Εγκατάσταση Steam
Σύνδεση
|
Γλώσσα
简体中文 (Απλοποιημένα κινεζικά)
繁體中文 (Παραδοσιακά κινεζικά)
日本語 (Ιαπωνικά)
한국어 (Κορεατικά)
ไทย (Ταϊλανδικά)
Български (Βουλγαρικά)
Čeština (Τσεχικά)
Dansk (Δανικά)
Deutsch (Γερμανικά)
English (Αγγλικά)
Español – España (Ισπανικά – Ισπανία)
Español – Latinoamérica (Ισπανικά – Λατινική Αμερική)
Français (Γαλλικά)
Italiano (Ιταλικά)
Bahasa Indonesia (Ινδονησιακά)
Magyar (Ουγγρικά)
Nederlands (Ολλανδικά)
Norsk (Νορβηγικά)
Polski (Πολωνικά)
Português (Πορτογαλικά – Πορτογαλία)
Português – Brasil (Πορτογαλικά – Βραζιλία)
Română (Ρουμανικά)
Русский (Ρωσικά)
Suomi (Φινλανδικά)
Svenska (Σουηδικά)
Türkçe (Τουρκικά)
Tiếng Việt (Βιετναμικά)
Українська (Ουκρανικά)
Αναφορά προβλήματος μετάφρασης
Αυτό το θέμα έχει κλειδωθεί 
Κανόνες συζητήσεων και οδηγίες
Αναφορά ανάρτησης
No. Being successful isn't a crime. And I'm not aware of them being particularly anti-competitive. They were one of the first movers and haven't squandered that. GoG, Epic, Uplay, Origin, etc are all options.
PC Gaming might just a part of gaming, and from that perspective Sony and Nintendo are pretty large too. I'm not sure I agree with arguing Steam is a monopoly because you're willing to carve up the gaming pie a certain way to present it just so.
A monopoly means that there is only a single supplier of any given product.
1) Is steam the only supplier of games online?
No (Epic, Uplay, GOG etc exist).
Steam does hold a large market share and is market leader. That's not illegal.
2) Steam is market leader. Does that mean that Steam abuses that position?
No. Competitors exist, Steam isn't trying to get rid of the other platforms, and you can even buy steam keys from other legitimate vendors (humblebundle, fanatical.com etc).
OP: you don't have any case for claiming they're a monopoly, let alone one that should be broken up.
If you're an American, you'll know that Standard Oil was broken up because it was effectively the only supplier of oil products and gasoline and Standard Oil hugely misused that position to the detriment of consumers. Similarly, Ma Bell was broken up into the Baby Bells because it was the only company that could supply Americans with a telephone line.
FYI a monopoly doesn't require there to be a single supplier, just a single supplier that controls a majority of the market, but you are 100% correct that its not illegal to do so which is a common misconception people have.
Steam should be broken up, but not the way you're implying.
Steam still has special treatment for Valve games, like "VAC"-bans destroying the entire account.
Given that Steam is still an important player when it comes to online distribution, and also the one that (despite of what I just that) at least tries to appear "independent", the gaming industry should get together, turn Steam into a truly independent entity that's reliably supported by all publishers, and basically use that as the single DRM/download platform for computer games.
As part of that change, the Steam *store* should be separated as well. One would have to discuss whether only certain stores get to enable games on user accounts or whether all stores would be doing that, but that's a technical detail -- I'm pretty sure the end result would have to be that at least some "premium" stores don't deal with keys. That would allow the former Steam store, as well as UPlay or Origin stores to continue working and just hit a completely different backend, while smaller stores may or may not have to continue distributing keys instead.
And VAC is the trusted way from Valve side (the guys that made Steam) to ban cheaters, so it will have something a little different then any ban given out
And I really disagree, first of all, locking it to one place means there is less of a reason to advance to change and to improve (you know.. exactly what monopoly is a problem for)
And its not like we can say that Steam is perfect, it really is not, so maybe we should just do that with GOG galaxy? or maybe with what Epic has? why Steam from all of them?
Valve does not really have specifical treatment to there own games, VAC is something any game that wants to set it up can use, same as achievements, cloud saves, integration to join games, see servers list and so on
Its just up to the developer to make these things happen
And Valve dose for there games, as well.. its their games, and the developer the feathers with the game but for all games, not only for there own games
Any game can use photo tagging, any game can use all that Valve games uses
No.
EA left, came back and even added EA Play. MS decided to add more games to Steam. Ubi went off to Epic Games. Activision-Blizzard stopped adding their games here in favor of their own client. GoG just made a deal with Epic Games.
Exactly HOW would you break up Steam to not make it a monopoly?
Even if you just move Steam to a new company owned by Valve you'd still have Valve owning Steam and Steam would still own most of the gaming market.
So what could you do?
M'lud.
Valve dominates the PC games market. Up to 70% of all PC games sold are sold by its store Steam. The 30% of sales it demands from publishers is now substantially above market average. In (insert figure here) of products there has been no price variation outside of sales for three years indicating a market that is turgid and no longer vulnerable to competitors.
Steam operates as a one stop service. Not only does it sell the games but provides the means to download them. Users of Steam are offered multiple services and enhancements on their profiles to keep them on the site. It is a monolith, incapable of regulation by market forces, and thus breaking up the company is the only way to restore competition to the market.
Case for the defendant
M'lud.
Valve accepts it currently has a large share of the PC games market. However it has competitors within the market - Microsoft and Electronic Arts - who are far larger and have far greater capitalisation. In addition there is a new entrant to the market - Epic - financed by the proceeds of the game Fortnite and the might of the Chinese conglomerate Tencent. Furthermore Jeff Bezos' Amazon - the wealthiest company on the planet [might be wrong on this one - didn't check] owned by the richest man have indicated their intention to enter the computer games market. This is hardly a monopoly as the man on the Clapham Omnibus would recognise this. Steam effectively subsidises its competitors by allowing them to sell redeemable keys for games without contributing to download costs.
Steam's business practices have created a vibrant games economy where everyone from large studios to individual programmers have been able to successfully release games on Steam. The 30% sales fee compares well to high street retailers and Steam provides an extensive range of services - discussion pages and crucially publisher's sections for the use of publishers. The games market is active and Epic in particular has been paying publishers for exclusive rights to sell games on their website.
In addition, with the exception of China, Steam is a global company. Steam users have friends and play mates from all over the world. Breaking up Steam would involve breaking up those communities.
The verdict.
This has not been a straightforward case. Both sides have issues that are of merit.
It is undoubtedly true that Valve has a clear dominant market position. But I ask myself, as I must, what abuse has been made of that dominant market position ?
Valve, until recently, has been remarkably consistent and even handed in its terms to publishers. All have had to abide by the same terms although there are now improved conditions for publishers with exceptionally high sales. I am not influenced by games prices in the high street. Their market importance is trivial and it is true that Steam demands a higher percentage of publishers' sales than some of its competitors. However they also offer a potential customer base vastly greater than any of their competitors - which arguably is one of the issues.
I turn now to the state of competition. Whilst Valve does hold a dominant part of the market three of its main competitors - Electronic Arts, Microsoft and Epic are well funded companies with global power and well able to compete with Valve. I have also noted that Epic has recently spent vast sums of money in aggressively trying to seize market share from Steam.
I also take into account the interests of those who publish games and those who play them who indicate that their interests would be severely damaged were Steam to be broken-up.
It is not the job of these courts to penalise companies merely for being successful or even very successful. In my judgement even if Valve does have a dominant market position there is insufficient evidence that it has abused its market position. Indeed looking at its primary competitors Valve is a barracuda swimming amongst sharks. It is certainly not in the interests of gaming, competition, or culture for the gaming industry to be dominated by a Chinese backed company with limited adherence to the principles of free speech.
In dismissing this claim I do however offer a warning to Valve in terms they are likely to understand. With great power comes great responsibility. What was once an enterprise for a small number of science graduates with a, shall I say, profound interest in computers has now becomes a company of global wealth and significance. It has great responsibilities to all its stakeholders. I note that its responses on the issues of lootbox gambling and racist behaviour on the site have been less than exemplary. If Valve fails to sustain the highest standards which its social, cultural and economic importance now require of it this court retains the power to sanction appropriately, including as a last rsort ordering the break-op of the company.
S.x.
P.S. Arguments and judgement appear in edited form.
- It makes up 70% of sales. Because :
a) They have MORE games for sale than any other competitor. And that makes them more preferred by buyers. I.e They sell the stuff that otehrs don't so the people who lwant that stuff come to them. Its called giving the customer what they want.
- The 30% Commission. Is irrelevant. Any person or company is free to charge whatever it wants for the services they provide. If th buyer deems the price worthy of the service, then they will pay. If they do not, they are free to refuse and take their business eslewhere. Thats a basic Right possessed by all.
So basically they are guilty of improving the product and services they offer to their clients (gamers and game publishers) in order to remain competitive and provide reasonable value for the commission they charge.
So lets see the cause and effect. Steam provides a great value for the commission they charge which makes them a preferred store for publishers. This leads to a large number and wide variety of ganmes that thusly appeals to a wide percentage of the market for games. This in combination to the ease of use and constant update and addition of new features makes steam preferred by the buying public. WHich confers them a large market share. which makes them more attractive to publishers, and so the cycle continues.
Seems the basic bad thing Valve did was provide excellent value to their customers. How heinous!
These things really get funny when you actually break down the situation.
Completely false, VAC is available to all developers and is used in games like Rust, Day Z, Call of Duty Black Ops 3, etc.
It also doesn't destroy your account, merely limit your online play and trading after cheating.
Don't forget Valve also provides an infrastructure that makes it easy for developers to then sell their games on other platforms as well where they don't pay Valve ANYTHING for it.
So all those people selling their Steam games on Humble and other sites are using free features Valve made available to them to generate and manage their keys for sale.
It is worth noting that you almost never see GoG keys floating around though ;)
Say this... and then this...
Gets me everytime
Nowadays, so many companies are creating their own launchers specifically to avoid having their games put onto Steam to avoid the 30% purchase removal by Valve, so you got Origin, Ubisoft, Battle.net, and others. While they may not be as cool or good looking as Valve, or have poor quality overall (ah-HEEEM EA), they still provide a competitive market to Steam's market.