I'm not aware of any way in which they are abusing their position. I haven't e
Re: What exactly is "Steam" anyway? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think one valid complaint is the use of DRMs.
The complaints from Epic are in bad faith: Epic wants a part of the cake but brings nothing to the table. So they try to create appeal through artificial means like giving away games, or with exclusivity deals. They are basically throwing money to become relevant enough that they can be profitable without having to throw money. If that ever happens, you can be sure that there will be no more free games. Meanwhile Steam is sustainable and superior on features.
Re: (Score:2)
Steam is definitely not literally a monopoly.
Steam absolutely and literally meets the definition of a monopoly. They have close to 100% of the PC gaming market to the point where not releasing a PC game on Steam virtually guarantees the game looses money and is deemed a market failure.
2) that it's not necessarily relevant whether they are, because antitrust doesn't require a monopoly.
Who said anything about anti-trust? We're talking about monopolies, not the act of monopolising. You can definitely have monopolies without anti-trust issues or market abuse. You're right about number 2) but that doesn't change that you're wrong about number 1). Steam is
Re: (Score:2)
Your ability to find an alternative doesn't make something less of a monopoly. A monopoly is defined by its market power. There are plenty of ways to play games on Windows without Steam, but as a developer if you don't use Steam you've locked out 90% of the PC gaming market.
Re: What exactly is "Steam" anyway? (Score:2)
Epics version just sucks donkey balls, that's the problem. I don't mind free games but with Epic I consider that the only reason to even go there. I've you're used to finding and searching things on steam, it's so painful to use Epic.
Re: Microsoft Store is the monopoly (Score:2, Insightful)
Steam is absolutely the monopoly. But you're not the customer. The game developers are. They are the ones forced to use Steam due to its monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody could vibe code an online video game store backed by s3 in about 20 minutes, where is the monopoly? Before steam existed people distributed games on floppies and CD/DVD. Nobody is stopping you from selling your video games mail order, or on your own squarespace store or whatever. There's zero economic moat here. I routinely pay a premium to buy my games on steam because I don't trust the developer to keep track of my account or even keep their store up in 90 days.
Re: (Score:2)
The monopoly is not that "nobody can offer an alternative", its that there are no real alternatives for whatever reason.
Anybody could vibe code an online video game store backed by s3 in about 20 minutes, where is the monopoly?
Sure, and then there would be meaningful competition to Steam? How many people would use that alternative? Epic games tried really hard to provide an alternative and failed.
So, if you are a game developer, you absolutely have to sell your game on Steam. Sure, you can do mail orders or create your own online store, but nobody would buy from you that way. So, the developers have no choice if
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody could vibe code an online video game store backed by s3 in about 20 minutes, where is the monopoly?
Unless you vibe code 100 million customers into existence you haven't achieved anything. The ability to make something doesn't define a monopoly. Market power does. Steam has it. Multiple companies have tried to do what you said (Epic even looks like they only put 20 min effort in). In some cases they've spent literal billions trying to enter the market and have failed.
That's what makes it a monopoly.
Nobody is stopping you from selling your video games mail order
Your customers are stopping you. Offering something for sale and making a sale are two things so completely
Re: Microsoft Store is the monopoly (Score:3)
Steam offers developers the option to sell their own Steam keys. In theory, that lets developers use all of Steam's infrastructure services without paying - Steam doesn't take a cut of those sales. Essentially the only condition is that they don't offer those keys on better terms than for Steam buyers.
That's basically the exact opposite of abusing your market power. To the degree you can do better than Steam, with help of a third party or not, they let you keep Steam's share accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
None of the games I play are from Steam.
Re: Microsoft Store is the monopoly (Score:2)
How many of those games aren't on Steam? Exclude any that are paid exclusives or predated Steam.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because the customers don't want anything else. Itch.io is great ... if you want random indie stuff. GOG seems to have no idea what to recommend and you either get games from 1992 or hentai VNs with a porn patch so they're not technically selling the porn, with little that's actually interesting.
Re: Microsoft Store is the monopoly (Score:2)
The market is video games, not installer apps.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the definition of monopoly. Simply existing has nothing to do with it. Monopoly is determined by market power and dominance. Microsoft has none with the Microsoft Store, it's barely used and generates fuck all share of gaming revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
GoG was built on being more customer friendly than Valve in terms of right to own games. Epic was built on the exact opposite, bowing to needs of developers more than Steam.
How would you even go combining the two when they have polar opposite business models?