安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
I mean the only way Steam could be a Monopoly would be if Epic's store is not a viable store, as well as every other store selling games.
It's one and the same. Steam can't really change it how it works unilaterally without annoying one half of their customerbase, the developers.
Developers want that kind of control, not Steam. You keep biting at the leash and not looking who's tugging it.
Valve set up the tool. Game developers make use of it. It's game devs using the Steam DRM the ones who want that control enabled, not Steam.
Again note that Steam is perfectly ok with devs not making use and selling their games without their DRM. Which makes those games competely playable without any of the restrictions spoken here.
If Steam really wanted that control they'd impose it for games sold on their platform. Fact is they don't and have been allowing games without if for as long as Steam has existed.
Pretty much a hunch, but I'd be surprised if I was wrong.
Humble names 12 million users on their about page https://www.humblebundle.com/about
It's getting a bit hard to get a real number from GOG out of growth percentages (+200% userbase growth both applies to going from 10 to 20 million than going from 10 to 20 users) and it's getting late over here to delve into their financial reports.
If it was in a legal sense, it would already been acted upon.
No it literally is not. It is not legally a monopoly. If it was, well you know, maybe someone like Epic coudln't come into the marketplace? Being a dominant player doesnt make you a monopoly. Look up what a monopoly actually is, and legally is. Because its sort of apparent you don't actually understand the legal requirements for it.
Also if,, as you claim, steam is a monopoly and 'controls' 25% of the market, well then, maybe you know you should inform the UK government about this? Like this seems like a slam dunk case? Obviously you think so since you claim its a 'monopoly'.
Its strange that the UK government has not gone after steam? How odd.
OR MAYBE
JUST MAYBE
You're wrong
Again
Lets take your thought process. By your bizarro land logic. The following companies woudl have been 'monopolies'
- Telsa since for a long time the only pure EV vehicle company
- Google and Meta control 70% of all online ads in the UK. This would make them, by your logic, 'monopolies' since each entitiy controls more than 25% of the market
https://thesocialshepherd.com/blog/facebook-ads-vs-google-ads
- Tesco control 27% of all supermarkets in the UK and thus is a 'monopoly' by your definition
https://www.statista.com/statistics/280208/grocery-market-share-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/
- Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, would be monopolies for each controlling functionally 33% of the home console market
- Nintendo would be a monopoly for controlling functionally 100% of the handheld gaming market.
I could go on and on
Its shocking the UK government does nothing about these supposed 'monopolies' you claim
It would also result in utterly dumb things like any new player in an emerging market would be a monopoly because it would by definition control 100% of that market
The application of your criteria, and only that critera, in a blind way, results in situations that literally make zero sense.
So you're going to ignore the actually real threat of industrialized game sharing
Piracy on an individual scale, has nothing to do with piracy on an industrial scale. Individuals may not pirate. But if you can literally weaponize rent/selling games from low cost regions via family sharing, that is not an individual decision. That's an industrial scale problem
Its hilarious you say this because DRM is the only reason why xbox is allowed to have the kind of system you 'want'. It does so because it can tightly control and restrict how its systems are used. It can provide punititve punishments because it has absolutely information for tracking. Steam cannot do what xbox does, because it operates in a hostile environment where it cannot trust the client to tell it the correct information. An environment where literally every bad actor IN THE WORLD, is trying to weaponize literally any feature steam has for profit.
Its also hilarious you think GOG is immune to this. Stellaris was on GOG Connect for literally 2 hours. Why? It was the only game that was of half decent on the program and people were weaponizing it by family sharing accounts to trick the system into giving you a free GOG copy. Once detected it was pretty much ripped out for 'technical reasons' and 'we are going to fix it' and they never actually did. Gog Connect pretty much died at that point. GOG had to disable gifting for the Witcher 3 because they were getting uttlery slaughtered for fraud credit card charges. GOG doesn't have to do the thing steam does, because it doesnt have a giant bullseye on its head because no one cares about GOG. But the nano-second there is any minor value in a GOG system, it gets exploited almost immediately.
Your definition is very misleading, the legal cases of a monopoly being a bad thing are when the power a company wields is used negatively. often companies with a large market share are BENEFICIAL to consumers as they can provide savings in the form of economics of scale. As a US company Steam does not meet the thresholds of being considered a Monopoly as it requires them to engage in anti-competitive practices such as those that EPIC employs. Its perfectly fine to be the largest provider of a service if your service is the best and you do not limit the entry of competition.
https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined
Seriously, they have absolutely nothing on Steam, not one reason to buy at their store other than being DRM free.
You claimed
You claimed that Steam's monopoly prevented GOG from having a higher market share which would make Steam an illegal monopoly if they were taking any actions to prevent other stores from competing.
They aren't, thus your claim is unfounded. GOG's low market share is not due to steam, its due to them having an inferior product. The same problem EPIC has in that they have an inferior product, and thus are not anywhere near as popular as Steam.
That's not profitable long term.
No forums, limits on reviews.
This is hilarious from someone that is literally constantly moving their goalposts because they keep putting their foot in their mouth as to what a 'monopoly' is and constantly having to back track what they 'supposedly' meant they said
First you say its 'because they have 25% of the market'
Then you say its a 'legal' monopoly
Then you give defintions of illegal monoplies thus
Like make up your mind because you must have atheletes foot in your throat by now
This is literally the most ignorant thing you have said so far and that's saying a lot considering the literal vomitorium of nonsense you've posted.
What your saying is only possible because the games are DRM free.
People sort of think that GOG is some benevolent entity, except they seem to forget all the times when that doesn't actually happen when their systems are exploited by people.
Steam operates in a constant hostile environment.
GOG dips their toe in and they immediately get slapped back into reality having to re-learn all the lessons Steam has learned over 2 decades of having their systems utterly exploited 24/7/365
Indies do this too though. Facepunch tried making their own store. THey got hit with so many chargebacks that they had to close it. This is a company that makes Gmod and Rust. Some of the most popular games on steam. And even they can't run a store due to the scale of fraud they encounter from Rust.
Again this encourages the industrialization of 'renting' games. And if you don't think that's a thing, players already try this even with the severe restrictions placed on family sharing already. If you opened this up, that problem becomes exponentially worse overnight.
shady cd-key sites industrialized the selling of steam 'gifts'. This resulted in restrictions on regional gifting with more and more restrictions as that industrialization became more and more problematic.
The steam market also gets exploited on an industrial scale, resulting in again more and more restrictions to reduce this problem.
Steam knows that opening up family sharing would open the gates for industralized exploitation of game sharing.
Steam has to deal with issues on a massive scale. Small amounts of exploitation at scale, have actually huge implications on the platform. You may not think of the issue because you see it from a micro scale, from your own perspective. Steam has to look at it from the macro scale, as attackers each create hundreds of accounts trying to exploit a system.
For you, you just want to share a game with say 2 people.
But me, well lets just say I can pay some poor Argentinian $100 to create a bunch of accounts and purchase games at literally bargain basement prices during a winter sale. I then turn around in the new year, and 'sell' or 'rent' these games on a service. Since I would be targetting wealthy 1st world countries, I can do this and then easily recover my costs. if an account gets banned or whatever I don't care, I've already made my money. Now multiply what I'm doing by several thousand other 'entrepreneurs' that will do the same thing. In fact maybe I'm actually smarter and write a whole SaaS system that will automate this for your 'business' but you just pay me a small monthly fee. Because this is literally how scammers operate now. As a Software as a Service business model. the smart ones make software that sell the service to the lower end 'scammer' use on steam/discord etc. This is what would happen. We know this because this is what is happening, right now, for things that can be actively exploited on steam.
You can see while steam understand your micro level problem, it also has to deal with this macro level issue. And this is not a trivial theoretical problem either.
They choose what you can play, you pay a monthly fee and games will be added or removed on big business whims.
Welcome to the new age, to the new age, welcome to the new age, to the new age.
Note sure if they're really big on the whole streaming thing. I mean they're trying but its not really there yet. Ironcially Stadia's streaming system was actually the best one out of all the one's ive used. Pretty rock solid. the xbox one is 'ok' but it does flake out a lot graphically at least on a PC browser, its slightly better on the console for some weird reason.
Personally i feel like the subscription thign is a trap. Look at netflix and where they are now, and that's sort of the trajectory of all such subscription services. Yeah its super cool at the beginning when they're all nice and happy. But once the screws tighten, then they start getting 'not so nice' about things. I mean right now i use game pass ultiamte and it is objectively pretty awesome. but i also am extremely aware that MS can turn around and pull a darth vader "I have changed the deal pray I do not change it further" ploy at any point. MS is not my friend. They are giving me good value, right now. But I am under no illusions that value could vaporize overnight if they choose to.